Wednesday's announcement might even sober up the people who voted for Obama simply to show that America has overcome racial division. Someone should survey pastors who support Obama and ask: Which is more important - electing a man on the basis of race, or upholding the integrity of the faith and what the Scriptures say about marriage? Citing Genesis 2:24, Jesus said in Matthew 19:5: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is actually about much more than marriage. It's about truth. Mr. Obama is asking us to put into law a requirement for us to recognize as a marriage something that is not a marriage.

When you do that, you create the sinews of tyranny, which stretch out to strangle freedom of speech, freedom of association and eventually, freedom of religion. The virtue of tolerance is strangled, too, morphing into the vice of mandatory celebration. With this wicked move, Barack Obama is insisting that we bow down and worship the false idol of sexual anarchy.

That's what his wealthy supporters in Hollywood demand. Last Thursday, they ponyed up a reported $15 million to his campaign at George Clooney's pool party. When you accord more respect to liberal film stars and gay billionaires than you do to the Creator of the universe, you're not leaving much doubt about what you really worship.

No one knows what's in anyone's heart. But we are told by the Scriptures to judge people's actions. Mr. Obama's marriage gambit speaks louder than his contempt for the free market, the Constitution, American exceptionalism or even fossil fuels.

In the Bible, Daniel refused to bow to a false idol and was thrown into a lion's den. Same for Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who braved a fiery furnace. Christians who refused to worship Caesar were tortured, crucified and thrown to starving lions. Remember that the next time you see a "gay pride" or atheist parade sign or T-shirt that says, "So Many Christians, So Few Lions."

Some liberals are now so mean and unhinged that they openly wish their opponents are dead. In Wednesday's Washington Post, the far-left cartoonist Tom Toles shows a man holding a book in front of two men. He says, "If anyone here objects to the marriage of these two men, speak up now because opponents are aging and dying off and soon won't matter anymore..."

In the lower right corner, a man at a desk says, "Is it okay to yell 'hurry up'?" Sure it is. Liberals can pine for the deaths of people with whom they disagree while complaining about a lack of civility and regrettable "partisanship" in Washington. In liberalspeak, "partisanship" is code for any resistance to the progressive agenda.

But the public may not be going along with the liberal charade after all. In Indiana, primary voters on Tuesday rejected six-term, "go along to get along" Republican Sen. Richard Lugar in favor of rock-solid conservative and Tea Party favorite Richard Mourdock. West Virginia Democratic primary voters gave a shocking 41 percent to a Texas convict instead of their party's incumbent president.

In one county, the con got 60 percent. The Post naturally buried this front-page story inside. In North Carolina, voters approved, by 61 to 39 percent, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Tar Heel voters ignored many media polls indicating that half of all Americans are now so morally bankrupt they can't discern any meaningful difference between Ted and Sue and Ted and Fred. Does anyone honestly - regardless of what they say - believe that a wedding without a bride is a real wedding? Nowhere in the world, throughout history, have people been that nuts.

But we don't have to institutionalize insanity despite the Left's insistence that it's inevitable. As North Carolina illustrates, it's dawning on people that they can love and respect homosexual friends, relatives and neighbors without buying into liberal lies about sex and morality. Meanwhile, presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney practically chokes on his lunch when asked about this straightforward moral question.

Yes, he "personally" considers marriage to be the union of a man and a woman, but conveys no moral passion. So what if homosexual "marriage" became legal first in Massachusetts when he was governor? So what if he issued same-sex "marriage" licenses without legal authority to do so since the marriage statute was unchanged?

Not to worry. Since the media keep most people ignorant about how that went down, he can blame the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and its wacky ruling. He'd be at least half right, and on the right side. Go for it, Mitt. Obama has left you a lot of room on this one.

By offering tepid support for real marriage, Romney wins the argument by default. Establishment Republicans, mindful of the tiny Log Cabin Republicans and GoProud crowd who could not possibly swing an election but are rich and well connected, apparently are content to let Obama self destruct.

At least they aren't spitting in the face of the Creator like Obama is. But they are throwing away an opportunity to appeal to millions of Catholics, blacks and Hispanics who voted for Obama last time around and who would rally to someone else who defends their values without embarrassment.

Robert Knight is Senior Fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for The Washington Times.