To help you figure things out, there is a Scoop Admin Guide which can hopefully answer most of your questions.
Some tips:
Most of the layout is changed in "Blocks", found in the admin tools menu
Features can be turned on and off, and configured, in "Site Controls" in the admin tools menu
Stories have an "edit" link right beside the "Full Story" link on an index page, and right beside the "Post a Comment" link on the full story page. They can also be edited by clicking the story title in the "Story List" admin tool
Boxes are what allow you to write new features for Scoop; they require a knowledge of the perl programming language to work with effectively, although you can often make small changes without knowing much perl. If you would like a feature added but cannot program it yourself, ScoopHost does custom Scoop programming as one of its services.
If you aren't sure where to look for a particular feature or piece of display, try the "Search Admin Tools" link in the admin tools menu.
To say that the gay marriage debate has heated up in Michigan, especially in Republican political circles, is perhaps an understatement. All that RNC Committeeman Dave Agema did was repost a medical journal article (written by Frank Joseph, M.D.) to his FaceBook page, and the next thing you know, all manner of media-funneled venom is targeted at the man. The national party, which has not one, but two sections in their 2012 National Platform speaking about defending traditional marriage, has gone on record as keeping their distance on this one (even though it's been shown, on this website, that the "filthy homosexuals" headline was intended as a sensationalistic distortion of the facts), and the state party is leaving Dave to defend himself on his own. Why they're doing so is a matter for discussion another day.
It occurs to me, though, that a key reason for the discoherent response from social conservatives in this debate is because we are allowing the pro-homosexual advocates (even within our own party) to define the terms of the debate. In doing so, we're allowing them to preemptively neuter every argument we're advancing, because we're allowing their premises to stand unchallenged. I think that, if we're going to have a reasoned philosophical discussion of this matter, then a constitutional premise is a more useful way to handle this.
