Tag Archives: Cbs

True Blood’s Denis O’Hare on Villainous Monologues, Love Scenes, and That Rolling Stone Cover

As vampire king Russell Edgington, Denis O’H are has always been one of the best parts of True Blood’s third season, whether he was seducing vampires to the dark side, wooing Sophie-Anne into marriage, or calming his tempestuous companion-for-life, Talbot. Now that Talbot’s death has sent Russell spinning, O’H are’s work has reached new, dizzying heights, culminating in last week’s instant-classic monologue about vampire superiority, which O’H are delivered while holding a bloody spinal cord. The Tony-winning actor told Movieline all about it.

Here is the original post:
True Blood’s Denis O’Hare on Villainous Monologues, Love Scenes, and That Rolling Stone Cover

Michael J. Fox to Make Rush Limbaugh’s Fantasy a Reality on the Good Wife

Remember back in 2006 when Rush Limbaugh came under fire for imitating the tremors that afflicted Michael J. Fox during a televised political ad for stem cell research, suggesting that Fox had exaggerated his Parkinson’s Disease symptoms for show? Well, now it looks like Fox will be engaging in his own game of Rush Limbaugh role-play, and it could even win him an Emmy.

Follow this link:
Michael J. Fox to Make Rush Limbaugh’s Fantasy a Reality on the Good Wife

REVIEW: Lottery Ticket Trades Its Urban Nerve for Easy Charm

Erik White wanted the housing projects in Lottery Ticket , his fractious wish-fulfillment comedy, to look like an “Everywhere, USA ” that would be relatable to all. Though he envisioned the story taking place in his hometown of New York City, circumstance led him to shoot in Atlanta, Georgia, largely on a complex of soon-to-be demolished projects with a pink-bricked, benignly institutional look. He carefully shot around any identifying signs or landmarks, ensuring that his generic, non-specific, ultimately unsatisfying take on a bullet-proof concept — an 18-year-old Foot Locker employee wins the lottery but is forced to wait out a long weekend within the cutthroat ecosystem of his community before he can claim the prize — is reflected in its hermetic, alienating aesthetic.

Read more from the original source:
REVIEW: Lottery Ticket Trades Its Urban Nerve for Easy Charm

What’s On: Cooling Down in Cleveland

The first season of Hot in Cleveland ‘s old-timey sitcom ways is coming to a close tonight as we learn a bunch of information about one of the leading femmes. Other viewing options include power vetoing on CBS, Padma-pleasing on Bravo, and pseudo-lesbian drama on Encore.

More here:
What’s On: Cooling Down in Cleveland

TV Bites: HBO Joins Kevin Spacey’s Cult Following

Also in this morning’s TV Bites: CBS gives Undercover Boss a companion… Who Wants to Be a Millionaire loses its seat… Joel McHale gets to the Emmy Awards… and more.

Go here to read the rest:
TV Bites: HBO Joins Kevin Spacey’s Cult Following

Absurd Media Meme: Ground Zero Mosque Is Fine Because There Are Strip Clubs Nearby

