Today's Political Comment

Scott Walker has said that if the Supreme Court makes Gay Marriage the law of the land, he'll champion a constitutional amendment to undo that decision. But of course he won't. There won't be a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, either. In this country, when you promise to ram through a constitutional amendment, you've lost but you're trying to impress your followers as an "I never give up" guy.

I would guess that if you tallied up all the vows to change things via a constitutional amendment, you'd find that less than 1% of the folks making those vows even took the first steps towards making that amendment happen. Why not? Well, for one thing because they know they're never going to get two-thirds of Congress behind it, let alone get 38 states to ratify.

Quick: When did this country pass its last constitutional amendment and how long was it from the time it was sent to the states for ratification and the time it was finally passed?

Bzzzz! Time's up! The correct answer is that the 27th amendment was sent to states to ratify on September 25, 1789 and finally ratified 202 years and 7 months later in 1992. And that wasn't even that controversial an issue. It was to say that when Congress votes itself a pay raise, that raise doesn't take effect until after the next election.

We don't change this country through constitutional amendments. On the very rare occasions when we pass one, it's for a matter where everyone is pretty much on the same page. This is never going to happen with Gay Marriage or Citizens United. The only thing that totally undoes a Supreme Court decision is another Supreme Court decision.

In the absence of one of them — and they're pretty absent or long in coming — we pass workaround laws, chipping away at the decision via loopholes and dogged legislation. Ever since Roe v. Wade, we've been hearing vows of constitutional amendments to overturn that decision and ban abortion. There, of course, has not been one nor have advocates for that cause come within fifty miles of getting one sent out for ratification. Instead, they've nibbled away at legal abortion by passing laws that close clinics or hamper the process. They can't make abortion illegal but they somehow seem able to make it very, very difficult for some women to get one.

That's why I don't think anyone should waste their time trying to ban assault weapons. They should be passing laws that say that to obtain one, you have to go to another state, be lectured that you'll be taking another human life and then undergo serious anal probing before you get your rifle. (No, wait. Some people might enjoy that…)

I have no idea how the Supreme Court is going to rule. People who get paid to cover that court do not have a great track record of predicting swing votes lately. They can usually nail how five or six of the justices will vote but they're not good at the last few nor do they always foresee the details. If I had to guess — and I'm glad I don't have to — I'd say the high court will make Gay Marriage legal but that the wording of the decision will leave all sorts of openings for laws that can chip away at the practice.

It'll be legal but there may be wiggle room for clergymen to not perform the ceremonies or for cake makers to not make the cakes, etc. Some federal or state legislator will then try for a law that says, yes, Gay Marriage is legal but in order to marry, any couple must demonstrate that they possess one penis and one vagina, preferably not on the same person…or something like that. Lawyers will go without sleep for days trying to come up with "It's legal but…" contrivances.

But that's just a guess. What I am sure about it is that there won't be a constitutional amendment either way. Or if there is, it will take 202 years and 7 months to make it a reality. By that time, no one will care about Gay Marriage. They'll be arguing whether it's legal for differing alien life forms to wed. And whichever side loses will vow to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn that decision.