A day can't go by when the same sex marriage question is not portrayed as a mainstream issue. With the Supreme Court set to rule on the question, one must ask; who is pushing this agenda and what is at stake?

According to five studies compiled by Gary Gates of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA, the United States has approximately four million homosexual adults representing about 1.7 percent of the population. Other studies show the U.S. Census Bureau finding that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households while The Family Research Report says homosexuals make up about 2.5% of the population, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates approximately 6% of the population is homosexual.

Even if we take into account underreporting and bias, the high end average of homosexuals in the U.S. would be approximately 3% of the population. It is also reasonable to assume that same-sex couples are the ones championing the cause to change the definition of marriage since the issue most affects them. Furthermore, since not all homosexuals believe in same sex marriage, homosexuals that actually wish to redefine marriage diminish the already small numbers even further.

The most recent U.S. Census data reveal that in the last 15 years only one in five or 150,000 same-sex couples have taken advantage of legal recognition. This is less than six tenths of one percent of the population. And since two-thirds of legally recognized same-sex couples in the United States are female, the number of committed men seeking marriage is about two tenths of one percent of the population.

From a nominal standpoint, do these facts reach a level of statistical significance to even grant the same sex marriage debate legitimate consideration in a nation that understands the historic nature of institutions that hold civilized societies together? Sadly however, it does not take a lot of people to make a ton of noise and create the illusion of a mass movement.

The numbers tell us homosexual marriage is a false argument hiding behind a politically-correct bandwagon because Americans have been told it is the tolerant and progressive thing to believe. After all, who wants to have to answer to charges of homophobia, the default position thrown at anyone who dare challenge the agenda?

Those who believe in overturning traditional marriage have run a well-marketed campaign of victimhood and oppression tied to identity politics; where politicians are all too happy to champion sub-groups of the population to garner votes.

Charles C. Cooke's research in Europe, where same sex marriage has been official for many years, confirms what we see in the U.S.

In Norway, which legalized civil unions in 1993, 190,000 heterosexual couples have filed for marriage to only 1300 same-sex couples. While in Sweden, between 1995 and 2002, 280,000 heterosexual marriages were registered compared to 1,526 legal partnerships; a ratio of 183:1. Less than 1% of marriages in Sweden or Norway are to same-sex couples.

In the Netherlands, gay marriage is actually declining in popularity. 2,500 gay couples married in 2001 -- the year it was legalized -- since then it has declined more than 50%. In 2009 more than 98% of marriages in the Netherlands were to opposite-sex couples.

The homosexual agenda once took a covert route to incrementally gain approval with small victories that flew under the radar of common sense. Today, the movement has bought into its own myth and now brazenly injects itself into every corner of the culture to create the appearance of normalcy. Even so, 31 states do not grant any form of legal recognition to same sex couples, and 44 out of the 50 states do not allow for same-sex marriage. The Federal government has never had a law sanctioning same sex marriage.

Some say the fight for same sex marriage has been a generational struggle. Yet a scant 15 years ago, Hawaii became the first state in the union to allow "reciprocal-beneficiary registration for same-sex couples." Was there some moment of enlightenment that befell humanity to discover that same-sex marriage was a right that had been ignored for centuries? Or is it possible the thousands of years of marriage and family institution stability settled any serious inquiry?

Even within the same-sex community the cry for marriage is not as strong as it is in the traditional marriage community. Heterosexual couples are up to eight times more interested in registering their relationships than homosexual couples.

And if the need for same-sex marriages is all about "love," then the divorce rate among heterosexual couples should pale in comparison to devoted same-sex couples. Again Cooke's research in Norway and Sweden shows male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved in Norway.

Same-sex marriage is not a religious question. There are numerous forms of worship that can reflect on partnerships, sexual orientation and behaviors. People can choose a place of worship as a matter of their personal faith and adhere to diverse religious tenets as long as laws are not violated. Religious creeds celebrate weddings however, and they do not have the power to set laws that impact every individual. All institutions have the responsibility of promoting family and raising children, but only the government holds the responsibility to sanction marriage by licensing laws.

Majority rights with minority protections must be respected. But this canon does not mean that minority demands must not be questioned. To apply same-sex marriage to the 14th Amendment passed on behalf of freed slaves who were previously considered property and not citizens is intellectual malpractice. Every American has the same "equal protections" in civil/criminal law, contract and property rights.

As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage rights. No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive behaviors so as to conceive a child and start a family.

Marriage contracts are not about feelings, orientation, emotions or desires of adults. Government sponsorship of marriage sanctions biological fact with a legal commitment between a man and a woman to form a family, procreate and raise children. This institutional contract offers the best-case scenario for the development of children by promoting the family institution and ensuring the survival of civilized human existence. There may be other less optimal situations where kids are raised, but the government must defend the biological family unit in its legal determination of marriage.

For some in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, the same-sex marriage argument is a cover for advancing a demand for universal legal acceptance of their particular lifestyle; using the court of public opinion to sway the courts of justice. In short, a tiny fraction of the population are attempting to have a personal, social, gender, or sexual framework legitimized by the entire population in civil law at the expense of self-acceptance, natural law, and institutional stability.

At the end of the day, or any century, attempting to redefine something as basic to biology as gravity is to physics is dangerous and destructive. It's time to annul the same-sex marriage debate.