  The dark ages urlLink Bush says that he supports the "notion that marriage is between a man and a woman. " He would like the lawyers to take a look at the recent US Supreme Court ruling that struck down State "anti-sodomy" laws, before he will decide if a constitutional ammendment is necessary to prevent homosexual unions. The Supreme Court has essentially said to the States "it is unconstitutional for you to legislate what occurs between two consenting adults in the privacy of the home". For the States to punish offences like "sodomy", the States are essentially legislating morality. One has to consider 'What is the greater public impact of two adults engaging in consentual anal sex'. Is the public adversely affected by two men or two women having sex? What could the argument be? "If two men engage in sex with each other, they are not engaging in reproductive sex, and therefore not furthering the population"?
"Two men who engage in sex are more likely to rob a bank when they're finished"? We don't live in the dark ages any longer, so the argument can't simply be "We don't want men having sex with men because it's wrong and God doesn't like it"? The most confusing thing about this debate is that one side's argument is missing. On the contrary, one could argue that when a majority elects representation, they then allow that representation to both govern, and apply morals to the whole.
So regardless of the arguments for and against, one could say that the American people have already chosen how they wish to be governed (both temporally and morally) because they chose Bush, and also a Republican congress. The American system is set up to allow for previous administrations to continue to apply morals, and direct the course of the country's laws. Chief Justice Renquist, and Justice Scalia were appointed by the Regan administration. Clarance Thomas, by the first Bush administration, and Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by the Clinton administration. The effects of previous administrations are felt for decades after their departure from the platform. There is a lot of talk now about who the second Bush administration will urlLink choose to replace "soon-to-be-retiring" justices O'Connor and Renquist. Now the final catch, is while the Supreme Court decisions can change the laws in a country they can be later reviewed and possibly overturned (most recently has been the possibility of revisiting the Roe v. Wade decision which allowed abortions to be performed).
What are the implications if the Bush administration actually decides to interpret the morals of the Constitution of the United States. If Congress, the Senate and the President are all of one mind then they might change the constitution to "clarify" the definition of marraige. There'll be lots more to watch for. 
