Now that President Obama has announced that, having been for gay marriage (in 1996) before he was against it (in 2004 and 2008), he’s now for it again (in 2012), the Wall Street Journal editorial board comes perilously close to suggesting that Mitt Romney should change his position on the issue.  In the wake of Obama’s announcement — which itself came in the wake of voters in the swing-state of North Carolina having overwhelmingly issued the opposite verdict on the wisdom of redefining the core institution of society — the Journal’s editorial board advises Mitt Romney to take the position that he’s in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and thinks the issue should be settled by the states.  If left at that, this would entail a retrenchment for Romney, whose position has been that he supports effectively constitutionalizing DOMA and thereby preventing some states’ redefinition of marriage from forcing the hands of all the other states. 

The Journal’s advice might be fine in a vacuum, but it appears to overlook the leading role that the courts have played on this issue.  This was a non-issue — something not even being considered, let alone supported, by all but a small minority of Americans — before a few rogue judges “found” the right to gay marriage hidden somewhere in the recesses of their state constitutions.  The Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed into law after the House and Senate both passed it with more than 80 percent majorities, was an attempt to protect states from such lawless actions by other states’ judges.  DOMA defines the use of the word “marriage” in all federal laws or regulations as referring to a union between a husband and wife, and it attempts to shield states from having to comply with other states’ — or their judges’ — contrary definitions.