Tag Archives: proposition

Prop 8: Federal Appeals Court Puts California Same-Sex Marriages On Hold Indefinitely | Updates

Federal Appeals Court Puts Same-Sex Marriages On Hold Indefinitely http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KrNl-GdSDb4/SF_T82PjUSI/AAAAAAAAAcY/fecu5sd8RO4/s400/s… Breaking: Ninth Circuit Stays Prop. 8 Decision _____ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/federal-appeals-court-blocks-enfor… Los Angeles Times Southern California — this just in No gay marriages in California before December, court rules August 16, 2010 | 3:58 pm The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday agreed to keep same-sex marriages on hold until at least December. In a brief order, a three-judge panel agreed to an expedited review of U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's Aug. 4 ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as a violation of the federal Constitution. The panel agreed to hold a hearing on the case during the week of Dec. 6 and ordered both sides to present arguments on whether the campaign for Proposition 8 has legal authority to appeal Walker's order. Walker had declared Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, saying it violates gay men's and lesbians' rights to equal protection and due process. The defendants in that case were Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, but they declined to defend the law. As the losing parties, they have the authority to appeal Walker's ruling. But they hailed Walker's decision and said they would not appeal. A private group that opposes same-sex marriage, ProtectMarriage.com, defended Proposition 8 during the trial Walker held earlier this year. The group wants to appeal his ruling but may lack legal standing to do so. — Maura Dolan in San Francisco added by: EthicalVegan

Prop 8 Goes West Hollywood (And Gets Married?): That’s Gay

When California's anti-gay Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional, LA gays headed to West Hollywood to celebrate. infoMania's Bryan Safi went with a slightly different goal: to try to land a husband. infoMania is a half-hour satirical news show that airs on Current TV. The show puts a comedic spin on the 24-hour chaos and information overload brought about by the constant bombardment of the media. Hosted by Conor Knighton and co-starring Brett Erlich, Erin Gibson, Ben Hoffman, Bryan Safi and Sergio Cilli, the show airs on Thursdays at 10/9c on Current TV. Go to http://current.com/infomania for more, and make sure to check out our Facebook profile for special features at http://facebook.com/infomania . added by: bryan_safi

N.J. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear gay marriage case raises question of Christie’s influence | NJ.com

