California | Ellen DeGeneres | Gay Marriage | Howard Bragman | News

Showbiz Tonight Covers 'Ellen's Marriage Mania'


CNN's Showbiz Tonight covers "Ellen's Marriage Mania" and Wendy Wright of the Concerned Women for America and gay PR man Howard Bragman, who announced that he's marrying his partner, face off.

"Why do you care so much about what other people do in their bedrooms?"

Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Ellen better hurry up with that wedding. The voters of CA are probably going to vote to amend our state constitution in November to prohibit gay marriage.

    Posted by: dezboy | May 20, 2008 6:18:22 PM

  2. Sigh. Why can't people from our side who appear on televised debates stick to the issues and debate these wingnuts on the legal issues of CIVIL marriage instead of saying they want their relationships 'sanctified'?

    Posted by: peterparker | May 20, 2008 6:35:17 PM

  3. they're not going to pass a constitutional amendment. that's ridiculous.

    what is wrong with all these wingnuts that when she announces her wedding it's "marriage mania" and "gay controversy"? and what makes them think it has anything to do with ellen in the first place? they want so bad to make this about as few people as possible...

    Posted by: oakling | May 20, 2008 7:06:39 PM

  4. miss wendy of the concerned hags of amerika is jealous and needs a good fuck...

    Posted by: the queen | May 20, 2008 7:08:49 PM

  5. The "mania" seems to be more about ratings than Ellen's impending marriage and the non-manic announcement thereof. Sent "shockwaves" thru Hollywood and the nation--what rock are they living under? At least Ms. Wright was outnumbered, but why give her a platform at all (um, created controversy=ratings, maybe?). As for Trace, they just don't come more articulate, so I'm glad he was given the last straight celebrity word on the matter.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 20, 2008 7:11:51 PM

  6. America loves Ellen.

    America loves George Takei.

    Gay Marriage is a Done Deal.

    Wendy Wright? Stick a fork in her -- and twist it.

    (Most of the "Concerned Women For America" are Closet Queens, BTW.)

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | May 20, 2008 7:29:09 PM

  7. I wonder if the average straight person can even imagine what it must be like to make the announcement that they are engaged to marry the love of their life, sharing with friends and acquaintances, as EVERYONE does, how excited they are that they will soon be publicly declaring their lifelong commitment to the person to whom they've given their heart ONLY to have it plastered across the headline news as "Jane Doe's Sex/Relationship Controversy" while people debate back and forth about the audacity of Jane to say such things in public, judging the morality of Jane and her fiancés’ relationship existence and even questioning the morality of Jane’s existence?

    It’s shameful and disgusting that these people think that they have a right to go on national television and pick apart Ellen’s most happy and sacred moment.

    Discuss and debate marriage equality all you want. That’s fair game, but to pick over Ellen’s relationship and her announcement specifically is just about as low as a person can go.

    There seems to be no bottom to the well of hateful fundamentalist's shame.

    Posted by: Zeke | May 20, 2008 7:33:33 PM

  8. PETERPARKER, I couldn't agree with you more. It seems that we could get better representatives for our side on these panels.

    Someone should have asked the anti-gay woman if she believes that gay couples should be given ANY legal rights, benefits and responsibilities to encourage them to form long-term, stable, committed relationships with their same-sex partner. Someone should have asked her if she thinks gay people should be encouraged, in ANY way, to form long-term, stable, committed relationships with their same-sex partner.

    Her answers to those simple questions would expose her real agenda and it would quickly show her to be out of touch with the majority of Americans.

    These yahoos that go on to represent our interests seem to be clueless as to how to expose just how out of touch these homophobes are with the average American's views. They let them control the discussion and keep it focused on the surface issue where they seem in touch with the majority of Americans without turning over the stone to expose the ugly underbelly.

    Posted by: Zeke | May 20, 2008 7:43:58 PM

  9. Hate to break it to you Oakling but the right wingers have submitted over 1.1 million signatures to get a marriage amendment on the ballot in CA in November. If you want to hide your head in the sand and pretend gay marriage is not going to be overturned in CA go right ahead. I wish I were as optimistic as you are but I live in the real world.

    Posted by: dezboy | May 20, 2008 7:48:58 PM

  10. Even though she's a fluff reporter, I wanted to express my admiration for the gung-ho spirit of the host. It's nice to see pro-gay interjections made against these idiots by the host herself.

    Posted by: Olivier Crutwell | May 20, 2008 8:10:14 PM

  11. DEZBOY, what, besides running around crying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" are YOU going to do to keep the amendment from passing?