There is a new media meme rearing it’s ugly head in the many discussions of the Ground Zero Mosque. A number of journalists seem to be suggesting that if critics oppose the construction of the Mosque, they should also be incensed by the presence of strip clubs, bars, and an off-track betting location in the area. ” Just How ‘Hallowed’ is the Ground Near Ground Zero? ” asks Time Magazine’s Madison Gray. “New York Doll’s Gentleman’s Club, and the Pussycat Lounge are two strip clubs that sit within a block of Ground Zero, but are not seen as a threat to the land’s hallowed nature,” Gray added. “So it seems to some, freedom of religion might be a problem, but a $10 lap dance is not.” Gee, could it have anything to do with the fact that pole dancers didn’t fly planes into the twin towers? For some, the right to build a mosque and the move’s moral implications are two distinct issues, and $10 lap dances have exactly nothing to do with either. Gray goes on: Then there’s Off Track Betting, where visitors to the sacred neighborhood are able to place bets on the horses without even breaking their solemn focus on the dump trucks and cranes that sit where the Twin Towers once stood. Think about it: where else can you show your reverence while at the same time putting all your faith in Fat Chance Cinnamon or Poco’s Black Charger? Let’s not forget Thunder Lingerie and More, where you can pay your respects to the 9/11 tragedy, then take in a peep show, or pick up a few naughty items for that trip back to the hotel. And most noticeable of anything you could see around this untouchable area are the dozens of street vendors who sit a stone’s throw away from Ground Zero capitalizing on the fact that it is one of New York’s most visited tourist attractions. Possibly millions of dollars change hands every weekend all in the name of capitalist gain and certainly not any reverence for the 2,700 who died in the space right behind them. So deciding exactly how “hallowed” the area near Ground Zero is might be up to the individual visitor. But one thing’s true: those who have already deemed it as such don’t seem to mind the seedy stuff nearby as much as they do a quiet, private house of worship. Surely Gray forgot to add that this particular “private house of worship” is devoted to the same religion in whose name those 2,700 Americans were killed, built where landing gear from one of the planes that hit the towers fell, scheduled to be opened on September 11 of next year, and named after the Islamic Caliphate who conquered much of Medieval (Christian) Spain. I say he must have forgotten to add those details since they would accurately frame the argument against the Ground Zero mosque, and surely he was not trying to intentionally distort that argument. Of course if he were, he would also have to explain why strip clubs have any bearing whatsoever on the sanctity of an historic or prestigious location. There are three strip clubs within a few blocks of the White House . Is Gray suggesting that the White House is not a sacred location? Gray cited a blogger at History Eraser Button, who posted photos of the various locations, and wrote, Look at the photos. This neighborhood is not hallowed. The people who live and work here are not obsessed with 9/11. The blocks around Ground Zero are like every other hard-working neighborhood in New York, where Muslims are just another thread of the city fabric. The Daily Caller’s Jim Treacher handily dismantles that line of argument: Which will come as a shock to the millions of Americans who assumed lower Manhattan was now an open pasture, populated solely by a handful of tonsured monks wandering around solemnly whispering, “Remember… Remember…” This stunning insight into the nature of modern American cities has impressed everyone from Charles Johnson to Roger Ebert. Don’t you see? People are selling stuff. People are buying stuff. People are taking their clothes off for money. Dude, that building they’re turning into a mosque? (Or not-a-mosque, depending on which one helps your argument.) That place was a Burlington Coat Factory! Sure, it shut down for good on the morning of September 11, 2001, when it was hit by wreckage from a plane flown into the World Trade Center, but up until then it was a Burlington Coat Factory. “Hallowed ground”? Ha! Humor aside, even given the astounding irrelevance of establishments at Ground Zero that don’t bear ideological similarity to perhaps the most infamous mass murderers in American history, journalists continue to peddle this nonsense. As Scott Whitlock reported yesterday , ABC’s Dan Harris parroted the line on “Good Morning America,” noting that “Defenders [of the Mosque] point out that also close to Ground Zero are two strip clubs, an adult/lingerie store and an off-track betting parlor.” And as Doug Powers succinctly put it , “This would be a logical rebuttal to Ground Zero mosque critics, provided the Twin Towers had been taken down by nine poll dancers, seven pairs of edible underwear and three bookies.” As it is, the line of argument has no bearing on the moral validity of the project. “It may be sacred ground,” writes Erin Einhorn for the New York Daily News, “but the streets surrounding Ground Zero are also a place where New Yorkers work, eat and buy shampoo.” Stop the presses. New Yorkers buy shampoo near Ground Zero? Amazing. Not that they buy shampoo in the general vicinity of where they live. Amazing that for much of the media, apparently this can actually pass for a valid argument in favor of the Mosque, or at least in opposition to its critics.