http://www.queerty.com/did-some-of-new-jerseys-supreme-court-justices-refuse-gay… The New Jersey Supreme Court doesn't give interviews, so no one can ask whether the tribunal balked on the gay marriage issue because it was afraid of the reaction of Gov. Chris Christie. “There won't be any comment,” says Winnie Comfort, a spokeswoman for the court. “Of course, people are free to speculate. There is nothing we can do about that.” Comfort made the comments in response to remarks by legislators who raised the issue of whether the court — or, at least, three members — might have been afraid to touch the gay marriage case because Christie can remove them by appointing other justices. The way he did to Justice John Wallace, the court's only African-American. Both state Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) and Assemblyman John D. McKeon (D-Essex) told The Star-Ledger's Matt Friedman the decision raised the question of whether Wallace's ouster led three non-permanent court members to duck the issue. Those members — Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justices Roberto Rivera-Soto and Helen Hoens — voted against a motion to have the court immediately revisit its earlier decision in the Lewis vs. Harris case that, in 2006 ruled the Legislature must provide marriage-like rights to same-sex couples. The court then left the details up to lawmakers and they decided to create “civil unions” rather than extend marriages to gays and lesbians. The three judges who don't have to worry about reappointment — Justices Virginia Long, Jaynee LaVecchia, and Barry Albin dissented from the order. They wanted arguments on the motion to go forward. Coincidence? “I think the three justices who voted against the motion looked over their shoulders and saw Chris Christie,” says Frank Askin, a Rutgers Law School professor and constitutional scholar in Newark. “There is no question in my mind that fear of what the Governor would do played a part in that decision.” Michael Drewniak, Christie's spokesman, declined to answer questions about the decision. The state court action contrasts with the robust ruling handed down by federal Judge Vaughn Walker who overturned a California plebiscite — Proposition 8 — banning gay marriages. Forget worrying about a governor, Walker rejected the will of the state's voters because, he ruled, Proposition 8 “violates the due process and equal protection rights” of gays seeking to marry. Walker's decision chews through the arguments of opponents of gay marriage, refuting contentions gay marriages are unstable and that children raised by gay parents do less well than kids from heterosexual households. He also makes it obvious supporters of Proposition 8 were trying to inject their religious views into law. “The evidence presented at trial,” Walker wrote, “fatally undermines the premises underlying proponents' proffered rationales for Proposition 8.” New Jersey once had a supreme court willing to render significant decisions. Under chiefs like Joseph Weintraub, Richard Hughes, Robert Wilentz, James Zazzali and Deborah Poritz, the state's highest court was a national leader in individual rights. It is often in state courts that individual rights are most effectively protected. New Jersey's decisions on school funding and fair housing — also now endangered — went far beyond what the federal courts would do. Even Walker's decision, for all the hype it has generated, could set back the cause. Rutgers Law Professor Carlos Bell, an expert on gay marriage, explains it could lead to an adverse decision by a conservative U.S. Supreme Court: “That is why most of the other same-sex marriage lawsuits (including New Jersey's Lewis v. Harris) have been brought in state courts alleging violations of state constitutions. When a case is decided on state constitutional grounds, it cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. “It is likely the court will hear the Proposition 8 case. The upside for gay people of a favorable decision is tremendous: It would mean same-sex couples all over the country would have to be afforded the opportunity to marry. But the downside is also great: It would mean a Supreme Court decision, which would likely stay on the books for a long time, holding gay people are not entitled to marry under the federal constitution.” Maybe too much has been read into the state court action. Even Steve Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, the state's leading proponent of gay rights, says “it's not a dooms-day scenario — we'll get our day in court.” Perhaps. But a lot is at stake, and one has to wonder — do the three judges up for reappointment really think Christie will keep them no matter what they do? This looks more like an opportunity to make history rather than curry favor. added by: toyotabedzrock

For Two Days in a Row, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Presents a One-Sided Debate on Gay Marriage

