The premise is that the Court's initial ruling on marriage equality was wrong because the WSJ cannot seem to find reference to gay marriage in that state's constitution. By this logic, all court rulings interpreting constitutional rights are probably unacceptable to the WSJ as they would require what it disparagingly refers to as "reading between the lines." Furthermore, when the courts do their duty and interpret the constitution in ways that a majority of the populace may find offensive (e.g. ending racial segregation in public schools), WSJ suggests that a blowhard like Romney and his rag tag band of gay haters should by use of some kind of popular petition process, force the legislature to proceed with a procedural vote on an anti-gay constitutional amendment. Is that really the only way to understand the legislature's duty as an elected body? Cannot the legislature, using its own expertise and discretion make decisions as to when and how to approach such senstive issues, particularly where the rights of the minority would be vanquished by the so-called majority? This legislature refused to move forward with the constitutional amendment process on gay marriage, and the WSJ, like the garrulous Romney, feels cheated. Gay marriage is not as the WSJ dismissively characterizes it, "social policy." It is the civil rights issue of our time, regardless of how many editorial boards, governors, legislatures, courts and community leaders stand against it today. Lesbian and gay citizens of this country have spent a generation out of the closet demanding to be treated equally, and will spend the coming decades whittling away at the prejudice that declares their love and their relationships to be unequal to heterosexual couples. The WSJ should be ashamed to peddle this tripe to its readers on this morning. Gay and lesbian subscribers to this influential newspaper cannot help but dismayed that the Editorial Board chose to deliver this year end slap in the face.