As the Supreme Court of the United States hears the final, "Oyez!" on Wednesday, it will plunge itself squarely into the debate over marriage - that timeless, universal, and special union between one man and one woman.
The Supreme Court should resist demands to prematurely end the national debate over the future of marriage.
The court should not attempt to silence the debate, but should let it go on, respecting the freedom of citizens to affirm the bedrock social institution that diverse cultures and faiths have honored through the history of western civilization.
In short, the Supreme Court ought to allow the public - as a society - to decide the future of marriage.
Why? Because marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.
Marriage is society's least restrictive means to ensure the well-being of children while respecting everyone's freedom to form their own relationships.
Throughout history, diverse cultures and faiths have upheld marriage as the ideal, the fundamental building block for human civilization itself.
Yet some have launched a multibillion-dollar political, cultural and social assault to redefine marriage.
Conscripted into the battle are hundreds of large companies and a president, proving that the resistance is so powerful that it really needs no judicial protection.
In fact, they argue that the tide of history is on their side - a fact that, if true, would make envious those of the civil rights era who saw history amassed against them.
Plainly, same-sex marriage advocates are more than capable of winning political battles for themselves and do not need nine judges to intervene on their behalf.
The court ought offer no quarter to those who would convert marriage from an institution focused on the needs of children to an institution focused on the felt desires of adults. Government is not in the business of regulating love.