By the Stroke of a Pen
Will the Supremes Legalize Gay 'Marriage'?

March 30, 2005

It was a shocking—yet not unexpected—decision by the Supreme Court. Speaking for the 5-4 majority, Justice Kennedy wrote that laws barring same-sex "marriage" infer "that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected." Thus—by the stroke of a pen—the Court struck down state laws banning gay "marriage."

Okay, it hasn't happened—yet. But if the words sound familiar, it's because they come from Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Romer v. Evans. That's the ruling in which the Court overturned a democratically enacted Colorado law barring special civil rights protections based on sexual orientation. While the Supremes have not yet imposed gay "marriage" on America , they will the minute they get the chance. That's why the Congress must act immediately on a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

The stage is already being set. In a recent California case, Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled that laws barring gay "marriage" impermissibly deny the constitutional right to equality. That case could soon reach the high court. Or challenges to one of the thirty-eight Defense of Marriage Act statutes that have been enacted across America could come before the Court at any time. It is not a question of if; it is a question how soon.

At that point, does anyone think that the Supremes will not declare gay "marriage" a constitutionally protected right on the very grounds that Kennedy has already stated in Romer? Or they might choose to rely on Justice Kennedy's reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy statute on the grounds it denied the rights of "two adults who [engage] in sexual practices common to homosexual lifestyle."

Or the Court could instead invoke the "emerging international consensus" ploy. In the recent Simmons decision, the courts held that executing juveniles—even those who commit premeditated, heinous murders—violates the Constitution. Kennedy, again writing for the majority, referred to a fashionable new basis of constitutional interpretation: that is, determining what more sophisticated judges in Europe—or in Jamaica , India , or Zimbabwe —think. "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty," intoned Kennedy. Proper? What does international opinion have to do with the American Constitution? Justice Kennedy and company appear to be relying on everything except our own Constitution.

That is why I'm becoming increasingly impatient with politicians who say we don't need a constitutional amendment. Let the states do it. But remember, the Supremes did not allow the states to work out their own laws regarding abortion, protection for homosexuals, or the death penalty: They've simply imposed their will.

It's time for Christians to say "enough is enough." The handwriting is on the wall. Our robed masters will impose gay "marriage" on America unless we marshal our forces and pass a constitutional amendment.

A vote is expected in the Congress this summer. If we cannot muster genuine outrage over this issue, then we will deserve the consequences: the almost certain "constitutional" protection of same-sex "marriage"—and the destruction of marriage itself.