As the anchor of MSNBC’s noon news hour, Contessa Brewer could not openly advocate for supporters of gay marriage – but she definitely seemed to give generous credence to their views on Thursday and Friday. Furthermore, she made snide comments about opponents of same-sex marriage, providing an opposition to their arguments but not seriously questioning proponents of same-sex marriage. Brewer obviously has strong views on this particular issue, and as a news anchor seems to have trouble keeping her personal opinions out of her news desk duties. In the little time allotted during each show to the same-sex marriage debate, Brewer hosted three pro same-sex marriage guests and none from the opposition. On Thursday, her guest was a retired female Presbyterian minister who is facing a church trial for conducting multiple gay marriages, having already been acquitted in 2008 before the Presbyterian Church (USA) Supreme Judicial Council. On Friday, Brewer hosted the two plaintiffs of the recent Proposition 8 court case, Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami – a homosexual couple hoping to marry soon. Brewer also marginalized the arguments of same-sex marriage opponents with snide remarks and loaded questions. “Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue it undermines the institution, and the family,” she remarked on her Thursday news hour. “So my big question today: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat to marriage in America?” When one of her viewers who opposes gary marriage wrote in that having two same-sex parents would “mess up the child development for life,” Brewer cynically quipped “I guess he hasn’t seen what happens with step-families integrating. Typically you have two dads and two moms.” On Friday, Brewer seemed to be pushing for a quick end to the stay on same-sex marriages in California, apparently using one of the Left’s favorite arguments in equating the current legal battles with the civil rights struggles of the 1960’s. “You know, those against gay marriage are arguing the worst that happens if the state is kept in place is that same-sex couples will have to wait longer for their nuptials,” she summarized. “So my big question today: Isn’t justice delayed justice denied?” she asked, quoting the mantra of the civil rights movement. A transcript of both segments, which aired on August 12 and 13, is as follows: MSNBC NEWS HOUR 8/12/10 12:00 CONTESSA BREWER, MSNBC anchor: A Presbyterian minister in [California] is facing charges from her own church. The authorities believe she violated the church rules by presiding over the weddings of gay couples. Her trial begins later this month in Napa, California, and Rev. Jane Spahr joins me now. Reverend, it’s good to talk to you today. Rev. JANE SPAHR: Thank you, Contessa. Great to be here. BREWER: You have been through this before in 2008, when you were acquitted, I understand, from marrying a lesbian couple. So what’s this renewed fight about in the Presbyterian church? SPAHR: Well the renewed fight is really about all these marriages that I did with so many of my friends who – they’re legal. They were from those dates from June 17th to November 4th in which the state has said “Yes, all these are legal.” So it’s been an amazing time to be able to marry so many of my wonderful friends. BREWER: What’s the official stance of the Presbyterian Church on same-sex marriage? SPAHR: Well there really isn’t a stance yet, there hasn’t been a ruling on that, so what it is, I think for me, is, as pastors, we should be able to marry the people who come to us, and that is, for me, I take over a year to meet with couples, to work with them, to talk with them about their love, and it’s been an amazing time to be able to do that. So what I say to people, “It doesn’t matter what your sexual orientation is. It matters to me that you have a healthy, just, loving, mutual relationship. So that’s why I meet with couples. So I say “It doesn’t matter to me.” What matters to me is that the church could be there to help people have the healthiest, most loving relationships. BREWER: Given your stand on this, and given that you have been a long-time advocate on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, do you think that you’re a good fit with the Presbyterian Church? SPAHR: Well I think every church has the opportunity to become open and welcoming, to really follow the founder of our Church, which said, “You all come, and be, and be who you are, and love who you are.” When people love who they are, then they can be free to serve in such a healthy and wonderful way. So I think it’s time for the churches to say “Welcome home.” BREWER: But given how many people base their opposition to gay rights on religious or moral principles, what would you say to them, and what would you expect to happen in this trial? Again, it’s a church trial, coming up later this month. SPAHR: Well again, people will be able to hear the stories of some 11 couples, be able to hear about their love, and to be able to know that we too are people of faith. We too are faithful people. We too care. My friends, Sarah and Sherry, the first couple that was ever named, I’ve been with them through all the things they’re bearing, their fathers, being with them to see their daughters raised, so it’s for people to see us as they really are. (…) 12:05 BREWER: Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue it undermines the institution, and the family. So my big question today: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat to marriage in America? (…) 12:52 BREWER: And Terrance thinks differently. He says “I believe if a child is raised around two fathers or two mothers that will mess up the child development for life.” I guess he hasn’t seen what happens with step-families integrating. Typically you have two dads and two moms.   MSNBC NEWS HOUR 8/13/10 12:00 CONTESSA BREWER: In the meantime, good Friday the 13th. I’m Contessa Brewer, covering the big news, coast to coast. And on the West Coast, a massive tug-of-war is erupting over the gay marriage fight in California. Opponents want a federal appeals court to act now, before a hold on those weddings expires. …there will be mass confusion about whether the couples are indeed legally married. The judge’s decision to hold off ’till next week not going over well with some. (Video Clip) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’ve been here for two hours this morning, and we’ve watched so many straight people walk in and get married in front of us. It’s so “in your face,” that once again, “no you can’t.” (End Video Clip) (…) 12:01 BREWER: You know, those against gay marriage are arguing the worst that happens if the state is kept in place is that same-sex couples will have to wait longer for their nuptials. So my big question today: Isn’t justice delayed justice denied? (…) 12:02 BREWER: Joining me now, Paul Katami, Jeff Zurrillo. They are the plaintiffs in the case to overturn Proposition 8. Gentlemen, good to see you. Let me ask you that question. Do you think justice delayed is justice denied? JEFF ZARRILLO: Martin Luther King said it very well, in his letters to Birmingham, justice delayed is justice denied, and that’s exactly what’s happening here.   BREWER: Do you have – do you think optimistic feelings about what happens now with the appeals court? Paul, weigh in. PAUL KATAMI: We’re absolutely optimistic. We know that we put on a fair and balanced court case. We won on the merits of that case, so now the law is on our side. We know that history is on our side, so it’s just a matter of getting to that finish line and we’re very confident we’ll get there. BREWER: You know, it’s interesting that the opponents who have filed the suit, guys, say that the judge’s decision that said voters made this Proposition 8 based on anti-gay morality, they said the judge’s statement was cruel because the people of California have actually enacted into law some of the nation’s most sweeping, most progressive protections of gays and lesbians. Do you feel protected in California? ZARRILLO: It’s really not about feeling protected as much as it is about separate, yet unequal, and that’s what we are, we are a separate yet unequal category. We are second-class citizens in the state of California. And what we really are looking for is just our equal rights, just like every other American is afforded at birth, according to our Constitution. KATAMI: I think it’s important to remember also that we’re not trying to create a new law or import a law into our Constitution. This was a law that was found in our Constitution, and so we are just trying to reiterate that that law belongs to us fundamentally, so it’s important to remember that our Constitution actually has this law in it. And we’re just wanting it to be applied to us. BREWER: Alright, gentlemen. Jeff, Paul, thank you both. I appreciate your time.