Originally posted here:
Absurd Media Meme: Ground Zero Mosque Is Fine Because There Are Strip Clubs Nearby

CBS: Despite Unpopularity, Obama Still ‘Raking in Millions’ for Dems

While teasing an upcoming report on President Obama campaigning for Democrats on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, fill-in co-host Chris Wragge touted: “…plunging poll numbers haven’t stopped the President from raking in millions at fund raisers across the country.” Later, White House correspondent Chip Reid observed: “You know, the President’s approval rating is only 44%, but he is still quite popular with the party’s base and he’s using that clout to raise millions of dollars for fellow Democrats.” Reid went on to declare: “President Obama and the Democratic Party are managing to raise big bucks in the hope of retaining control of Congress. The Democratic National Committee is committing $50 million to help candidates in 2010, $20 million in cash, and $30 million to get out the vote.” A campaign sound bite was played of the President attacking Republicans: “We do not fear the future. We shape the future. That’s part of what this election’s about. The other side wants you to be afraid of the future.” Reid concluded: “President Obama is doing six fund-raisers over three days in five states. By week’s end, he’ll have raised over $56 million this campaign season.” Only at the end of his report did Reid briefly notice the money raised by the GOP: “Now, Republicans are also raking in the cash this campaign season. The Republican Governors Association, for example, has brought in $58 million since President Obama came into office.” In addition to the President’s fundraising efforts, the segment also focused on political fallout from the Ground Zero mosque controversy, though only in terms of how the issue would impact the elections. Reid explained how Obama was “now dealing with a split in the party over the issue of religious freedom.” Reid continued: “President Obama’s support of the right to build an Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero is causing a rift within the party.” He noted how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid disagreed with the President’s position and added: “Some in the party fear the controversy will carry over into the midterm campaigns.” Following Reid’s report, fill-in co-host Erica Hill asked Democratic strategist Tanya Acker and Republican strategist Bay Buchanan about the issue. Speaking to Acker, Hill wondered: “President Obama made these remarks and now it’s really forcing a lot of Democrats to choose sides. So moving forward, what’s the best message for Democratic candidates as they tackle this – what’s now become a national issue?” Acker argued: “I think this is an issue about religious freedom and the Constitution….Democrats, and frankly Americans generally, need to understand what this issue is about.” Hill then turned to Buchanan: “Bay, how much of an issue should Republicans make this? Because at the end of the day, for most voters, the real issue here is still the economy.” Buchanan challenged Acker’s assertion: “This has nothing to do with religious freedom. There’s 100 mosques or so in New York City. Nobody’s suggesting we tear them all down. What we’re saying is Americans respect hallowed ground. This is hallowed ground, 9/11 is – Ground Zero is hallowed ground.” Acker shot back at Buchanan: “I’m pleased to know that Bay is not in support of tearing down mosques in the United States of America. I’m glad that that issue is off the table….to suggest that Islam – a faith that billions of people around the world adhere to – is endemically somehow compared to terrorism is just wrong.” Here is a full transcript of the August 17 segment:  7:00AM TEASE CHRIS WRAGGE: In-fighting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid breaks with President Obama over the proposed Ground Zero mosque. HARRY REID: I think that it’s very obvious that the mosque should be built someplace else. WRAGGE: But the controversy and plunging poll numbers haven’t stopped the President from raking in millions at fund raisers across the country. We’ll have a live report. 7:01AM SEGMENT ERICA HILL: We want to take a look at politics now. It is day two of President Obama’s cross-country campaign-style fund-raisers. Today he will be in Seattle for the first time since he was a candidate. CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid is traveling with the President. He joins us this morning from Los Angeles before heading north. Chip, good morning. CHIP REID: Well good morning, Erica. You know, the President’s approval rating is only 44%, but he is still quite popular with the party’s base and he’s using that clout to raise millions of dollars for fellow Democrats. But at the same time, he’s now dealing with a split in the party over the issue of religious freedom. