In a move which could settle the marriage debate in the United States, the Supreme Court is to decide whether or not redefining marriage for same-sex attracted people is a constitutional right.

The court will begin hearing oral argument in April with a decision expected mid-year. This is big news.

It could set America up for another divisive Roe v Wade-type decision when abortion was legalised by unelected judges in 1973.

Alternately, the Supreme Court might rule that it is up to individual states to decide.

Around 36 US states and the District of Columbia have redefined marriage. Courts have overwhelmingly done this, not elected people.

Already, prosecutions of those exercising their right of conscience not to participate in same-sex weddings have begun.

A cake maker in Colorado, a wedding photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington state and wedding chapel pastors in Idaho are among those being dragged through the legal system because they believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

For a far-reaching policy decision impacting on the rights of children, free speech and freedom of conscience, it is disconcerting that democracy barely rates a look in in the US when it comes to the marriage debate.

Thankfully Australia’s High Court has made it clear it does not want to be the decision maker. In late 2013, it said same-sex marriage was an issue for the Commonwealth Parliament to decide.

Strong support in Canberra for man-woman marriage has kept marriage in-tact.

Nonetheless, those seeking to change marriage are working hard to whittle away its support in the federal parliament.

As I’ve said many times, if we continue to speak up and make the case for marriage and the rights of children to their biological mother and father, there is no reason why we can’t see it preserved for future generations in Australia.