The NY Times reports on a minor change in the proposed FMA:
The Congressional authors of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage introduced a slightly reworded version on Monday, saying the changes were intended to make it clear that they do not seek to bar same-sex civil unions allowed by state law.
As they prepared for a Senate hearing on Tuesday to examine the wording of potential amendments, advocates said the mainly technical revisions were meant to broaden support for the initiative and blunt the appeal of alternatives that could leave the definition of marriage up to individual states.
The story explains that no one who cares is happy - the far right doesn't like the change because it clearly allows civil unions; opponents do not want a ban on gay marriage written into the Constitution.
And in Georgia, from the AP, "Black Ministers Protest Gay Marriage".
Comments