The question before the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow in Obergefell v. Hodges, dealing with the highly-anticipated same-sex “marriage” challenges, is very simple: Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex “marriage” in every state in the nation? No one can answer that question in the affirmative with a straight face. The question is not, “Is it permissible?” but “Is it required?”

Anyone can read the Constitution and see it does not deal with the issue of same-sex “marriage” in the least and, therefore, the Court should leave it to the states to establish their marriage policy.

Supporters of same-sex “marriage,” including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argue that the country is “ready” to embrace same-sex “marriage,” but that has nothing to do with the Constitution. How can you go from saying the country is ready to saying the Constitution requires it?

If the country is ready, let same-sex supporters continue to convince their fellow Americans of their position and pass laws to establish it. And if they want a uniform policy, they can even try a federal same-sex “marriage” amendment. It should be easy for them. They are always saying how the debate is over and they have won already, so let them establish same-sex “marriage” within the framework established by the Constitution.

Justice Ginsburg could be the spokesperson for their campaign, if she would like.

What neither Justice Ginsburg nor any other Justice should be able to do is to re-write the Constitution to require what they believe the country is ready to accept. They should not be able to read into the Constitution a fictional right to same-sex “marriage” that forces every state in the union to promote same-sex “marriages.”

All the evidence to the contrary, if the Justices still insist on imposing same-sex “marriage” on the nation by judicial fiat, they should also consider the ramifications of such a reckless decision. They will be effectively opening the door to the criminalization of Christianity. At the very least, they will be kicking the door wide open to the persecution of Christians (and other religious groups) who believe marriage to be an institution created by God, which they cannot re-define of their own accord.  Christians simply have no choice in the matter.

Therefore, if the Supreme Court magically produces a requirement on the states to support a policy in direct conflict with people of faith, the question is how much pressure is the state going to put on those people to comply with the Constitutional requirement it must now uphold.

We are already seeing the targeting of Christian public servants, including former Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran, who was fired for his faith and his beliefs regarding God’s model for marriage and sexuality. Christian ministries, such as Catholic Charities, were forced out of providing much-needed services for children because of the government’s pressure for them to violate their deeply-held religious beliefs. We have seen the merciless harassing of a 70-year-old baker for declining to participate in a same-sex “wedding.” One Christian wedding service provider faces a $135,000 fine; others have had to close shop. According to the same-sex lobby, the Christian wedding photographer profession cannot exist if the person does not want to participate in same-sex “weddings.”

They don’t want any traditional marriage supporters to be in business. They don’t want to allow them to work in government or to contract with government. And they don’t want other companies doing business with anyone who wants to defend the right to religious freedom.

We have already seen pressure on ministers and churches to succumb to the cultural same-sex “marriage” mandate. Christian chaplains in the military have to fight their way through their careers in an effort to serve their country without violating their consciences.

In many of these cases, no real conflict existed (no hardship to any same-sex couple) but simply a desire from same-sex “marriage” supporters to bring about “test” cases to challenge laws or the insatiable desire of a reckless, sympathetic media to create a story. The recent case of Memories Pizza in Indiana, where the owners were set up by an unscrupulous reporter, is just the latest example.

What does the Supreme Court expect to happen when and if it irresponsibly and recklessly invents a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage”? The justices should ponder the question carefully, because much of what’s to come for Christians in America will be on their hands.

Mario Diaz is legal counsel at Concerned Women for America.