President Bush supports a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. I am troubled by any constitutional amendment that is not about democratic governance. But the activists have forced the issue. What is the alternative to nationalized gay marriage imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts?

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act? Nonsense. It pretends to allow the states to reject marriage licenses issued in other states. But there is not a chance in hell that the Supreme Court will uphold it.

Predictably, Massachusetts Democrats are on the attack. John Kerry charges the president with seeking "a wedge issue to divide the American people...."

Wedge? Marriage has been around for, oh, 5,000 years. In every society, in every place, in every time it has been defined as an opposite-sex union. Then four robed eminences in Boston decree otherwise. With the stroke of a pen, they radically redefine the most ancient of all social institutions. And then those not quite prepared to accept this undebated, unlegislated, unvoted, unnegotiated revolution are the ones accused of creating a political wedge!

Proponents of traditional values are making a tactical error in allowing the homosexual lobby to frame the issue of same-sex marriage merely as one of equal rights for gays. Much more is at stake.

Let me raise a few questions. Do you believe that marriage is properly an institution between a man and a woman? Do you believe marriage, so defined, is an indispensable building block of our society? If you answered yes to these questions, do you believe that there is something wrong with you for wanting to preserve an institution that you believe is essential for society? Are you a homophobe? Are you full of hate?

The marriage application was altered, as it had to be, to fit the radically transformed institution the mayor of San Francisco tried to create. "I have given one too many wedding gifts to people in my life, and for a minute I thought it was time for payback," one of these same-sex couples told The New York Times. "But what I really want is the 1049 federal rights that come with marriage."

To make this unisex dream come true, the marriage application was the first thing that had to go. The spaces for "bride" and "groom" were eliminated, replaced by "first applicant" and "second applicant."

Do you, the first applicant, take the second applicant to be a lawfully wedded applicant for 1049 federal benefits for the rest of your life?

The miracle of "The Passion" -- and I submit that Mel Gibson may have brought off such an occasion -- is its picture of triumph. Not of defeat and exhaustion, not of blood flowing over paving stones and a mother rent by pain almost equal to her son's. The triumph is what counts here.

We know it is all in the story: in the Scriptures, that is. Haven't we read the tale often enough? What we haven't done until now is...live it.

By design or default, the use of such terms for parties outside U.S. borders carries connotations into American living rooms; linking Iranian hard-liners to the ideological lineage of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan; placing Iranian reformers in the peerage of Lyndon Baines Johnson and Sen. Ted Kennedy.

The distortion is doubly wrong.

The absolute power of the Iranian ayatollahs is an anathema to all conservatives, fearing as we do the power of big government to take the small liberties away.

The Bible doesn't begin with the New Testament. It is an integrated document from Genesis through Revelation. Virtually every page of the Old Testament points to the New. Old Testament prophecies inform the New Testament, and the New Testament validates the Old.

In fact, it was primarily the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament that finally opened this skeptic's eyes to the truth of Christianity. I was deeply moved when first exposed to the intricate details about Christ's life and death foretold in the Old Testament. For me, the Old Testament is a roadmap to the cross.

Every woman knows that the quickest way to attract a man is to have him notice her. So it makes sense to assume that the more of her body she shows, the more men will be attracted to her. The problem with this approach is that unless all she wants is sex that night, provocative outfits are not usually in her best interest. Why not?

So, as a service to any woman who is confused by the difference between "cute" and provocative as regards women's clothing, this may help. What you often call cute or attractive, men see only as a sexual come-on. If you wish to dress for sex, you should be entirely free to do so. But if you want love and attention, you have to know the difference between dressing for sex and dressing to be cute and attractive. The more skin men see, the more they think sex, not love.

The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group with diverse opinions. They're for tax cuts and against them. They're for NAFTA and against NAFTA. They're for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. They're in favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it.

And that's just one senator from Massachusetts.

There are several reasons why we will not win this battle until we change our wicked ways. First, our side fails to realize that same-sex couples are attempting to hijack nothing more than a sinking ship. Secondly, Christians lack the unity to defeat those who would redefine marriage. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the religious leaders of America are failing to take any action that could possibly stave off an inevitable defeat. Finally, our lack of faith in the Creator of marriage and marriage itself couldn't be any more obvious. Unless there is a fundamental turnaround in our faith as a nation, we cannot expect or deserve to achieve victory in the preservation of marriage.

