A brief word on decision by the New York Supreme's decision that same sex marriage is a matter for the legislature. (Excellent roundup from Glenn Reynolds, who also links Gay Patriot's thoughtful post on the subject.)

I think it is a matter for the legislature, and that's why I also agree with GayPatriot that the decision will help defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment. A central argument advanced in the Amendment's favor is based on the premise that out-of-control activist courts are legislating same sex marriage.

Keeping the matter in the legislature where it belongs tends to shift the issue (and the argument) from "out of control activist courts" to one of states' rights. From the activists' standpoint, getting a change in the marriage laws through the legislature is a lot harder -- and much slower -- than a carefully selected and well-publicized test case aimed at persuading a single court.

Of course, I'm always looking ahead to future elections, and it remains to be seen which party will benefit most from this shift.

(My gut feeling is that defusing the issue might redound more to the benefit of the Democrats, but it's too early to tell.)

UPDATE (07/09/06): It didn't take Hillary Clinton long to step up to the newly defused plate:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton sidestepped the controversy over gay marriage in New York yesterday, reiterating her support for gay civil unions and calling for "full equality for people in committed relationships" after the state's highest court rejected marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Mrs. Clinton's remarks, which made no specific mention of gay marriage, disappointed and even angered some gay rights advocates, who are now recruiting political leaders to push a gay marriage bill through the State Legislature.

The New York Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that lawmakers, not the courts, were the proper authority to consider the issue.

Some advocates said privately that they were particularly annoyed by Mrs. Clinton's use of the phrase "full equality," given that it echoes the phrase "marriage equality," which gay groups use to describe gay marriage.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said Mrs. Clinton's position was at odds with the personal wishes of many gay New Yorkers.

MORE: Chuck Schumer echoes Hillary:

New York's senior senator, Charles E. Schumer, also said yesterday that he supported civil unions and that the Legislature, not the Court of Appeals, should decide any policy on gay marriage.

His view drew criticism from the gay rights advocates along the same lines that Mrs. Clinton faced, but it was less fierce.

This puts the Democrats in the enviable position of having to do absolutely nothing except wait for the Republicans to move further to the "right" by agitating against states rights -- or even against domestic partnerships.

Clayton Cramer is surprised by this ruling in such a liberal state, but I am not.

Might the judicial skids have been greased? Was this a taste of the famed Clintonian triangulation strategy rising like a Phoenix from the ashes of history?

Too soon to tell.