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Mosque Controversy; Top Dem Breaks Ranks With Obama] President Obama’s support of the right to build an Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero is causing a rift within the party. The latest, the Senate’s top Democrat, Majority Leader Harry Reid, breaking ranks with the President. HARRY REID: The Constitution gives us freedom of religion. I think that it’s very obvious that the mosque should be built someplace else. CHIP REID: Reid’s comments come after the President’s speech Friday night. BARACK OBAMA: But let me be clear. As a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. REID: Some in the party fear the controversy will carry over into the midterm campaigns. But so far, President Obama and the Democratic Party are managing to raise big bucks in the hope of retaining control of Congress. The Democratic National Committee is committing $50 million to help candidates in 2010, $20 million in cash, and $30 million to get out the vote. OBAMA: We do not fear the future. We shape the future. That’s part of what this election’s about. The other side wants you to be afraid of the future. REID: President Obama is doing six fund-raisers over three days in five states. By week’s end, he’ll have raised over $56 million this campaign season. UNIDENTIFIED MAN [POLITICAL ANALYST]: People want access to the President. They’re excited to be in the room with the President and if they can get a couple minutes to whisper in his ear, they’ll pay a lot of money for it. REID: Now, Republicans are also raking in the cash this campaign season. The Republican Governors Association, for example, has brought in $58 million since President Obama came into office. Erica. HILL: Chip, thanks. CBS’s Chip Reid in Los Angeles this morning. Also joining us from Los Angeles this morning, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker and in Washington, Republican strategist Bay Buchanan. Good to have both of you with us this morning. BAY BUCHANAN: Thanks, Erica. TANYA ACKER: Good to see you. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Countdown to Midterms; Assessing the Impact of Obama’s Mosque Comments] HILL: Tanya, I want to start with you. Forget the should he, shouldn’t he have said it. It’s been established, President Obama made these remarks and now it’s really forcing a lot of Democrats to choose sides. So moving forward, what’s the best message for Democratic candidates as they tackle this – what’s now become a national issue? ACKER: I think that it’s very important for Democrats, frankly, and look, I would expect – I don’t think this should simply be a partisan issue, I think this is an issue about religious freedom and the Constitution. And I think that whether or not the President should have stepped into this fray – I think he should have – Democrats, and frankly Americans generally, need to understand what this issue is about. And if Democrats lose seats because they took a stance for religious freedom, then we’ve got far bigger problems than simply winning elections, frankly. HILL: Bay, how much of an issue should Republicans make this? Because at the end of the day, for most voters, the real issue here is still the economy.              BUCHANAN: There – well, it’s going to be hard to beat the economy when it comes to the election, but I got to tell you, this is an important issue because it just shows a complete lack of understanding of what is happening here. This has nothing to do with religious freedom. There’s 100 mosques or so in New York City. Nobody’s suggesting we tear them all down. What we’re saying is Americans respect hallowed ground. This is hallowed ground, 9/11 is – Ground Zero is hallowed ground. We don’t want malls built next to Manassas, we don’t want casinos built next to Gettysburg. It has nothing to do with us being against development. What we want is this hallowed ground to be respected. And it does not respect or honor those that died to build a mosque, the very kind of statement to those who died, it’s an insult to them. HILL: But – but how much- ACKER: Well, I’m pleased to know that- HILL: Go ahead, Tanya. ACKER: I’m sorry. HILL: Go ahead. ACKER: I was just going to say, I’m pleased to know that Bay is not in support of tearing down mosques in the United States of America. I’m glad that that issue is off the table. But talking about what this issue really means, of course it’s hallowed ground, but to suggest that Islam – a faith that billions of people around the world adhere to – is endemically somehow compared to terrorism is just wrong. And as Americans, we should not be, we should not be propounding that message. It’s just wrong. So, of course it’s hallowed ground- HILL: Well, we know that this is a debate that will continue, but I do have to move on to this, ladies, before we let you go. We’ve seen so much this primary season, there’s been so much talk about the fact that what Americans really want is a change, that the incumbents are going to be on their way out. Bay, I’ll start with you. Can either party or any one candidate really change the way things are done in Washington? BUCHANAN: One person can change a lot. By just speaking out, being bold. In representing the millions of Americans that are expecting that. But what we’re going to find in November is it’s not just going to be one. We’re going to have dozens upon dozens of new fresh faces coming to Washington with one intent and that is to represent the will of the American people, to be there to fight for them, to stop this outrageous spending and to try to turn the country back to a safe and sound course. That’s where you’ll find real change. HILL: We’re going to have to leave it there. Bay Buchanan, Tanya Acker, always good to have your perspective. Don’t worry, Tanya, I promise you’ll be back. You both will. Thank you.

