Politics Today - The lead story on John Kerry's "only I can beat Bush" juggernaut pushed today's WaPo article about the FMA into second position, but it's worth a read. The key points:

1. Bush will endorse having Congress "take up" the amendment and act on it "sooner rather than later" - i.e., during the current election year. The article notes the political risks and benefits of such a move. On the positive side, it diverts attention from Bush's negatives, like Iraqi WMD and his National Guard service. It could be used as a wedge against "Massachusetts liberal" Kerry, who is fighting hard to express similar opposition to gay marriage while not backing the FMA. The Post doesn't get into how the issue obviously energizes Bush's base among the bigot brigade, who could be a deciding factor in November if they didn't turn out to vote. But the paper does give schrift to Democrats' belief that the President, if he ends up looking too mean-spirited on this issue, could lose his moderate supporters.

2. The savvier media are beginning to pick up on the debate about whether the FMA, as proposed, nukes civil unions. The Post's article describes how the FMA's backers say it won't, while gay rights groups are calling the characterization "deliberately deceptive." On a related note, it appears the text of the FMA may change to address this concern. No less an authority than the head of the Alliance for Marriage is quoted as saying there's a "'good chance' hearings will result in minor wording changes to make clear that the amendment would not block state legislatures from enacting civil unions." That's the first time I've heard backers suggest such a thing.

You have to give credit to the Post for being far better educated on these issues than most media, for example the NYTimes. I'd expect that from a paper that gave us a very thoughtful and cautious reaction to the news out of Massachusetts last week.