The Supreme Court is slated to rule on the subject of same-sex "marriage" this term. Here are four questions I want to ask same-sex marriage supporters:

1) If the Supreme Court says that it is okay for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman, then how can they stop there?

Once they open Pandora's Box, how can they say that polygamy is unconstitutional? [...] If the Supreme Court rules to "redefine" marriage beyond one man-one woman, then how can they say a man can't marry his sister, or a mother her son, or a man and his dog, or two men and one woman? How can they legally draw a line? Proponents of same-sex marriage howl at such questions, but three men just "married" in Thailand the other day.

2) How do you prevent legalizing same-sex marriage from erasing religious liberty?

[...]

Could you imagine the uproar if the government tried to force an African-American printer to use his artistic skills and shop to produce fliers for a KKK rally, despite his objections because of his conscience?

Legalizing same-sex marriage effectively makes those who hold to traditional values second class citizens, especially when the forces of "tolerance" insist on hauling anyone who disagrees into court.

[...]

3) How do you deal with the fact that homosexuality is not immutable?

For the record, there are thousands of Americans alive today who are former homosexuals and former lesbians - freed from their sin by Jesus. [...] And there are many ex-gays who have changed through psychological means, unrelated to religion.

Being homosexual is not an immutable trait. Indeed, even those who argue for the alphabet soup of genders we are now expected to recognize often tell us that sexuality is "fluid." When you involve marriage, you are involving the law - marriage codifies a relationship into law. But what if someone is gay one day and not the next? Sexual anarchy leads to legal anarchy.

4) Why are the voters of this country so marginalized?

In a recent interview I did with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, he notes that even though same-sex marriage is now legal in some 37 states, only in three of those states was it voted in by the people. In two of them, it was voted by the legislatures, the people's representatives. With the rest of the states, it only became legal by judicial fiat. [...] Should we change the Constitution from "We the people" to "We the judges"?

[...]

In short, I oppose same-sex "marriage" because I am in favor of freedom - freedom guaranteed in the Constitution.