The rest is here:
CBS: Despite Unpopularity, Obama Still ‘Raking in Millions’ for Dems

Conservative Commentator James J. Kilpatrick Dies at 89

James J. Kilpatrick, best known as the conservative-curmudgeon commentator on “60 Minutes” in its “Point-Counterpoint” segment in the 1970s, has died at the age of 89. Washingtonians also remember his years as a panelist on the local weekly political talk show “Agronsky & Company.” His column “A Conservative View” was syndicated in hundreds of newspapers. The Washington Post obituary on Tuesday focused heavily on his role in promoting segregationism in the 1960s at the Richmond News-Leader and concluded with his story that he was asked to “take the side of ‘The Conservative’s View of Watergate.’ And I asked myself, ‘Just what is a conservative’s view of burglary?'” Kilpatrick’s “Point-Counterpoint” commentaries were satirized by “Saturday Night Live” in which Dan Aykroyd began his rebuttal of Jane Curtin with the phrase “Jane, you ignorant slut.” Kilpatrick was also parodied in the movie “Airplane” where a balding, crusty conservative claims that people knew what they were getting into when they bought their plane tickets: “I say let ’em crash.” In his book Tell Me A Story, Don Hewitt wrote that Saturday Night Live only prolonged the segment’s tenure. He added that liberal Shana Alexander was preceded by the left-wing columnist Nicholas von Hoffman, “who I reluctantly had to let go when he insisted on referring to the president of the United States, Richard Nixon, as ‘a dead mouse on the kitchen floor that everyone was afraid to touch and throw in the garbage.’ Granted, it was a difficult time and the description was not that far off target, but it wasn’t the kind of thing I wanted someone to say about the president of the United States on 60 Minutes.” In his book on “60 Minutes” titled “Tick…Tick…Tick,” author David Blum wrote that it was Shana Alexander asking for a big raise from their $600 a week salary that prompted the segment’s end in 1979. The dueling politicos were replaced by Andy Rooney, who’s still on the air at 91.

Continued here:
Conservative Commentator James J. Kilpatrick Dies at 89

CBS ‘Early Show’: Conservative O’Reilly ‘Lashed Out’ At ‘Single Motherhood’

Late in the 7:00AM ET hour of Monday’s CBS Early Show, correspondent Michelle Miller reported on the “war of words” between actress Jennifer Aniston and Fox News host Bill O’Reilly over women having children without a man. Miller remarked that Aniston had “made a seemingly simple comment supporting the concept,” while the “conservative” O’Reilly “slammed the actress” for doing so. The report included sound bites of O’Reilly: “That’s destructive to our society….She’s throwing a message out to 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds, okay, that ‘hey, you don’t need the guy. You don’t need the dad.” Miller followed up by noting: “It’s not the first time a political conservative has lashed out at an actress for supporting single moms. In a 1992 speech, Dan Quayle questioned the choices of fictional character Murphy Brown.” She concluded the story by touting: “Aniston fired back the latest shot at O’Reilly, telling People magazine, quote, ‘Of course the ideal scenario for parenting is obviously two parents of a mature age, but for those who’ve not yet found their Bill O’Reilly, I’m just glad science has provided a few other options.'” After Miller’s report, fill-in co-host Chris Wragge jokingly declared: “Jennifer Aniston, how dare you?” He then argued: “I mean, it’s just a movie, right, at this point? I understand, I guess, both sides, but I think it’s a little much about-” Fill-in co-host Erica Hill interjected: “Much ado about nothing.” Here is a full transcript of the August 16 segment: 7:43AM ET TEASE CHRIS WRAGGE: Up next, what did Jennifer Aniston say that set off Bill O’Reilly? We’re going to tell you about their war of words when we return. 7:46AM ET SEGMENT ERICA HILL: In her latest film, Jennifer Aniston plays a woman who takes an unorthodox route to single motherhood. Her defense of that character is now sparking a debate on cable TV. CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller has more. JENNIFER ANISTON: So I would like you to be the first to know, I’m having a baby. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Aniston vs. O’Reilly; War of Words Over Single Motherhood] MICHELLE MILLER: In Jennifer Aniston’s new movie she plays a single woman having a baby from a sperm donor. Last week, she made a seemingly simple comment supporting the concept. BILL O’REILLY: That’s destructive to our society. MILLER: Conservative talk show host Bill O’Reilly slammed the actress during an edition of The O’Reilly Factor. O’REILLY: She’s throwing a message out to 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds, okay, that ‘hey, you don’t need the guy. You don’t need the dad. Dad!’ ANISTON: I don’t need a man to have a baby. MILLER: While promoting the film ‘The Switch,’ she was quoted saying, ‘women are realizing it more and more, knowing that they don’t have to settle with a man just to have that child.’ O’REILLY: And that’s where Miss. Aniston makes here mistake. BONNIE FULLER [EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, HOLLYWOODLIFE.COM]: He really sets Jennifer Aniston up as somebody who is trying to destroy the fabric of our society. MILLER: It’s not the first time a political conservative has lashed out at an actress for supporting single moms. In a 1992 speech, Dan Quayle questioned the choices of fictional character Murphy Brown. DAN QUAYLE: It doesn’t help matters when a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid professional women, mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone. MILLER: Ironically, when it comes to her own life, Aniston and O’Reilly agree. She says just because her character is going it alone, doesn’t mean she would. ANISTON: She really feels that she wants a child more than she needs the man. Which I found quite interesting. I don’t know if I would do it that way. MILLER: Aniston fired back the latest shot at O’Reilly, telling People magazine, quote, ‘Of course the ideal scenario for parenting is obviously two parents of a mature age, but for those who’ve not yet found their Bill O’Reilly, I’m just glad science has provided a few other options.’ Michelle Miller, CBS News, New York. HILL: There’s never a dull moment, is there? CHRIS WRAGGE: Jennifer Aniston, how dare you? [LAUGHS] I mean, you think any – I mean, it’s just a movie, right, at this point? I understand, I guess, both sides, but I think it’s a little much about- HILL: Right. Much ado about nothing. We’re probably not done with it yet. We’ll hear a little bit more today. We’ve got you caught up, though, so now you can talk about it at the office this morning. 

