Most of the presidential candidates and hopefuls have figured out by now that they need to have an answer to the question:  ‘What will you do if the U.S. Supreme Court comes down with a ruling in which it discovers a constitutional right to same-sex marriage?’

The very worst scenario coming from the Court would be a decision that, not only strikes down state laws that define marriage as it’s always been, but also fails to contain protections for the religious liberty of those who oppose same-sex marriage.

The government’s own lawyer admitted in oral arguments that if his client wins, the church, and religious schools and organizations will lose great freedom. And, certainly, the good marriage is to the culture will be significantly diminished. A bad decision will signal that either mothers or fathers are expendable in a family.

The outcome feels completely out of the people’s hands. Can we, at this late date, do anything about it?

First, we can pray that the justices will not take such an arrogant action. The justices have already voted. Opinions are being written. But, in the first ObamaCare case, it’s  believed that Chief Justice Roberts actually changed his vote.

Second, we can speak the truth. We should say what the Constitution demands the justices do. We should not publicly speculate the worst. Everywhere, we should say that the justices must approach this decision with respect for an institution that has served civilization well for millennia, and that they should fear the consequences of changing it. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who appears to be the decider for this, should not be made to think the public expects him to strike down marriage.

The 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling did not settle abortion. It galvanized the pro-life movement and started a 42-years-long cultural battle. Neither should this ruling settle marriage. If the ruling is bad, we must stigmatize it, as we did Roe.

Where the Constitution is silent, the people have the right – and responsibility – to make marriage policy. And that’s what presidential candidates should emphasize.

Candidates have got to be ready to denounce a wrong decision by the Court. They should define the constitutional balance of power which does not concede more power to the Supreme Court than to other branches of government. Congress is looking at laws like the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act. And they’re considering legislation to protect the right of states to define marriage. Plus they could pass a law to clarify that the Court’s jurisdiction is limited. And certainly, any candidate who claims to be Christian and conservative must articulate how he or she would protect religious freedom in the case of a bad ruling.

One candidate said recently she’d disagree with a decision affirming same-sex marriage, but would not work to overturn it. Believing saint, that kind of talk should not satisfy us.

Marriage predates our constitution. Our candidates should affirm that no Supreme Court decision can change that.