Today Mark Earley and I will be at the White House, meeting with President Bush and leaders of the pro-family movement. The president will then speak to the nation in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment. Thank God we have a president who supports this. I have discussed it with him several times, and I can tell you that he understands fully the social, cultural, and legal reasons why amending the Constitution is the only way to protect marriage.

Unfortunately, a lot of politicians don’t get it. They argue that we do not need a marriage amendment. If we want to keep marriage between one man and one woman—which they say they do—then all we have to do is pass state referenda. Nineteen states have already done so. So amending the U.S. Constitution is unnecessary.

Well, these politicians apparently do not understand the inexorable logic of a series of cases that make it virtually certain that when state statutes barring gay “marriage” reach the Supreme Court, they will be struck down. Other politicians understand all too well, and when they claim that we do not need a marriage amendment, they are being disingenuous.

Let me explain the precedents that make it inevitable that the Court will uphold gay “marriage.” In the 1992 case Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Justice Kennedy affirmed the right of abortion with a sweeping definition of liberty as the right of a person to determine for himself the meaning of life.

Many feared this definition could embrace anything. Soon enough, it did.

In 1995 the Court struck down a democratically enacted state referendum in Colorado denying special civil rights based on sexual orientation. Kennedy wrote the opinion, Romer v. Evans, saying the vote of the people demonstrated “animus,” that is, bigotry, against homosexuals.

Then in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law banning sodomy. Again Justice Kennedy, who could have used a very simple Fourteenth Amendment guarantee argument, resorted instead to his holding in Casey and in Romer v. Evans. By legislating against homosexual behavior, the state was guilty of bigotry or prejudice.

Justice Scalia delivered a blistering dissent. “Today’s opinion,” he said, “dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted the distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions . . . ” He went on to charge that the case meant the end to the possibility of all legislation concerning morality.

Now, what all of this means is that the Supreme Court, following its own precedents, will declare any law restricting the right of homosexuals to marry unconstitutional. The die is cast. An appeal is already coming up from a Nebraska case in which a judge threw out a statute banning gay “marriage” as unconstitutional. Within two years this will be at the Supreme Court, and the axe will fall.

Just as with Roe v. Wade, the Court will take away the states’ rights to legislate. Continued...