THE ANTI-BILL OF RIGHTS

It occurs to me that the short list of proposed constitutional amendments has just doubled -- add a “marriage is between a man and a woman” amendment to the perennial “don’t desecrate the flag” -- and that the attempt to institute them could create an interesting political dynamic over the next few years.

Passing two constitutional amendments will be tough. The most recent -- the 27th, which blocks pay raises for congress until after an election -- took place in 1992, and hardly counts: It’s about as controversial as passing a constitutional amendment stipulating that congress should be composed of living people. The one before that, the right of 18-year-olds to vote, was the most recent serious change to American culture made through an amendment to the Constitution, and it took place in 1971.

Both proposed amendments seem popular. People will support the one on marriage passionately and without reserve; people will support the flag amendment, many of them, out of cowardice. But neither will lack supporters. And the spirit of the two is close enough that backers may want to combine them, some sort of cohesive last stand against the flag-burning, gay-loving hippies that threaten to turn our country over to the U.S.S.R. ... or whatever. Like an anti-Bill of Rights, one that takes away rights instead of grants them.

I don’t think it will work, for just that reason: It’s too obvious what it is. Like a bill in congress with too many riders, it becomes weighed down, difficult to navigate. It draws too much attention. And this particular grouped amendment would be too divisive.

Yet if the backers try each amendment separately, my gut tells me they will get only one through before the opposition closes ranks. The obvious one to attempt, because it represents the more urgent threat to the backers, is the one blocking gay marriage, and that’s the one that’ll be more difficult to get through.

The oddest thing of all is that it seems as though the sillier things get, the more serious they get.