I don’t know of anyone who’s even suggested applying the OT law to US citizens. You seem to suggest that Bush is doing so with regards to the issue of homosexuality, but he isn’t. He might be taking the principle of homosexual acts being sin from the OT, but he’s certainly not advocating homosexuals be put to death. So to claim we should be following the rest of the OT law explicitly is a false correlation. If Bush were advocating a death sentence for homosexuals then the above questions might have some merit. But he isn’t even talking about making homosexual acts illegal- only defining the question of what marriage is and what it isn’t. Even at that, I’ve not heard Bush say that the amendment is supposed to defend the bible’s stance on homosexuality. What I HAVE heard is that it should defend the people of the US’s view of marriage (which may or may not be derived from the bible and the OT).

I should mention as an afterthought that the reason no one advocates the US following the OT law is because it was given to a specific people (the Israelites) for a specific purpose (to reveal God to the world through His chosen people). Though underlying principles can be derived from the law, it was not intended as a blueprint for all societies.

Once again, let me say that I am not in favor of the amendment; I’m just trying to point out the fallacy in the above argument.