Tomorrow, voters in Hawaii and Alaska decide whether to amend their constitutions to prevent "same-sex marriage"from being legalized by court decree. These crucial votes will either reaffirm or redefine marriage.

In Hawaii, voters are being asked: "Shall the Constitution of the State of Hawaii be amended to specify that the legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples?" If the amendment passes, it will correct two court decisions that struck down Hawaii’s existing marriage law as a form of "sex discrimination." If it fails, the Hawaii Supreme Court, which for 18 months has been sitting on an appeal, may legalize same-sex marriage within months.

The outcome of the Hawaii vote could determine the meaning of marriage on the mainland, too. If the amendment fails and the Supreme Court upholds the ruling against the existing marriage law, same-sex couples will quickly begin flying to Hawaii to marry, then return to their home states and sue for recognition of their marital status.

So far 30 states, anticipating this possibility, have passed laws stating that only a man and a woman may marry; Congress passed a similar statute, the Defense of Marriage Act. But if same-sex marriage is legalized, all these laws will be challenged in court as violations of the U.S. constitution’s guarantees of due process, equal protection and "full faith and credit."

In Hawaii, it took eight years to reach this juncture after a same-sex couple filed demanding the right to marry; in Alaska, it took eight months. Last February, a judge in Anchorage held that the privacy clause of the Alaska Constitution gives each individual a fundamental right to choose a "life partner." The state Legislature swiftly proposed a constitutional amendment. After a preliminary court challenge, it reads: "To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman."

The Alaska amendment is almost certain to pass. In Hawaii, on the other hand, proponents of same-sex marriage are waging a vigorous effort. The Washington-based Human Rights Campaign, a gay-and-lesbian advocacy group, has spent more than $1 million on advertisements claiming that the traditional view of marriage is no more than bigotry. One ad depicts Japanese-American internees from World War II with the incongruous message: "Don’t let it happen again." Still, a Honolulu Advertiser poll last week found 56% support the amendment, vs. Only 32% opposed. Blank ballots, however, count as "no" votes, giving an advantage to supporters of same-sex marriage.

The campaign for same-sex marriage will continue even if both amendments pass Tuesday. Keep your eye on Vermont, where the state Supreme Court this month will hear a case called Baker v. Vermont, brought by the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders on behalf three Vermont couples. Another case, Storrs v. Holcomb, is proceeding in New York state, and will be heard in several weeks. In both these states, it is more difficult to amend the state constitutions than in Alaska or Hawaii-which means citizens would have a harder time overturning a judicial decree redefining marriage.

The campaign for "same-sex marriage" is a transparent attempt to redefine a crucial social institution without the consent of the governed. By sealing off the deliberation process in a hermetic chamber filled only with lawyers and judges, this campaign hopes to impose its view of marriage without ever having to engage the people in face-to-face debate. In Hawaii and Alaska, at least, the people have an opportunity to respond.