You missed one show that is winning awards in the USA at the moment. The Fosters is a show about a bi-racial lesbian couple raising a mix of biological, adopted and foster children. It has explored issues relating to trans and gay teens. While it has the potential to be exploitative regarding some of the issues it tackles The Fosters takes a generally positive but realistic view of the issues it tackles. And it is just a really nice show amongst a plethora of death, doom and destruction programs intent on shoving your face in the worst that humanity (and others) do to each other.

IMHO you missed the really important event family wise which was the take-over of the family by the small f feminists in 1970 following the release of Germaine Greer's book The Female Eunuch which, while seen as little more than a rant at first (I remember all those dinner parties in 1970s where the "North Shore Housewives" were more vociferous in their condemnation than the husbands) went on to be accepted as "the family we had to have", depicted by MS B (formerly Mrs B) at the head of the table in American Beauty in 1999.

And never forget that Greer based her vitriol (pun intended) on the nasty Catherine character in Jules and Jim, which Mendes picked up in American Beauty with the King mistaking Caroline for Catherine.

What a load of codswallop!
The Cosby show the Brady bunch and Young Talent Time were all depicting a happy ever after fairy tale ideal of harmonious family life, and all seemingly harboring behind the scenes scandals of seemingly unbelievable proportions?

People who need to recommit in their 70's and 80's must have very shallow tenuous connections to begin with, or have consumed the to death do us part, fairytale BS; or have taken part in organised BS, to ram home a Church initiated message, that they believe that same sex couples shouldn't have what they claim they have as life long commitment inside a state sanctioned union or marriage!

Marriages last because mature compatible people go into it with their eyes wide open and their expectations realistic!

And their longevity supported by little acts of almost daily kindness! And remembering to say thank you, rather than accepting something done for you as your due!

And not because of the fact that they consume a wafer of unleavened bread and recommit to something like, misery loves company, or habit, that they may well want to leave?

Given they get nothing but misery or "yes dear" servitude from their union? Or are terrified of meeting their date with destiny alone and unloved?

I once heard of a couple, who were barely surviving on a state pension, given they had lost their retirement nest egg to some shady shonk preying on others, like Storm financials, on their banker's advice, got a divorce then lived together as friends with benefits sharing accomodation!

As two single pensioners on full single pensions sharing costs they were significantly better off than remaining committed to some elusive ideal!?

When you see folk lined up in their threadbare sunday best to participate in some Church stage managed BS, you have to know that the welfare of the attending couples is the very last thing on Church minds?

But rather that they maintain their control over the lives and financial resources of others?
Insomuch as you do to the least among you, you also do unto me!
Rhrosty.

Since when were sitcoms a reliable indicator of political substance?

I don't know what universe you lived in, but the 1970s TV I saw contained blended families, divorced parents, black families, working class single women sharing accomodation, professional single women, etc.
Almost every type of family/not-family scenario.

No, I can't recall any gay couples.
But there were probably no left-handed couples, dwarf couples or blind couples either.
Must there be a tokenistic inclusion of every imaginable possibility before you will stop whining?

"Our Prime Minister may recall Sisyphus was condemned to an eternity of useless efforts and unending frustration."

And the Loony Left may recall Icarus.
Fly my pretties, fly!

As best I can tell Patricia is in favor of those seeking "marriage equality" while at the same time drawing attention to the dysfunctional lives that are lived by some but not all individuals involved in a "traditional marriage".
If marriage is such a grim prospect for the commitment of opposite sex individuals to each other then I am at loss to understand why the LGBT community would want anything to do with the words marriage or married.
Why would the LGBT community not prefer their own term for solemnifying a lifetime commitment to another individual that is based on mutual respect?
Enshrining the legal rights and responsibilities that can and should be conferred on same sex unions is not dependent upon using the word marriage.
Indeed some opposite sex couples formalising their union may prefer the option of using an alternative term because it makes it clear to others that their respectful commitment to each other is not based on religious dogma or past social norms.
Those at both extremes of the marriage equality debate seem hell bent on denigrating the life styles of those who do not share their own beliefs. This vindictive intolerance of the choices made by others is quite wrong. It is equally wrong to assert that diametrically opposed views cannot be legitimately held by well meaning individuals in both camps.
Incompatible views only become a problem if one group seeks to impose their views on the other group. The coexistence of diametrically opposed views does not of itself constitute an inequality of human rights. Indeed human rights must guarantee the right to difference.
My preferred definition of equality is the freedom to live in a manner that does not impinge on the freedom of others. Under such a definition it is inappropriate to insist on redefining the meaning of a word that has long standing religious and/or emotional significance to a significant segment of society.

Aggrandising your profession, Patricia?
Truly believing that "In the beginning the Media created heaven and earth"?...

Real people have a real life and real relationships, so we do not bother watching your silly media and certainly do not base their values around your idiotic form of mental-masturbation.

Come off the air so we can save on energy costs!