    I can't imagine that a person who has already determined that the fight is lost, and who is trumpeting it to everyone who will listen, is going to do much to try and win it.

    Posted by: Zeke | May 20, 2008 8:15:33 PM

  12. the wingnuts seem to believe gay marriage is more about sex than it is about love.

    Posted by: A.J. | May 20, 2008 8:20:40 PM

  13. Um, DEZBOY, amendment or not gay marriage is here to stay. It's not going away. And a 5 month window is plenty of time for non-residents in every state to come to Califonia, where they can be legally wed (unlike MA), and then go home an start the process of getting their marriages recognized by their home states. I don't think there's anything that can truly stop gay marriage at this point.

    Posted by: P | May 20, 2008 8:21:42 PM

  14. I ONLY hope...that IF this is repealed in someway - the WE as Gay men and WOMEN,of the LGBT community will stand up together, and say NO MORE!

    Posted by: Disgusted american | May 20, 2008 8:59:08 PM

  15. Even if an amendment passes, the precedent remains. The moment the voters change their mind, everything resets to May 15, 2008. So, this is nothing more than a futile delaying tactic.

    The 1950s- 1970s Baby Boomers (who currently make up the majority of voters and ruling class in this country) can't live forever. They're going to have to go some time. And polls have shown that young people just don't care about the "culture wars" in the same way that their parents do.

    So make no mistake about it. Even if there's a backlash right now, it will be overturned in the coming decades. That's why the California Democratic Party has decided to put support for same-sex marriage in the party manifesto. They recognize the inevitibility of this change.

    And they're supporting same-sex marriage for some abstract or philosophical reason. Democrats are cautious by nature. They're planning for the future. They want to remain the majority party for the next several decades. And with the notable exception of Diane Fienstein, most of the party leaders do not believe that same-sex marriage will be a loser for them in the long-term.

    Posted by: John | May 20, 2008 9:00:21 PM

  16. "NOT" supporting -- the beginning of that last paragraph should read.

    Posted by: John | May 20, 2008 9:02:14 PM

  17. With an attitude like DEZBOY's we'd all still be meeting in darkened bars and subject to nightly raids and arrests. Thank God his apathy is in the minority as far as the LGBT community is concerned.

    Gay marriage is an issue who's time has finally come. Now is the time to turn back the barbarians at the gates and move basic human rights forward for the LGBT community. Do not accept defeat! Come out to family, friends, and co-workers. Let them get to know who you are and the hardship we face. Rise above intolerance and bigotry and let politicians and lawmakers know that we will not go away and we will not be deterred. Push, and push hard, for equality in the workplace and housing, income tax equity for LGBT families, hate-crime legislation, and equal access to healthcare. This is a wedge-issue that must be resolved once and for all so Republicans and other anti-gay enemies can't use us to further their agenda again.

    DEZBOY, please don't give into apathy. We've come so far in the past twenty years alone. Much further than I would have ever imagined and we've come too far to be turned back now. Please, DEZBOY, join us in the march to equality, you're welcome here.

    Posted by: JerzeeMike | May 20, 2008 9:10:38 PM

  18. Remember guys/gals ... here in my state of CA it is an amendment to the CONSTITUTION. People take that more seriously here than "propositions".

    Arnold has already said he supports the State Supreme Court judges opinion and that he is against the amendment to the CA Constitution.

    That will help defeat the amendment along with the strong efforts of EVEYONE.

    I read somewhere that back in the 1970s when Reagan was governor, there was a "proposition" to ban gay teachers in the schools. When Reagan said he was against it, that helped defeat it.

    Still even with Arnold being against an AMENDMENT TO THE CA CONSTITUTION it is going to take a lot of work.

    But we can defeat it!

    Posted by: FunMe | May 20, 2008 9:18:38 PM

  19. ZEKE, I agree with you that asking the homo-hating wingnut if she thought homosexual couples deserved ANY legal protections at all would have exposed her bigotry and been much more effective than most of what Howard Bragman said in the interview. And while Howard Bragman is far from a yahoo (he's a pretty major power broker in Hollywood) Dan Savage would have eaten that woman alive. Howard was far too polite and let her ramble on with her misinformation. We need an MLK!

    Posted by: peterparker | May 20, 2008 9:19:19 PM

  20. Opponents of same-sex marriage say they are uncomfortable with the analogy to interracial marriage bans. “It’s well suited to a sound-bite culture,” said Monte Stewart, president of the Marriage Law Foundation, which supports traditional marriage.

    “Sure, it works at the surface level,” Mr. Stewart continued. “But it is actually defeated by the deeper reality of marriage itself. Marriage in its deep logic has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the union of a man and a woman. To apply Perez in the genderless marriage context is actually to betray it.”

