You are completely wrong here. The Constitution most definitely does
not mean what a majority of the Supreme Court judges says it means. The Constitution means exactly what the clear text of the document reads.
While extreme deference should be given to the opinion of the Court when interpreting the Constitution, there is no obligation on the part of the Executive to enforce clearly unconstitutional orders of the Court. In fact, since the President swears an oath to obey and defend the Constitution (not the Court) he or she has an obligation to see that clear unconstitutional orders of the Court are not enforced.
It is my personal belief that Bush should invoke this power in the matter of Lawrence. This would swiftly put an end to the gay marriage anarchy sweeping the country.
How is it clearly unconstitutional if the court finds equal protection or substantive due process or fundamental rights include the right to gay marriage? There is nothing to stop the US Supreme Court from following in the footsteps of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Constitutional jurisprudence clearly rejects any rational limitations, such as strict construction, intent of the framers or even societal consensus.