Across the nation, the question of whether marriage should be re-defined has grabbed the headlines and the attention of citizens and public officials alike. Whether we like it or not, every American is going to face this issue time and time again in the months and perhaps years to come.

In Massachusetts, the Supreme Court actually ordered the state legislature to re-define marriage to include same-sex marriage. In San Francisco, the mayor directed the city's courthouse to issue same-sex marriage licenses even though such marriages violate California law. The debate will likely shape the national landscape through this fall's presidential election, but Kentucky has its own role in the debate, and that role may be more important than anyone might think.

Though Kentucky's legislature passed a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1998 in anticipation of such a debate, legislators recognize that a state's constitution is its ultimate authority. Any state that has a clear traditional definition of marriage - that of one man and one woman - in its constitution cannot have its culture, customs or laws hijacked by rogue judges who wish to rule in favor of their own biases as was done in Massachusetts. Any state without clear definition in its constitution is vulnerable, even one with a DOMA.

This legal reality, as well as the current national debate, has precipitated the introduction of two proposed amendments to the Kentucky constitution in this General Assembly session. One is in the House of Representatives, introduced by Democrat J.R. Gray, and the other is in the Senate, sponsored by Republican Vernie McGaha. Both amendments aspire to do the same thing: protect traditional marriage from any kind of re-definition.

Proponents of an amendment point to the radical gay agenda as the primary initiator of the movement to re-define marriage, but they also are aware that the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas may energize those who desire to legalize polygamy.

Opponents generally attempt to make the issue one of civil rights, saying that gays and lesbians are discriminated against when heterosexual marriage is the only legal model for marriage.

In this presidential election year, Kentucky's handling of the amendments may actually be a bell weather for the nation - remember, it was the first state listed in the "Bush column" in the 2000 election and it voted twice for Bill Clinton. If Kentucky moves quickly, passing an amendment, there will likely be a domino effect, energizing other state legislatures to move forward. If that happens, the intensity can only rise in the election campaigns.

If Kentucky fails to act, observers believe the local wranglings, whether on the state level, as in Massachusetts, or on the municipal level, as in San Francisco, will likely continue, leading to an erosion of laws favoring traditional marriage across the nation.

During the Civil War, Kentucky was known as a "border state," unable to decide to be a "slave" or a "free" state. In this brief moment of history, our Commonwealth has the opportunity to lead the nation in the plumb line of American culture - the health and welfare of marriage and family.

Key Family Foundation Contacts: Kent Ostrander , Executive Director Martin Cothran , Senior Associate Policy Analyst