Here's the language for the proposed marriage amendment, buried deep in an article from the Washington Post (now reg. required):

 "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

It sure does sound to me that this does not allow for states to grant civil union, i.e. the "legal incidents thereof". So, much of the commentary that's running around is wrong, based as it is on the spin from supporters of the amendment and not on a reading of the language.

Conservatives decry the liberal bias in the media. I decry the right-wing control of the media and the editorial slant. The real issue, it appears, is that the media is loosing it's foundation in fact. Along with the CIA commission, maybe we should demand a commission to look into the lapses of the media. Remember, these folks are supposed to be our intelligence community. What's more important, freedom of speech and analysis of fact or ratings and propoganda?