The round up from yesterday's hearing starts with WVa Blue's pre-hearing coverage.  The best part about the piece is the link to Hoppy Kercheval's column where he opposes the amendment:  "I don't think we need a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage, but I do think we could use a crash course in the importance long-term, committed relationships in maintaining healthy, productive families."  Hoppy makes it clear that, while he isn't there on marriage, he supports a civil union type situation.

Alison Knezevich reports that the partisan attempt to bring avoid the committee consideration of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" failed.  This amendment would not have just banned marriage equality, it would have prevented civil unions.  Her Gazette article is here. The AP article is here.