On Monday, Gary Owens will be a guest on GSN Live on the network formerly known as Game Show Network.

I have many Harvey Korman stories but not the time to write them up right now. Check back here later for the anecdote about Howie Morris's wedding and whatever others I decide to include. He was one of the funniest people I ever encountered…and easily the best audience.

A couple of odd e-mails make me think I oughta say this…

I don't really care if George W. Bush did Cocaine in his youth. I'm against recreational drugs and any sort of intoxicants as a personal choice — meaning for me — but others can do what they like with them, up to the point where their actions under the influence affect others. I think, for instance, that if you get drunk, get into your car and cause an accident that kills someone, you should be treated pretty much the same as if you got a gun and deliberately shot that person.

My comment about Bush and Cocaine was not about the fact that he used it but that he (allegedly) said a dumb thing about it. That was even dumber than Clinton's line about how he tried Marijuana but didn't inhale…and we all gave the guy a lot of grief about that.

Also, yes, I live in "Hollywood" and I work in the entertainment industry. This does not mean I use drugs. If you've ever had a beer and a cigarette, you are a raging alcoholic and druggie compared to me. The strongest non-prescription substance I've ever put into my system is high fructose corn syrup…and I've even given that up.

The day of the court decision in California that legalized same-sex wedlock, I said I expected (as did everyone) that there would be a ballot initiative in November from folks who wished to undo that decision. This is apparently so. I also said that the vote would be close and that Gay Marriage might squeak by. That seemed like a safe prediction.

But I'm starting to be more confident that G.M. will prevail, and I think that could become a lot more likely on June 15. That's the date the California Supreme Court has to decide if it will allow same-sex marriages to commence on June 17. They could decide that such nuptials are to be deferred until the voters have their say. But they could also opt to allow the ceremonies to commence. If they do, I think that's the shooting match.

If the court doesn't grant the stay, hundreds (thousands?) of same-gender couples will rush to the altar. My goodness, even Sulu from Star Trek plans to marry his life-partner A.S.A.P. By the date of the election, these folks will all have wed, at least in the eyes of The Law, and qualified for health insurance together and set up many of the institutions of "normal" life that have been previously denied them.

So the November vote would not be a vote to prohibit Gay Marriage. That's what almost all votes of this kind in the past have been, all across the country. This vote would be to outlaw it and annul all those marriages. Are the voters of California going to vote to undo all that? To say, "No, no…we unmarry you!" is quite different from never letting gays marry in the first place.

The momentum on this issue is all in the direction of accepting same-sex wedlock. There have been two recent polls on the subject which show contrasting results as their bottom line. The Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll had Gay Marriage losing 54% to 35% with 10% undecided. The more recent Field Poll had it prevailing 51% to 42% with 7% undecided. That sounds like something of a wash but there are two things to remember. One is that even the polls that show G.M. losing show opposition to it declining, especially among new, younger voters. A lot of folks who abhor the whole notion have to be thinking that they can't stop it…only delay it.

And the other point is that if all this knot-tying begins on June 17, it's a brand-new ball game. Some of those who've been trying to delay it will shrug, decide the inevitable has occurred and that it's just plain mean to annul all those unions. If the Times/KTLA poll accurately reflects voters in California…well, 54% isn't that high a number. (It is said — I assume there are exceptions to this — that support for initiatives usually declines as you get closer to election day; that you have to start with at least 60% support to have a chance of passing.) If Gay Marriages actually start on 6/17 and there's no giant earthquake on 6/18, I'll bet opposition to same-sex weddings will drop and further deflate those who oppose it.

On top of all that, I don't think complaints about "activist judges making laws" are going to have their usual potency in this argument. First off, I think folks are starting to get wise that when most people complain about "activist judges," what they usually mean is "any court decisions I don't like." Moreover, the California State Legislature has twice passed laws that legalize Gay Marriage. Those are elected officials doing this. Our governor (he's elected, too) twice vetoed those laws, saying that he felt it was up to the judicial branch to decide. The judicial branch has decided and Schwarzenegger says he accepts their decision. Judges in this state are also elected…so the whole matter is the handiwork of people we elected to represent us — to make and interpret our laws. Whether they were right or not can be debated and will be debated…but this is not the fiat of appointees who knew they were not answerable to anyone.

Lastly, as I said, I think the mood is shifting in this country. Maybe the polls don't reflect the change as occurring swiftly enough but I sure sense that opponents of Gay Marriage everywhere know it's coming. Even William Bennett, who earned an awful lot of the money he lost in Vegas by demonizing Gay Marriage has been declaring that battle as lost. Those who are jubilant may have Mr. Bush to thank. Compared to issues like The Economy and The War in Iraq, letting Mutt marry Jeff is seeming like less and less of a threat.

