Through 4/15/2008, you can vote in the Post Gazette poll on the marriage amendment.

http://www.post-gazette.com/polls/?pollID=2463

As of tonight, 1,820 responses ..

A. Yes - 627 (34%)

B. No - 1136 (62%)

C. Don't care - 57 (3%)

Having read both the article in the Post-Gazette and the one in the Tribune-Review, I must say I came away with a sort of "it all came out equal in the end" impression -- namely, that it was a draw.

That's not what folks in the LGBTQ community are saying. Reports from various sources tell me that anti-amendment (the good guys) folks outnumbered pro-amendment (the bigots) folks by as much as 4:1.  I guess the stickers proved useful after all and I shouldn't have made fun of them.  Plus, there was cheering and boos unreported in the media.

Both newspapers start off with quotes from the christo-bigots. Here's the Trib:

"It advances a single purpose -- the preservation of Pennsylvania's marriage policy as understood throughout the existence of the Commonwealth -- by reaffirming the legal definition of marriage," said Deborah Hamilton of the coalition Pennsylvania for Marriage, reading a statement prepared by the Utah-based Marriage Law Foundation.

Now it is interesting to me that the paper makes a point that someone outside of Pennsylvania prepared the statement.  Heck, if Deborah can't string a coherent statement together on paper, why let her talk? 

The Trib does not quote any openly gay individuals or at least doesn't identify them as such. They also fail to quote any openly heterosexual individuals who fear for their marriages.  So it sort of is a draw.

The Post-Gazette starts off with the Catholic flavor of bigotry

"I come to you today as a pastor, a pastor with a desire to testify on behalf of one of the oldest institutions of humanity -- marriage itself," Catholic Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh told an audience of more than 200 people in the Gold Room.

Interesting side note. While almost every gay man over the age of 50 that I know seems to have scoop on which priests and bishops are gay <they don't necessary corroborate each other>, no one wants to claim Zubik.  They vehemently argue that he is heterosexual.  That's odd. 

Some gays are claiming that the PG bent over backward to be "fair and balanced" which could account for their failure to report on the turnout. 

Here's my favorite part of the article:

City Councilman Bruce Kraus yesterday described such a qualification and the entire move to ban civil unions as a "mark of shame."

He implored members of the Judiciary Committee and the Legislature to stand against the constitutional amendment.

"This need not become your mark of shame, but rather your call to courage," he said. "The courage to overcome fear and injustice; to leave behind moral cowardice."

Our call to courage.  And he didn't even have to send to Utah for help with that statement.  I mean, that's a theme the LGBTQ community should pounce upon. 

Speaking of courage, I hear that State Senator Jay Costa was the one asking tough questions of those in support of the amendment.  Was Fontana there?  Did he ask questions?  I'm concerned given his staff comments about receiving a lof of critical calls. 

Did you call you Senator?  It is certainly not too late.  Consider this a call to courage.  Speak out now while someone is still listening to your voice.  Outnumbering them 4:1 in socially conservative Pittsburgh -- where our 28 year old Mayor is anti-civil union for God's sake -- that's big news. 

Apparently, Senator Jane Orie left when the cameras left.  So she wants the film clips, but can't even bother to hear out what the others have to say?  Classy.

Here's what the gay media is reporting.