Supporters of Donald Trump might expect to advance their notions of the Constitution since he is in a position to nominate a judge whose views or judicial proclivities align with theirs. They might also expect that to happen without a strong challenge from their political opponents.
However most news sources will not address the absurdity of such a plan. The Constitution in its entire text does not address issues such as marriage or abortion. There are only the opinions of judges through the years that even mention the words.
One ideal much lauded across the political spectrum is that the opinion of any judge should not matter above what is already written in the Constitution. It is the legislative branch, not the judicial, that writes laws. The Supreme Court merely clarifies how to resolve disputes over the exact meaning of those laws as applied to confusing developments.
It should be obvious though that attempting to ensure compliance with the Constitutional meaning of marriage will be problematic where the Constitution has no definition. Similarly judges have no basis for deciding the definition of the beginning of a human life without one in the Constitution.
Seeing that these are contentious issues in modern society it appears necessary to amend the constitution to address several issues including marriage and abortion and discard the sham of "interpreting" what is clearly not there.
Several states did amend their own state constitutions to define marriage differently than same sex marriage. Yet they did not succeed at the federal level. One problem was that several other state laws, especially "no fault" divorce laws, had over the many years changed the meaning of marriage. That was long before same sex marriage made it obvious the traditional definition of marriage was lost. When divorce became too easy and frequent, when the government had to take charge of more and more family matters, when that became commonplace, it no longer mattered whether people were "married" or not. It will be difficult for a judge to proclaim that is any different from what same sex couples might have, even as much as anyone anywhere might not be taking proper responsibility for each other or any children.
It will most likely be necessary to change much of that first. It will most likely be necessary to change the dominant attitude that marriage is an implementation of government oversight. Marriage at one time was a promise to never require government oversight. That is probably why it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.
Of course Trump supporters might believe that it would be easier to do just as others before them have and proceed without clear definitions already existing. Their efforts however will be somewhat complicated by the problem of precedent, that is prior rulings of judges and courts. That is, the other people who got there first. It is not very unusual. The Supreme Court can of course reverse itself and has many times overruled its previous decisions. The severe problem with these issues though is exactly how to do that where so little about marriage, abortion and other disputed items can be found in the Constitution or anywhere else. Suppose judges write opinions that same sex marriage is significantly different from heterosexual marriage? On what will they base that? Will it be based on the 1950s when divorced people were socially stigmatized? How is it different given the laws existing today when divorce is not stigmatized? Do they intend to sweep away a vast body of various state laws like no fault divorce laws? Exactly which ones? How will the "religious" supporters of Donald Trump do that when their own pastors had several marriages and require government oversight of their duties to them?
The Democratic Party in the United States has always been a check on the power of the people with established power more than a source of new ideas for government. It is still true even after the party began using government as a means to check the power of government, irony of classic proportions as that is. Many of them will admit they are not the most religious people in the world, but not that they are less religious than many Republicans. There are facts that can bear that out. They might get fresh ideas better than Trump's. One plan that has potential is first persuading people they need to change, then change the law rather than changing the law with no decent explanation.
If you are interested in more "real" news like this, the two articles before this in Politics are recommended, Election Neither Science Nor Theology from November of 2016 and Foremost Dispute from May of 2018. The article in the Religion section Fear of God should also prove worthwhile. Some of the basic points are repeated, but that happens in all news. It happens here because the underlying problems are not sufficiently publicly addressed.
Amending the Constitution of the United States has never been simple or easy. It is supposed to be a check on the tyranny of the flighty majority, but it requires quite a large majority and cooperation itself to amend. Making that easier is the number of issues that the Constitution has never addressed and the problems that result from not addressing them in an authoritative manner. There ought to be a convention that addresses all those issues.
The courts do not have to define when life begins "scientifically," even scientists have difficulties with that. That might not happen. The courts can however make it difficult to destroy something whether it is a "human" yet or not, or never scheduled at all. There can be severe penalties for destroying a building even if there were no people in it. The penalty can be much worse even if there was just a possibility people were in the building.
The ideas of constitutional limits or restrictions on the national debt have never been very popular in the past because the credit of the Unites States was more secure than lately. No one wanted to make it difficult to buy enough bombs should they even seem to become necessary. What has changed is how far out of control the debt has become. It is now necessary to decide whether having enough money to buy enough bombs is more important than having any money at all because the meaning of it has been ruined by neglecting debts. A reason often giving for Trump's "success" is the "economy" is doing so well, but that fails to recognize that simply because someone has a new boat that they have paid for it. Even if Trump could significantly reduce the deficit (expenditures in excess of revenues for a given year) there is a still the ridiculous debt (total accumulated) to address. Time will tell whether that item is included in amendments.
Not only are Trump supporters' views on economics highly questionable, so are their views on most issues. A trick used by "professional" reporters is to refer to his support as "evangelicals." It isn't the name of a denomination. Using the name of a denomination would probably result in numerous complaints. Trump supporters' views on religion and the meaning of marriage are also very questionable. They could overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover if only they understood the science of the issue, and if they even knew it is an issue. This science isn't very difficult. While they continue to assume that their "victories" will carry the day where no other majority could, a majority is indeed developing that recognizes the obvious daily ineptitude of both parties so far even when those parties try to make any sense. A majority is indeed developing that recognizes the need for very dramatic changes in the hearts and minds of the people, not just their laws. When their hearts and minds are changed, their laws will be too. Just wearing a party pin in your lapel probably won't solve anything, whichever party you like.