Here is the original post:
CBS ‘Early Show’: Conservative O’Reilly ‘Lashed Out’ At ‘Single Motherhood’

CBS ‘Early Show’: Nearly Five Minutes on Gay Marriage Ruling, One Sentence to Critics

In a report on Friday’s CBS Early Show, correspondent John Blackstone described the fallout of a decision by California Judge Vaughn Walker to lift his stay on gay marriages after overturning Proposition 8: “Inside San Francisco City Hall dozens of same-sex couples lined up for marriage licenses, anticipating their wedding day.” A headline on screen declared: “Save the Date.”   Blackstone explained how gay couples were still upset that the stay would not be lifted until August 18: “Despite a celebration here, these advocates know this may be just a temporary opening. And it turned out it wasn’t opened yet….Among the disappointed couples was one of those who filed the lawsuit challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage.” Finally taking note of critics of the initial Proposition 8 ruling and the lifting of the stay, Blackstone remarked: “The delay gives opponents time to appeal and a political issue.” The only sound bite of a critic was that of Maggie Gallagher from the National Organization for Marriage: “The extreme nature of this decision is, in fact, going to impact the elections in 2010.” Blackstone then concluded his report this way: “Polls show a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but in California, where there were 18,000 such marriages two years ago, plenty of wedding plans are now being made for next week.” He made no mention of the majority of Californians also being opposed. Following Blackstone’s report, co-host Harry Smith spoke with liberal George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley about the issue. While Turley described the judge’s decision as “very controversial,” he also made sure to tell viewers where he stood: “I actually support same-sex marriage.” Smith was puzzled by the delay in allowing gay marriage: “Why would the judge leave – well, open the window and then say, ‘okay, we’re going to close the window until next Wednesday’?” Turley replied: “Well, he’s actually doing a very standard and responsible thing….This is a controversial decision. And for the people on the other side of this debate, they should be entitled to make their argument to the court of appeals.” Later, Turley assured his fellow gay marriage supporters that allowing Judge Walker’s decision to be appealed would “add legitimacy to his opinion.”                              Here is a full transcript of the August 13 segment: 7:00AM TEASE ERICA HILL: Save the date. A California judge says same-sex couples will have to wait one more week to get married, allowing for an appeal to move forward. We’ll tell you why this could end up going all the way to the Supreme Court.         7:01AM SEGMENT HARRY SMITH: We begin with the court room battle over California’s same-sex marriage ban, the federal judge that threw that ban out now says that same-sex weddings can be held next week, unless higher courts get involved. CBS News correspondent John Blackstone has the story. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Save the Date; Judge Delays Same-Sex Weddings to Allow Appeal] JOHN BLACKSTONE: Inside San Francisco City Hall dozens of same-sex couples lined up for marriage licenses, anticipating their wedding day. Outside, a crowd gathered. The judge, who last week ruled that California’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, said he is lifting the stay he placed on that decision. Same-sex marriage in California has been on a roller coaster, sometimes legal, sometimes not. Despite a celebration here, these advocates know this may be just a temporary opening. And it turned out it wasn’t opened yet. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The good news is the stay is lifted. The bad news is the judge has said it’s lifted next Wednesday. CROWD: Aww. BLACKSTONE: Among the disappointed couples was one of those who filed the lawsuit challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage. JEFF ZARRILLO: We’re hopeful that we will be able to get married and we’ll be able to announce wedding plans as soon as possible. BLACKSTONE: The delay gives opponents time to appeal and a political issue. MAGGIE GALLAGHER [NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE]: The extreme nature of this decision is, in fact, going to impact the elections in 2010. BLACKSTONE: Polls show a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but in California, where there were 18,000 such marriages two years ago, plenty of wedding plans are now being made for next week. John Blackstone, CBS News, San Francisco. SMITH: And joining us now from Washington is George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley. Good morning, sir. JONATHAN TURLEY: Hi, Harry. SMITH: Why would the judge leave – well, open the window and then say, ‘okay, we’re going to close the window until next Wednesday’? TURLEY: Well, he’s actually doing a very standard and responsible thing. What he’s doing is he’s giving the court of appeals a short period of time to review his decision and decide whether they want to impose a stay. Most federal judges will do that. In fact, if he didn’t do that, it’d be viewed as a little bit odd, if not aggressive towards the court of appeals. What he’s saying is, ‘look, I’m one judge. This is a controversial decision. And for the people on the other side of this debate, they should be entitled to make their argument to the court of appeals.’ SMITH: So what is the likelihood, then, a court of appeals would get involved in this by Wednesday? TURLEY: Well, they’re going to have to. I mean, they’re going to have to take a look at whether they want to impose a stay. And’s it’s going to be tempting for some of those judges. You know, this did overturn a majority of people who voted on the proposition. It’s a very controversial decision. Some judges might be inclined to say, ‘You know what? Let’s go ahead and stay this until other judges have looked at it.’ But what Judge Walker said in this opinion was I don’t see the irreparable harm being done to people by allowing people to get married. SMITH: Right. TURLEY: And he gave a very strong opinion saying, I don’t think this should be stayed by the Ninth Circuit. SMITH: If you are a proponent of same-sex marriage, how should you interpret this? TURLEY: I would encourage my friends on that side – and I actually support same-sex marriage – but I would encourage people on the side of same-sex marriage to understand that they benefit, in some regards, with – from Judge Walker’s move. He’s going to add legitimacy to his opinion. It’s not going to be just one judge. It’s important for this to be reviewed, to satisfy all parties that it’s not just one judge making his own decision, but that it’s going to be other judges making independent decisions of their own. SMITH: Right. Since this thing came down people have said this is likely to end up in the Supreme Court. Do you agree? TURLEY: Well, you know, as you know, you’ve been around a long time, it’s dangerous to predict when the court will accept something. They have actually avoided the same-sex marriage issue in the past, but if any case has a chance, it would be this one. By my count, there seems to be four justices on both sides of this issue, if you’re going to make an early prediction. And as usual, Justice Kennedy’s right in the middle. But Kennedy has been very sympathetic towards gay rights in the past. So, it would be a very interesting issue to go before this court at this time. SMITH: Jonathan Turley, we sure do appreciate your expertise this morning. Thank you very much. TURLEY: Thanks, Harry. SMITH: Alright, you bet.

More:
CBS ‘Early Show’: Nearly Five Minutes on Gay Marriage Ruling, One Sentence to Critics