At the top of Thursday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Julie Chen praised Barack Obama’s election as the first African-American president but lamented the passage of California’s Proposition 8, preventing gay marriage: "One barrier falls, another returns. Married gays in legal limbo protest through the night as California voters ban same-sex unions." At the top of the 8AM hour, correspondent John Blackstone reported: "In disappointment, supporters of same-sex marriage gathered in Los Angeles last night, after the hard-fought campaign over California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, they were on the losing side, but not ready to give up."
Blackstone went on to describe the fight that lay ahead: "This may, however, be just one more battle in California's long war over same-sex marriage. Gay rights advocates have already filed a lawsuit claiming Proposition 8 improperly writes discrimination into the state constitution." A clip was then played of the left-wing mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom: "Never before has our constitution been used to strip rights away." Blackstone did not offer the voice of a single person who supported the proposition.
This promotion of gay marriage is nothing new on the CBS Early Show, since May, the show has done five stories supportive of gay marriage. Those stories offered little or no dissenting perspective. In the last most recent story on September 16, co-host Maggie Rodriguez demonstrated her solidarity with actor George Takei, who had just married his partner Brad Altman: "George how was the wedding? Was it everything you dreamed of?" On June 17, Chen argued: "Same-sex marriage remains a hot-button issue throughout America. But it seems that tolerance for it appears to be growing. According to a new CBS News poll, 30% of Americans now accept same-sex marriages. However, 36% favor no legal recognition of gay marriages at all."
Here is the full transcript of the Thursday segment:
7:00AM TEASE:
PROTESTORS: No more hate! No more hate!
JULIE CHEN: One barrier falls, another returns. Married gays in legal limbo protest through the night as California voters ban same-sex unions.
8:03AM SEGMENT:
CHRIS WRAGGE: Well, voters in California, Arizona, and Florida passed bans on same-sex marriage, but the battle over California's Proposition 8 isn't over just yet. CBS News John Blackstone reports.
JOHN BLACKSTONE: In disappointment, supporters of same-sex marriage gathered in Los Angeles last night, after the hard-fought campaign over California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, they were on the losing side, but not ready to give up.
PROTESTORS: No more hate! No more hate!
BLACKSTONE: Over the past five months, some 18,000 same-sex couples have married in California. In Sacramento, the marriages continued yesterday. Until they were ordered to an abrupt stop.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: We're ceasing right now at this minute.
BLACKSTONE: Jay Groh and James Eslick were next in line.
JAMES ESLICK: She basically said that as they were processing our paper work, they finally got a call saying they could no longer issue any further licenses because it's become clear that it is going to pass.
BLACKSTONE: This may, however, be just one more battle in California's long war over same-sex marriage. Gay rights advocates have already filed a lawsuit claiming Proposition 8 improperly writes discrimination into the state constitution.
GAVIN NEWSOM: Never before has our constitution been used to strip rights away.
BLACKSTONE: For now, the same-sex marriages performed over the past five months still stand, but they, too, could face legal challenges. John Blackstone, CBS News, San Francisco.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
News flash for Gavin
November 6, 2008 - 12:14 ET by HockeyKidNews flash for Gavin Nuisance: the Constitution has never GRANTED rights, you moron. It only acknowledges those that are God-given.
Even your (ridiculously long and convoluted) California Constitution retains similar language in its Preamble and Article I, Section 1.
So, on a purely legal framework, the establishment of a "right" to gay "marriage" is inconsistent with the California Constitution. I'm sure this next phrase is familiar for you: you lose.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
News flash...
November 6, 2008 - 17:12 ET by kj.444The constitution has nothing to do with god. In the U.S. constitution, we are all granted religious freedom and if any consitution, state or national, acknowledged only "god-given" rights it violates the first amendment. Many people in this country practice different religions, or are members of different denominations within the same religious groups, and many have vastly different stances on civil rights (especially where it pertains to same-sex marriage). It would be quite difficult to determine which rights god gave us if you have different religious beliefs or believe in a different god than another citizen. I'm pretty sure separation of church and state is not a new concept in U.S. politics.
