The year 2013 has the makings of a landmark year for gay rights. State by state, nation by nation, marriage equality has moved forward in locales as varied as Rhode Island, New Zealand, and France, which now lives up to its motto of liberty, equality, and fraternity and is the largest country to legalize same-sex marriage. Even Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron has taken a principled stand against the majority of his own Conservative Party in pushing for equality legislation that is set to be approved in the next few months. In the United States, nearly every Democratic senator and two Republican senators have endorsed marriage equality. However, all this momentum could be lost in one fell swoop depending upon the Supreme Court’s coming decision on the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry.

This case, which concerns the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in the state, has provoked fevered speculation on par with last year’s similarly high-stakes healthcare reform decision. Then, as now, it is fruitless to try to predict how the Court will rule. In particular, any seasoned observer of the Court knows that the questions the justices ask during oral arguments do not always correspond to their ultimate vote. However, the options for their judgment seem relatively clear. The Court could rule that states cannot deny same-sex couples marriage rights because doing so violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It could rule that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to the case, thus allowing each state to decide its own marriage laws. The scenario viewed as most likely by the media, however, would be for the Court to rule that the defendants of Proposition 8 have no standing, which would mean that California’s ban would be overturned, but the Court would not state whether there is a federal right to marriage equality.

To take the easy way out and dismiss Hollingsworth v. Perry in such a way would be an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. This kind of case cries out for a strong application of the 14th Amendment in favor of nationwide minority rights. Even with popular opinion gradually shifting toward support of marriage equality, minority groups like the LGBT community should never have to rely upon the majority to ensure their constitutional rights. Surely, if the Supreme Court believes that the Equal Protection Clause applies to corporations, as they ruled in the infamous Citizens United decision in 2010, then that same clause should apply to gay couples. If the Court decides not to rule in favor of marriage equality, though, it would not be the first time that it has turned its back on gay rights. In Bowers v. Hardwick, from 1987, the Court declined to strike down the anti-sodomy laws then on the books in many states. Sixteen years later, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Court was forced to completely reverse itself, finally making homosexuality legal in the United States—only three years into the 21st century.

Clearly, the Supreme Court would be committing a grave error if it avoided ruling in favor of marriage equality. Not only would it once again damage its historical reputation, but it would deny gay couples the rights they, and all Americans, deserve, for many years to come. We can’t wait for every last holdout state to finally come to its senses and remove discrimination from its legal code. The Supreme Court must act now and use its power to bring the United States into line with what is increasingly the norm in the democratic world.