I heard from God just the other night. God always seems to call at night.

"Andrew, you have the eyes and ears of a lot of people. I wish you'd tell your viewers that both Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson strike me as wackos. I believe that's one of your current words. They're crazy as bedbugs, another earthly expression. I created bedbugs. I'll tell you, they're no crazier than people," said God...."Anyway, as I was saying, Mel is a real nut case. What in the world was I thinking when I created him? Listen, we all make mistakes."

Two twentysomething women were conversing in front of me at Reagan National Airport. Their language would have shocked my grandmother, who once admonished me for speaking words in her presence she deemed inappropriate. "Nice young men don't talk like that," she said. The offending words were "toilet paper." Nice young men? Who, or what, defines "nice" today?

Everywhere one looks, one sees a rejection of what previous generations called social norms, decency, virtue, values, propriety, modesty, integrity and standards that no longer exist outside of some individuals and families who have embraced them.

Various groups, "alliances," "majorities" and "coalitions" have tried to prevent or retard what they see as social decay through the political system. It should be obvious after repeated failures that this tactic does not and cannot work. That's because -- like those ancient Israelites -- too many prefer to worship things and are slaves to feelings, thus dulling their senses to the wisdom of the ages.

This possibility has not received much consideration. Instead, the debate has been dominated by those who argue that the fence is inconveniencing Palestinians who live along its route -- as it surely is -- and whether the International Court of Justice can be manipulated into condemning Israeli self-defense as it has never condemned terrorism. In fact, the court is likely to be so manipulated; the hearings begin Monday, February 23rd in The Hague and the UN's court is expected to act as a kangaroo court.

But what if all that is ignored, the fence is erected -- and it works? The benefits to Israelis are clear. Less obvious is that under such conditions it also would be possible to relieve Palestinian communities of the stress of Israeli military occupation. Tanks and troops could pull back. Curfews could be lifted. Checkpoints could be removed.

It all began on January 14, when the New York Times ran a front-page story, above the fold, headed, "Bush plans $1.5 Billion Drive for Promotion of Marriage." The authors were Robert Pear and David D. Kirkpatrick, the latter newly assigned to a year-long beat covering that exotic species, conservatives. The two were apparently on unfamiliar ground. Relying on unnamed "administration officials," their first sentence announced "an extensive election-year initiative to promote marriage," possibly to be touted in the president's impending State of the Union. The initiative, the story continued, had been in the works "for months," cooked up by the administration and "conservative groups." The third sentence made the link with "pressure from conservatives eager to see the federal government defend traditional marriage" in the wake of the gay-rights court decision in Massachusetts.

This was a remarkably misleading series of assertions. There was, in fact, no new Bush administration initiative; the old marriage initiative (announced in February 2002, passed by the House in May 2003, costing $300,000 a year, about a third of it to evaluate program effectiveness) was not mentioned in the State of the Union; and the backers of marriage education are, if anything, predominantly liberals concerned about the welfare of children and struggling mothers and fathers, with no common views on religion or homosexuality. To be sure, the body of the story included some accurate reporting, but the political misframing of the issue was picked up by journalists across the country.

I don't believe conservatives have yet devised a winning defense. Certainly not if we begin with a preemptive surrender on "civil unions." To offer civil unions as the compromise position is, in effect, to concede that the debate really is about civil rights rather than an aggressive campaign to transform the culture by replacing the traditional family as the cornerstone of social order with an amorphous category of sexual liaisons. Eliminate the normative family in the U.S., and who benefits? The Scandinavian situation offers a pretty good clue. Junk the family and its functions will necessarily be transferred to the state: to state day-care centers, welfare bureaucracies, and government agencies. But as long as we continue to debate gay marriage on the grounds preferred by the Left -- as a civil-rights issue -- the larger assault on the traditional family anchored on the sexual, emotional, and practical complementarity of one man and one woman will remain invisible.

In a Jihad, where the terrorists unite under the rallying cry of defeating the Infidels in the name of Islam, the most likely -- if not the only -- people to betray America in order to help the enemy are going to be Muslim.

