A prominent opponent of same-sex marriage said Sunday the Supreme Court’s recent action enabled “evil bidding” by lower courts.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, equated the high court’s decision last week with the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion decades ago. And he argued same-sex marriage would remain a potent political issue, just as abortion has.


“The effect of this is the court did a back-alley type Roe v. Wade judicial decision by letting the lower courts do their evil bidding,” Perkins said on “Fox News Sunday.” “The court has lit the fuse to a powder keg culturally that is going to have ramifications for years to come in this nation.”

But Theodore Olson, the prominent attorney who argued against Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage, said the courts were doing the right thing, protecting inalienable rights for same-sex couples from unconstitutional bans on marriage.

He argued that lower courts have consistently ruled against such bans, calling it an “overwhelming trend in the same direction.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to revisit a handful of court rulings that deemed same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional in several states. The surprise move effectively legalized same-sex marriage in several states with such bans on the books.

Olson, who served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush, argued that, while some state legislatures and popular referenda had established such bans, the preference of a state’s majority does not overrule rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

“We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights precisely because we want protection from majority rule,” he said. “We have an independent judiciary to protect those rights.”

Perkins argued that there is “nothing in nature” to suggest that same-sex marriage is normal, and he contended his individual rights were being infringed by making it legal.

“My children all of a sudden in school are taught values and morals that contradict what I tech at home,” he said.

But Olson said allowing two people to enter into a loving union does nothing to trample on the rights of heterosexual couples that enjoy the same ability.

“There’s no heterosexual couple that is going to decide to get a divorce or not get married or not raise children just because another couple next to them is treated equally and with respect,” he said.