One of my most Conservative friends has admitted to me that he has a moral dilemma: He's still against same-sex nuptials but if he votes for the candidates who are with him on that issue, he's voting for the folks who want to prolong a war he thinks is a mistake and continue financial policies he thinks are hurting everyone except the Extremely Wealthy. He also agrees that nothing will stop Gay Marriage from becoming accepted…and thinks the politicians who oppose it know that and are just using it, with increasingly less effectiveness, as a Red Meat issue to get donations and votes.

I don't think it's a certainty that Gay Marriage will become the law of the land in California this year but at least it won't lose by much…and if it only loses by a point or two, that will further prove its inevitability. If on June 15, the California Supreme Court rules that bride can go ahead and marry bride, and groom can run off and be hitched to groom…well, that flips the whole battle in terms of offense versus defense. And it just may end it, at least in the nation's largest, most trend-setting state.

While Bob Elisberg is waiting for that lunch I owe him, he wrote an article about The Greatest Musical You've Never Heard Of. In his opinion. When we do have that lunch, I may argue for a couple of others…but go see what Bob thinks.

Just back from the event I mentioned earlier…the opening of the Will Eisner art exhibit at Storyopolis, a fine art gallery and bookshop on Ventura Boulevard in Studio City. Lots of fine, creative people were there. Lots of Eisner art was on the walls. Couldn't have been a nicer evening.

Another weblog that mentioned the event made it sound like the exhibition would only be up for this one evening. Not true. For the next month or so, you can drop by Storyopolis and see a lot of drawings that will remind you just how good Will was. I suggest you do this if you're in the area.

Scott McClellan's new book quotes George W. Bush as saying he can't remember if he ever used Cocaine.

I don't know if McClellan's quotation is accurate. But I do know that if you can't remember if you ever used Cocaine, then you used an awful lot of Cocaine.

The ten most incredible art thefts of the modern era. Take a look.

Despite recent and dire reports of deadlocking, AFTRA has arrived at a deal that its board is recommending to the membership for ratification. This morning's press reports would suggest it is not a great deal, and I would imagine that Screen Actors Guild leaders are studying it right this minute — unless they don't yet have its actual terms — and pondering a response. One possible one could be a massive push to get AFTRA members to reject it.

The slightly-overlapping memberships of the two actors' unions may come into play here. SAG has 122,000 members. AFTRA has around 80,000. There's about a 44,000 person overlap and it's generally believed that those who are members of both unions are more likely to be actively working and therefore more likely to vote. So a lot of those who'll vote on the AFTRA deal will be doing so with an eye towards what that would mean for SAG.

AFTRA covers primarily magazine-type programs, some soap operas, a few game shows, some cable shows, no movies and very few prime-time shows, especially the kind that have storylines. If SAG went on strike but AFTRA signed, the networks would have some new programming…mainly the shows that managed to stay in production during the Writers Strike.

That's not a likely situation — AFTRA signing, SAG striking — but it's possible. What I'm waiting for is some response from SAG leadership. They're going to have to decide (and soon) if they're prepared to hold out for substantially better terms. The studios have dropped their formerly-intractable demand for the right to use clips of actors in almost any venue without the actors' specific permission. Presumably, the AMPTP guys realized that was an issue that could galvanize an actors' strike…one which would even be rejected by AFTRA, the less militant of the two unions. So it's gone…for now. With that matter off the table, SAG will be left with a deal that's just plain weak on the dollars and cents, especially with regard to home video.

Let's see if the leadership of SAG is prepared to denounce the terms AFTRA's negotiators have accepted, and to insist they'll never settle for that. They probably are. So then the next question will be if SAG is prepared to follow through on that vow.

Just a reminder: This evening, there's a gala exhibition/party about the artistry of the late Will Eisner. It's at the Storyopolis gallery in Studio City and it's free, though I think you have to R.S.V.P. to be there. Doors open at 7 PM and around 8:00, there will be a panel discussion of the works of Will. Present on this panel will be Denis Kitchen, Jackie Estrada, Sergio Aragonés and me. But even better, the whole place will be full of pictures drawn by Will Eisner. Should be quite an event.

Even though I think she's lost the race and oughta start acting that way, I still have great respect for Hillary Clinton. She's a smart woman and I wouldn't bet that she won't be president some day.

That said, I don't think someone whose campaign is $21 million in debt should be telling us how good she is at financial management.

Good night, Internet. See you in the morning.