That group of Muslims willing to commit horrific acts is certainly tiny, but a tiny number of Benedict Arnolds is all al Qaeda needs to wreak enormous havoc.

And as anyone who knows folks who have converted to any religion can attest, the converts often become, for lack of a better expression, hard-core. "Hard-core" indeed sounds harsh, as most passionate converts are devout in the best sense. Yet from the likes of John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla, converts can become among the most radical.

The myriad ways in which men treated women as women -- such as opening doors for them -- all declared that women were feminine, i.e., different from masculine. That is why many feminists opposed men opening doors for women -- it reinforced notions of femininity, a value that feminism has sought to extinguish.

So, femininity is largely a dead concept. Ask most young women -- or men -- what it means, and you will get either a blank stare or a hostile reaction.

Thus, many women are now saying: "I am a woman. And I will declare it in one of the only ways left to me -- I will show you my female body."

I have always seen the decision not to terminate my pregnancy as the one courageous moment of my life. I acted with self-abandon for the benefit of the innocent. But lately, I've begun to think it curious that I should have seen not killing my own child as heroic. I could spin a sad tale to make myself look better, but the fact is I failed in my duty to my family, my community, and my Savior. Accepting the consequences of that failure was not heroism. Only in a culture where sex is divorced from meaning and where self-interest trumps everything could such a narrative be produced. Courage would have been to decline that offer of illicit comfort in the first place....

I was angry at the perceived injustice of others "getting away with" their sin while mine was costly and public. The anger subsided and I began to feel sorry for her as I recalled my exquisite experience of the grace of God: A laughing child in exchange for sin. How incomparable! Those who pile sin on top of sin acquire instead the leanness of soul described in Psalm 106:13-15: "They soon forgot his works; they did not wait for his counsel, but lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tested God in the desert. And he gave them their request, but sent leanness into their soul." Think of David during his long-delayed repentance. I've heard it said that he never regained his moral authority because of his shame, thereby sowing destruction into his kingdom. I wonder how many Christians, because of shame over some act of duplicitous cover-up, are unable to speak with voices of moral certitude. And what is it costing our nation?

Part of the appeal of al Qaeda -- what it uses to recruit people and funds -- is its mystique. Superhuman feats, brilliant execution, masterful planning. That aura feeds its ideology of historical inevitability, that ultimately it will prevail over Western decadence, because the seeming high-tech West lacks the diabolical and methodical will that Islamism brings to the war.

Could that be it? For the sake of its own mythology, is al Qaeda biding its time until it can pull off the next spectacular?

I don't know....But I have no doubt that reorganizing homeland security, redirecting law enforcement (from locking up bad guys to preventing worse guys from attacking) and increasing vigilance at the borders have had a significant deterrent effect.

Add to that a forward strategy of attacking not only the terrorists, but the states that support them. Maybe al Qaeda does lack the capacity for even simple terrorism on U.S. soil. If so, it speaks well for an administration that immediately after Sept. 11 designed and carried out a radically new strategy, both offensive and defensive, to fight the war on terror.

But no one dares say it. It could prove catastrophically wrong tomorrow.

The Massachusetts constitutional convention -- contentious and fascinating as it is -- is a side show. But what’s happening in Massachusetts does give a sense of just how tumultuous things are going to get when similar battles begin to spread to the states. Given the degree of conflict, the pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to create a uniform solution (i.e. to nationalize gay marriage) is going to be immense. As I see it, within a few years, we are going to have a national solution, one way or the other. Either the U.S. Supreme Court is going to nationalize gay marriage, or we are going to pass some sort of Federal Marriage Amendment. In other words, the same race going on right now in Massachusetts (between the courts and the amendment process) is going to be replicated on a national scale.

Massachusetts lawmakers defeated a third version of a constitutional ban on gay marriage (search) Thursday, but appeared poised to take up new proposal that would legalize civil unions while simultaneously stripping gay couples of their court-granted right to marriage.

The amendment voted down 103-94 would have defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Unlike two versions defeated Wednesday, it neither required nor prohibited civil unions.