See original here:
For Two Days in a Row, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Presents a One-Sided Debate on Gay Marriage

That’s Gay: Celebrating Gay Marriage in LA

In the wake of the Proposition 8 ruling, Bryan Safi heads to West Hollywood to join in the celebration.

Go here to see the original:
That’s Gay: Celebrating Gay Marriage in LA

Prop 8 | Decision on Stay Expected in California’s Same-Sex Marriages Case

Decision on stay expected in California same-sex marriages case By the CNN Wire Staff August 12, 2010 1:57 a.m. EDT Los Angeles, California (CNN) — A federal court in California will rule Thursday on whether to keep a temporary stay in place in the case that overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriages. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California will announce its decision between 9 a.m. and noon (12 p.m. and 3 p.m. ET). If the stay is lifted, same-sex marriages will be legal in California. Last week, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that voter-approved Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. The 136-page opinion is an initial step in what will likely be a lengthy fight over California's Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. At question in the trial was whether California's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay couples' rights to equal protection and due process, as protected by the U.S. Constitution. The high-profile case is being watched closely by both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage, as many say it is destined to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, the case could result in a landmark decision on whether people in the United States are allowed to marry people of the same sex. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in five U.S. states — Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa and New Hampshire — and in the District of Columbia, while civil unions are permitted in New Jersey. “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his opinion. “Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre,” he added. “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.” After the ruling, elated supporters gathered to celebrate the judge's opinion in San Francisco's Castro district. People waved rainbow flags and U.S. flags, and carried signs that read, “We all deserve the freedom to marry,” and “Separate is Unequal.” Similar rallies unfolded in Los Angeles and San Diego. “For our entire lives, our government and the law have treated us as unequal. This decision to ensure that our constitutional rights are as protected as everyone else's makes us incredibly proud of our country,” said Kristin Perry, a plaintiff. Perry and Sandy Stier, along with Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami, are the two couples at the heart of the case, which, if appealed, would go next to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before possibly heading to the U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents of same-sex marriage have said their best bet lies with higher courts and have vowed to appeal the federal judge's ruling. In a national survey conducted by Gallup in May, 53 percent of respondents said same-sex marriages should not be recognized by law, while 44 percent said they should. Proposition 8 is part of a long line of seesaw rulings, court cases, debates and protests over the controversial issue of same-sex marriage. It passed in California with some 52 percent of the vote in November 2008. “Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial,” Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said last week. “With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman.” added by: EthicalVegan

