Likely GOP presidential candidate Scott Walker is calling for a constitutional amendment making same-sex marriage bans constitutional, should the Supreme Court strike them down.
For a while, it looked like Scott Walker might be (one of) the first Republican presidential candidates to support same-sex marriage. The Wisconsin governor, who routinely offers ambiguous answers, over the past year has allowed many to infer he might not oppose extending the institution of marriage to same-sex couples. Walker's most-recent example of allowing voters to infer his actual positions and beliefs was his unique comment that he had not attended a same-sex wedding (no response if he would) but he had attended the reception for a same-sex wedding.
One reason some believed in Walker's possible support is that he has a cousin who is gay, and his son was a witness at her wedding. And another was public opinion. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported last October, "polls have shown more support for same-sex marriage," and added that Walker "has repeatedly answered questions about the ban by saying his opinion doesn't matter because a governor can't change the constitution."
Apparently, Gov. Walker can't change the Wisconsin constitution, but he thinks trying to change the U.S. Constitution is fair game.
If the Supreme Court grants same-sex couples the constitutional right to marry and prohibits states from banning that right, the 47-year old union-busting Tea Party Republican governor says he would support a federal constitutional amendment allowing states to ban same-sex couples from marrying.
In response to a Supreme Court ruling supporting same-sex couples, "the only other viable option out there is to support a constitutional amendment, which I would, again, believing, I believe in not just in marriage being defined as one man and one woman, but I also believe in states’ rights. I think that’s an issue that appropriately belongs in the states," Walker told the conservative blog Caffeinated Thoughts on Saturday.
"I'm still holding out hope the United States Supreme Court will say, 'Yes, indeed, states have a right to define what marriage is,'" Walker added.
He noted that as a state lawmaker and as a voter, he voted for a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and he "defended it as governor" in federal courts.
The interview also included questions about abortion and personhood laws, which declare life begins at conception and therefore abortion by definition – and thus, state law – would be murder, and illegal.
Right Wing Watch reports Walker "immediately" dodged the question "by saying that if he were president he wouldn’t 'handle any constitutional amendments.'"
So, to be clear, a President Walker supports constitutional amendments allowing states to ban same-sex marriage, but a President Walker doesn't "handle any constitutional amendments" when it comes to a woman's right to choose.
Once again proving Scott Walker is the king of ambiguous and conflicting answers.