Ramesh, I’d argue interpreting what the President said on what proponents call gay marriage last night was, for current political (if not intellectual) purposes, very clear. It was the usual don’t-alienate-any-constituency tap dance. Vagueness — keeping himself viable within the current political system — was the goal, not clarity. Everything he said reran some previous tape loop. It was one of the least newsworthy passages of the interview — like asking about Hillary.

As for waiting to see what formal administration policy is, remember that last year, the White House issued a formal statement on the D.C. appropriations bill which objected to DC desires for needle-exchange programs to avoid AIDS, but said absolutely nothing about the DC wishes for domestic-partnership arrangements. Stay quiet, stay vague.

As for amending the constitution, there’s no reason for “defeatism.” I would say that judging from the rapid succession of DOMA amendments in mid-1990s suggests that this is one amendment –regardless of which way it’s written — that will have a lot of public support in many states. I worry that conservatives in the NY-DC axis forget that the gay-left agenda is dramatically unpopular out there, seen as proof positive of flaky leftist extremism a la Dean.