Howard Dean Claims Unpopular ObamaCare Mandate Could be Ruled Unconstitutional

A well known political figure appears on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown and announces, in the wake of Missouri voters overwhelmingly supporting Proposition C to remove the insurance mandate from ObamaCare, that it is so unpopular that it will probably be removed from that legislation or that the courts will rule it unconstitutional. So was the person who delivered this opinion a conservative Republican? Nope. It was Howard Dean, former Democrat presidential candidate and chairman of the DNC who made that statement to a surprised Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie. The Daily Rundown conversation begins with Chuck Todd discussing the Proposition C landslide in Missouri: CHUCK TODD: In Missouri this week there was referendum on the ballot. Non-binding but it was, frankly, the legislature didn’t want to deal with the issue of healthcare and this mandate and about whether the state should challenge the mandate on the new healthcare plan. It got 71%. Yes, more Republicans turned out than Democrats. But 71% in Missouri, that has to make Democrats nervous, particularly in that Senate race. Robin Carnahan has got an uphill battle. HOWARD DEAN: She does have an uphill battle. She’s a great human being and a great person and I hope that she’s going to win that one. I think she can but the truth is the mandate is not essential to the plan anyway and never was essential to the plan. They did it in Massachusetts and had a mandate but we had universal healthcare for kids in my state without a mandate. At this point, a clearly surprised Savannah Guthrie steps in. SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: But wait, how can you say the mandate isn’t essential? The way we always had it explained to us by folks at the White House is that if you want to do anything about pre-existing conditions you got to get everybody into the game. That without the mandate you can’t require insurance companies to stop prohibiting… DEAN: We did. We did it 20 years ago in my state. We did it 20 years ago in my state. TODD: Without a mandate? DEAN: Without a mandate. TODD: How did you do it? DEAN: We just said all comers will have to get insurance. And you can’t charge…this is why our bill is so much better than what they just passed…you can’t charge more than 20% above the basic rate and the Senate is 300% based on age. The fact of the matter is I thought that the President was right in the campaign. Academically you want a mandate. The American people aren’t going to put up with a mandate. And I’ve made this prediction before and I am going to make it again, by the time this goes into effect in 2014 I think the mandate will be gone. Either through the courts or because it’s unpopular. You don’t need it. There will be 2 or 3 percent of the people who cheat. That is not enough to bring the system to a halt. And people don’t like to be told what to do. TODD: So you expect them to drop the mandate? DEAN: Well, the courts may rule it unconstitutional. So it isn’t only conservatives who think the ObamaCare mandate is not only unpopular but may be ruled unconstitutional as well. Count Howard Dean among the growing ranks of those who have the same belief. Which is why Todd and Guthrie were so surprised.

Read this article:
Howard Dean Claims Unpopular ObamaCare Mandate Could be Ruled Unconstitutional