Also, ammendments have already been made to the U.S. constitution to grant black people and women the right to vote. When citizens are denied their rights (whether you consider them god-given or not), amendments are made to grant them their rights that have been unjustifiably witheld. Therefore, to claim that any constitution doesn't grant rights to people is ridiculous. It's amazing that any group is still denied equal rights under any constitution, and the fact that there needs to be something explicitly written into law to say, by the way, by all people we also mean gay people, black people, and women is even more mindboggling. Even more so that people want people directly excluded from certain rights because of abstract religious beliefs.
kj.444 - Where Do You Draw The Line?
November 6, 2008 - 19:59 ET by Rush Fankj.444 wrote: "It's amazing that any group is still denied equal rights under any constitution, and the fact that there needs to be something explicitly written into law to say, by the way, by all people we also mean gay people, black people, and women is even more mindboggling."
Any group? How about the group composed of threesomes or foursomes or the group composed of adults and children?
Once we start defining groups where do we draw the line? What! No line, you say? Anything goes?
--------------------------------------------------------------
"They are actively promoting the decline of America." ~ Rush Limbaugh on liberals and Democrats
444
November 6, 2008 - 20:02 ET by cocodrieIf you can read, read the United States Constitution and throw away the Whoopie constitution you appear to be using. Also try to get some common sense somewhere if you can.
cocodrie: here's the
November 7, 2008 - 01:09 ET by kj.444cocodrie:
here's the constitution i've read on cornell law school's web site. you can look at the abbreviated version or purchase the full version for download right off the sight.
http://www.law.corne...
so did you have a specific section you were referring to, because i don't see the section that says that that only some people have equal rights or that the constitution is connected to god or religion. can you point me in the right direction, because i'm pretty sure the cornell law school's constitution is quite accurate. instead of simply attacking my credibility maybe you can enlighten me about what you know about the constitution that i don't. sound reasonable?
no, there are obvious
November 7, 2008 - 01:22 ET by kj.444no, there are obvious reasons why adults shouldn't marry children...because there's harm involved and it's not healthy for a developing child to be in an adult relationship. so yeah, of course i draw the line with groups whose behavior is actually harmful to individuals or society in general. it's just that people who oppose same sex marriage have never provided me with any convincing evidence of actual, concrete harm that it causes. homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that occurs commonly in over 400 mammalian species, so unless you can provide evidence that it harms anything, i don't see why you care about whether two people in a committed relationship have the same rights to marriage as everyone else. seriously, do you know any gay people? they're really no different from us, so what's the problem?
typical left wing reaction
November 6, 2008 - 12:18 ET by SouthJersey1953Like in all things, if the left doesn't get their way, they throw these huge temper tandrums....
Whine you little babies....the voters spoke. Live with the results like the rest of us do when things don't go OUR way.
Luke 23:34
PALIN/Jindal '12
I'm shocked that Prop 8 did
November 6, 2008 - 12:34 ET by Clear thinkerI'm shocked that Prop 8 did not pass. Heck, we all took it in the rear in this election, so I thought Prop 8 would be a shoe-in.
Dear Sarah
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Don't worry perverts
November 6, 2008 - 12:41 ET by Tom in NCThere will a court of appeals ruling that will overturn the will of the people, they've done it before and they will do it again
Traditional Marriage 29 for 29
November 6, 2008 - 13:28 ET by deerjerkydave29 states have now passed constitutional amendments defining marriage traditionally. We are now 29 for 29. Every time Americans get a chance to vote they have chosen traditional marriage. America wants marriage to be defined the way it has been defined since the beginning of time.
Every major news outlet in California was against traditional marriage. Every Hollywood actor donated and campaigned against traditional marriage. Every major politician in California opposed traditional marriage including the Governator. But the people stood their ground on this issue. CBS news and the rest of the DNC TV news programs refuse to accept that they are in the minority on this issue.
Since CBS news refuses to give air time to traditionalists it turns their information into propaganda. Where are the fairness doctrine police?
This is Expected
November 6, 2008 - 13:29 ET by mbs6The MSM has completely blocked the truth of the Prop 8 campaign from the people. Fact is the Yes on 8 side was extremely well organized and the supporters turned out in droves for all types of volunteer work. Yet the MSM portrayed the Yes on 8 rallies as if there were just as many No on 8 people at the rallies, a complete filtering of the truth.
http://www.youtube.c...
P.S. It must really irk them the many, many Obama supporters in California voted Yes on 8.