Sorry, to repeat:
The article I linked to in the OP did suggest that the whole business is something of a gamble. Would it be possible/beneficial for the Democrats to somehow delay the vote on the Amendment in order to be able to paint the Administration as discriminatory meanies who want to make an amendment which will inevitably be repealed eventually?
You’re not getting it. It doesn’t matter if half the Republicans vote against it. What matters is that Democrats vote against it. The Administration wants this to fail so they can blame its failure on Democratic Congressmen, a lot of whom are facing reelection in November. Yes, it will fail because Republican Congressmen voted against it, too, but the idea will be that the vote will occur too late for new candidates to enter the race (most state primaries will be completed by the end of next month, effectively locking in the general election slates). The Religious Right isn’t going to vote for the Democratic candidate instead of the Republican candidate because the Republican opposed this amendment (or so the GOP strategists think). Thus, no Republican will lose his seat to a Democrat because the Republican voted against the Amendment, but it’s thoroughly possible that a Democrat will lose his seat to a Republican for doing so. That’s what the GOP is shooting for here, a few more seats in Congress. At the expense of gay rights and gay dignity.
This is a win-win situation for the Republican Party, or at least that’s what they think. Really it comes down to how ‘straight-supremacist’ voters are, and I’m of the cynical belief that American voters are, by and large, straight supremacists, in at least most parts of the country, and the parts where they’re not they’re predominantly Democratic anyway.
If the amendment passes and goes for ratification, the Democrats will have a powerful issue to rally about (“The Republicans want to enshrine discrimination into the Constitution, deny states the right to make their own laws, etc. etc. etc.”) which could very well hurt the Republican Party very badly. I think the Republicans are counting on this failing.
For the Democrats, the ideal thing to happen to is for it to get bottled up in committee and end up falling off the table when Congress adjourns in January. A “quiet death” limits the political fallout to the membership of the committees that killed it, and generally the people on the Judiciary Committee (which is where this thing has been calendared in both Houses, IIRC) tend to be Congressmen with very strong constituencies that are not very likely to be swayed on an issue like this. Expect a lot of pressure on the Republican members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to pass the bill on for a floor vote. I imagine the Democrats will vote en masse to block it, which means one Republican vote on the committee to block it will stall the bill. If it does get to the floor, expect a lot of “poison pill” amendments to be tacked on, especially in the Senate, and almost certainly a filibuster.
With all due respect, I’m getting it quite fine. 
Your conspiracy theory has too many holes in it to be viable. There is not broad support for this amendment among the US population. Who are these people you are thinking of who will not vote for a Dem because the Dem voted against this amendment? Those people don’t exist. The moderate fence sitters among voters are much more likely to be against this amendment than for it.
And if the Republicans are in a conspiracy on this, they’re doing a lousy job. Too many prominent Republicans in Congress are speaking out against it. Even David Dreier (R-CA, rabidly pro-Bush) does not support this amendment.
Soft Democrat voters in Midwestern cities. Senator Evan Bayh (Indiana) could be at risk, for example.
or Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (South Dakota) (whom Bush has (allegedly) worked to unseat)
Once again I am confounded by the arguments above that Bush shouldn’t support the amendment because this is a “state issue”. If MA fails to amend its constitution (and it’s looking more and more like that will be the reality, since the State Legislature is pretty deadlocked on the issue), then this is a national issue forever. Why does this “rights of states” thing keep coming up? That debate is over already.
Since we’ve likely passed the point of no return, I think it makes Bush’s strategy more shrewd than some above give it credit. I imagine Bush is shoring up the right (who might otherwise be distracted by his distinct lack of fiscal conservatism, plus the Iraq issue). He also is trying to appeal to some of the right-leaning centrists, who have two things to consider here: Do we really want to change the definition of marriage, and, if so, must this be done from the judicial bench without my having any say in it?
If the amendment can be re-worked to allow civil union legislation in states without forcing recognition by other states or the Federal Govt., I don’t think so many will be turned off by it, and I don’t think they would necessarily regard themselves as hateful homophobes.
Bush likely recognizes the slim chance any amendment, better-written or not, has of passing. But he’s already said he supports states’ rights to grant civil union legislation. He probably would come out behind a better draft for an amendment. In regards of personal preferences, Bush then appears to be no different than Kerry, and Bush’s only distinction, then, is that he wishes to act, while Kerry effectively commits to nothing. I think Bush may have a winning position here if he plays it the right way, and really presses Kerry on what he means by not supporting gay marriage, yet not supporting an amendment. If Kerry’s only answer is he’ll just let the issue go, he might be seen as disingenuous and ineffectual.
Don’t underestimate the cleverness of Bush’s handlers. He’s got some smart and shrewd people behind him.
I would just like to point out that even among evangelical Christians there seems to be disagreement over amending the Constitution. The people interviewed were overwhelmingly supportive of Bush in general, and all agreed that marriage is between a man and a women, period. Nevertheless, many were leery of amending the constitution over the issue. Actually, this makes me feel better about Americans in general. That there is still a substantial percentage of the population that understands that, in order for democracy to work, we must at times “agree to disagree” and to “live and let live”.
The above link goes to the New York Times and requires a (free) registration to read.