[only1percent]

Bush has nothing to do, legally, with a Constitutional amendment. It requires two-thirds of each house of Congress to propose and three-fourths of the states to adopt. (In each state, a simple majority of each house of the legislature is required for approval of that state.)

I suspect that Democrats in Congress won't be willing to vote for a marriage amendment as a prophylactic measure (i.e., to deal with a problem that hasn't yet arisen). If the Massuchessets or New Jersey courts mandate gay marriage (they have cases which give them the chance to do so in the next few months) AND the Supreme Court were to determine that "Full Faith and Credit" mandates other states to recognize those marriages and/or overturns some or all of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, then, and only then, will the issue really be ripe.

If and when that situation occurs, I expect that the Amendment will get through Congress within a few months. The states are another matter. It will chalk up 30-33 states in short order. Getting up to 38 is going to be quite hard. I'd give it a 50/50 chance within the 7 years that would be allowed.

[KantianBurke]

Good argument. However as President, Bush has the "bully pulpit." Why is he refusing to use it? Or if and when your scenario arises is it a legitimate concern that he'll refuse to campaign for such an amendment?