Why The Prop 8 Ruling Scares Religious Conservatives

(RNS) When U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's Proposition 8 on Wednesday (Aug. 4), he said voters' motivation for outlawing gay marriage was clear. “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples,” Walker wrote in his sweeping, 136-page decision. “These interests do not provide a rational basis for supporting Proposition 8.” Religion, in Walker's reasoning, amounts to a “private moral view,” which should not infringe upon the constitutional rights of others. While some legal scholars say Walker's decision lands on firm legal ground–a law must advance a secular purpose to pass constitutional muster–some religious leaders accuse the judge of trying to scrub faith from the public square. “Judge Walker claimed to read the minds of California's voters, arguing that the majority voted for Proposition 8 based on religious opposition to homosexuality, which he then rejected as an illegitimate state interest,” R. Albert Mohler, president of a leading Southern Baptist seminary in Kentucky, wrote in an online column. “In essence, this establishes secularism as the only acceptable basis for moral judgment on the part of voters,” Mohler said. On Thursday, Prop 8's supporters filed an appeal of Walker's decision. Jim Campbell, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian law firm involved in the litigation, said the religious freedom argument will play an important role as the case moves up the federal judicial ladder–including, potentially, the Supreme Court. “At bottom, our strategy here is, and has always been, that in this country we should respect the rights of the people when they do what they have always done: vote based on their religious and moral convictions,” Campbell said. Abolitionists, anti-abortion activists, and civil rights activists have all been motivated by personal faith, Campbell argued. “To be blunt, we felt (Walker's decision) was an all-out attack on religion.” Walker did note, however, that no religion will be forced to perform same-sex weddings. Howard Friedman, an emeritus law professor at Ohio's University of Toledo, said Walker is not attacking religion per se; he is just not giving religious expression any special consideration. “He's basically saying that a private moral view isn't a rational basis for legislation,” said Friedman, who writes the popular “Religion Clause” blog. “Case law goes both ways on that. There are certainly some cases that say a merely moral view isn't enough to support legislation; on the other hand, there are some cases that talk about laws being a moral view on society.” Walker's reasoning relies, in part, on a 1996 Supreme Court decision that struck down an anti-gay law in Colorado, Friedman said. That decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy–who's considered a key swing vote on the high court–invalidated laws grounded in “animosity toward the class of persons affected.” Walker devotes several pages in his ruling to identifying religion as a prime source of anti-gay animus, listing examples from the Vatican and the Southern Baptist Convention, and noting that 84 percent of weekly churchgoers voted in favor of Prop 8, according to a CNN exit poll. As if to prove Walker's point, Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony released a statement on Wednesday that said, “Those of us who supported Prop 8 and worked for its passage did so for one reason: We truly believe that marriage was instituted by God for the specific purpose of carrying out God's plan for the world and human society. Period.” Still, some religious leaders take issue with Walker's conclusion that “religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.” “If religion is considered the chief obstacle to gay and lesbian political progress, then it would seem to follow that the state has an obligation to remove that obstacle,” said R.R. Reno, a senior editor at First Things, a Catholic journal based in New York. “That's not going to happen, because the First Amendment protects religious expression,” but it could lead to a sidelining of faith in political debate, Reno said. Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, says Walker is wrong on the law and the church's theology. The Roman Catholic Church holds that homosexuality is not sinful in itself, but that homosexual acts are. “Freedom of religion and freedom of speech allow us to speak without his deeming us harmful,” Walsh said. “Our teaching is our teaching.” added by: TimALoftis

Shanna Moakler to Carrie Prejean: Shame on You!

Shanna Moakler hasn’t exactly let go of her feelings for disgraced beauty queen Carrie Prejean. About a month after the former Miss USA contestant got married to Kyle Boller, Moakler spoke to In Touch Weekly and offered anything but congratulations. Focusing on Prejean’s infamous stance against gay marriage, Shanna said: “Isn’t it nice to be able to go and celebrate your love with your family and friends? How can you deny that joy that you experienced on that day to other living human beings? You should be ashamed of yourself!” In a way, Moakler has gotten the last laugh in this feud. A federal judge in San Francisco struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional this week, ending California’s ban on homosexual marriages. However, because Prejean’s 15 minutes are up and she exploited religion and milked every ounce of attention she received for every last penny back in the day, we’re guessing she couldn’t care less about this issue anymore.

Read this article:
Shanna Moakler to Carrie Prejean: Shame on You!

Marriage Material: That’s Gay Extra

When California's anti-gay Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional, LA gays headed to West Hollywood to celebrate. infoMania's Bryan Safi went with a slightly different goal: to try to land a husband. Watch more Bryan on infoMania every Thursday at 10/9c on Current TV. infoMania is a half-hour satirical news show that airs on Current TV. The show puts a comedic spin on the 24-hour chaos and information overload brought about by the constant bombardment of the media. Hosted by Conor Knighton and co-starring Brett Erlich, Erin Gibson, Ben Hoffman, Bryan Safi and Sergio Cilli, the show airs on Thursdays at 10/9c on Current TV. added by: bryan_safi