    As divisive as Thursday’s decision was, the Perez decision was a judicial earthquake. Six years would pass before the United States Supreme Court, in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, ruled that racially segregated public schools violated the Constitution. Thirteen more years would pass before that court followed Perez in striking down bans on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

    “Perez was a really courageous decision,” said Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern and the author of “Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines” (Yale, 2006). “It was handed down at a time when it was just taken for granted that legally entrenched racism was not anything you could do anything about.”

    That may be why the legacy of Perez exerted a powerful pull in the same-sex marriage case.

    Therese M. Stewart, a lawyer for the City and County of San Francisco, had an answer at the argument. She asked the court whether it would have satisfied California’s Constitution in 1948 to give interracial couples the same rights under a different name. “Say we called it ‘transracial unions’ instead of marriage,” she said, in a mocking tone.

    But Mr. Stewart, of the Marriage Law Foundation, said that the analogy to race discrimination should not hold and that gay and lesbian groups were using the debate over marriage to advance a political agenda.

    “We understand,” he said, “that there is a very different moral equivalence on the one hand between the white supremacist agenda and on the other advocating equal rights for gays and lesbians. But still, the basic tactic is the same in both cases. It’s using marriage to achieve nonmarriage causes.”

    Some opponents of same-sex marriage say that the judicial and legislative aftermath of Perez was as telling as the decision itself. Although 29 other states had laws barring interracial marriage when the case was decided, no other state Supreme Court followed California. Some states repealed their bans. Other prohibitions remained on the books but went largely unenforced.

    In the end, it took two decades before the United States Supreme Court struck down all of the 16 remaining antimiscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia.

    The history of restrictions on interracial marriage can thus be read two ways. The Perez court can be said to have struck an early blow for equality. Or it can be said to have overridden the democratic process, imposing a decision that most of the country was not ready to embrace.

    Posted by: Kevzin | May 20, 2008 9:28:55 PM

  21. Guys...I'm afraid DEZBOY may be correct about that amendment to the Constitution of the State of California to prohibit marriage equality. I plan to work my ass off to defeat it the measure, but the fact of the matter is that a large portion of the population lives in rural or suburban areas that tend to be very conservative. It is only the cities in California that are liberal (and even some of them, namely San Diego, are conservative). Every GLBT person must support marriage equality in California, regardless of where s/he lives. Go to Equality California to make a

    Posted by: peterparker | May 20, 2008 9:32:14 PM

  22. Also, the latest LA Times opinion polls shows 46% supporting the court's decision, 46% against the court's decision, and the rest are undecided. How exactly does that consitute a "we're doomed, it's all over" moment?

    Essentially, it is a tie right now. What's important is we have to dominate the airwaves. Don't let the media (and their religious right buddies) dominate the discussion from now until November. And that requires money and organization.

    Posted by: John | May 20, 2008 9:34:21 PM

  23. The opinion of the California Supreme Court is much broader than people realize. Marriage is only a part of it. We (gays and lesbians) have now been declared a protected minority, like women or African Americans. Our rights cannot be voted away. A constitutional amendment would be challenged and even if it stuck, this Court's opinion pretty much deems that domestic partnerships would have to be expanded to provide the same rights as marriage. What we would most likely lose is the word "marriage". On the upside, an extremely important precedent has been established and that cannot be struck down. The opinion of this court, largely made up of Republican appointees, will have ramifications for years to come. Many doors are going to be opened and many many changes will come our way in the next few years.

    Meanwhile, fight the good fight! Donate to EQCA or the Task Force or HRC and help them get the word out about preserving our newfound rights!

    Posted by: leftcoast | May 20, 2008 9:40:10 PM

  24. First of all I don't trust anyone who has alliteration in their own name. On the other hand, I think Wendy deserves a break here. This is, after all, only her second life after being a kumquat in her previous one.

    Posted by: Raymie | May 20, 2008 9:46:34 PM

  25. Carrie Underwood is a bit of a shocker. I wouldn't expect her to be for same-sex marriage. But that's awesome.

    And yeah, I mean, the amendment has a chance of passing, but I really don't think it will. The right-wingnuts can try to do all they can, but the winds of change are in our favor, and LA Times poll shows that it's neck and neck for those who approve vs. disapprove.

    But Showbiz Tonight citing their own online poll had to be one of the stupidest things I've seen in a while.

    Posted by: Tyler | May 20, 2008 10:12:23 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Music News: How Gay Is Katy Perry? Plus, Nas, Pet Shop Boys, Jennifer Hudson, The Ting Tings « «