The charge that Bush senior greased the skids for W to join the Texas Air Guard is based on an unsupported inference based on a misreading of the facts. A lot of people who may have desired to serve in the Air Guard did not wish to fulfill the active-duty requirement of two years -- for flight school and initial assignment. For the Army Guard, the active-duty period was six months (including basic training, Officer Candidate School and basic-officer training), with the remaining five and a half years served as a drilling reservist.

Had Bush volunteered for active duty in the Air Force, he might have been able to fly right away, but maybe not. By 1969, the pilot pipeline was filling up, leading to waiting lists for flight school. As to why Lt. Bush was granted an early release, by 1972, U.S. participation in the war was winding down. Both the active and reserve components were letting folks leave early. By the way, Lt. Kerry left early too.

We could probably learn a thing or two from Amelia Limpert, age 100, who was married for 82 years. Her husband died the other day at 102. They broke off their engagement three times. But one day in 1921 they jumped into George's Model T Ford and eloped. They got no help from the government - it never occurred to anyone then that the government had any business with Cupid -- but society at large imposed expectations that seem quaint today.

Liberals have dismissed the president's concern for what he calls the "sanctity of marriage" as a cynical sop to the religious right, and they may be right that marriage counseling is not a legitimate function of government. But you don't have to be right, left, Republican, Democrat, born again, agnostic or atheist to recognize that the president is right that "a strong America must also value the institution of marriage."

I found it fascinating that the same folks who defended Bill Clinton's obvious draft-dodging tactics now condemn George Bush for serving without going to Vietnam. The fact that Bush received an honorable discharge and had more than the required 50 credits needed to earn it is dwarfed by the cacophony of charges that say the exact opposite.

John Kerry was among Bill Clinton's staunchest defenders of draft dodging. Kerry himself was so opposed to the war that, upon his return from Vietnam, he earned the nickname "Hanoi John."

The Massachusetts Legislature narrowly rejected a compromise proposal Wednesday that sought to legalize civil unions but ban same-sex marriages, delivering a setback to lawmakers who wanted to avoid taking the divisive issue head-on.

The defeat of the compromise means that lawmakers will return to the Statehouse on Thursday to consider either an outright ban on gay marriage or letting the state's constitution remain intact.

It's a fascinating issue because it illustrates the way post-Christian America has lost its moral bearings. Right is wrong. Left is right. Up is down. Good is evil. That's what happens when a society no longer finds itself accountable to any authority higher than public opinion or the ruling of some judge.

It hasn't quite dawned on many Americans just how big this issue could be. Gay marriage is an awkward and polarizing subject. Neither the public, politicians, nor the media are eager to take it up. Yet there's a dynamic built into this issue that makes it likely to have an explosive impact on the coming campaign.

What will happen after May 17, when Massachusetts begins to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Hundreds, even thousands, of gay couples will pour into Massachusetts, get married, return to their states, and begin to agitate for recognition of their marriages. This huge media event will play out continuously for two months before the Democratic National Convention -- in Boston -- on July 26. All this will cement the connection in the public mind between gay marriage, Massachusetts liberals, John Kerry, activist judges, and the Democratic party.

President Bush has repeatedly asserted that Congress had access to the same intelligence information he did. As far as I know, neither Kerry nor Edwards have denied that. So, perhaps they should tell us why on earth they and other Democrats voted for that dastardly resolution authorizing war against Iraq.

We need to know specifically how they analyzed this intelligence data. Did they think it was much ado about nothing? If so, then they really have some explaining to do, in light of their subsequent statements, as to why they so casually authorized a war. They are much more vulnerable here than President Bush, yet no one is making them answer. Let's get them on "Meet the Press" to explain their reversal.

American's Flight 34 was headed from Los Angeles to New York's John F. Kennedy Airport on Friday when the pilot asked Christians on board to raise their hands, Wagner said.

The pilot, whose name was not released, told the airline that he then suggested the other passengers use the flight time to talk to the Christians about their faith, Wagner said.

Imagine we had known in summer 2001 that al Qaeda was planning a strike on American soil that would claim the lives of thousands of innocents. Imagine that our pleas for cooperation to the Taliban, the government harboring Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network, were rebuffed.

Without certain knowledge, but knowing nonetheless that a massive attack was likely -- and that the likely date was in September -- would the president have been justified in launching a strike at the Taliban to prevent a possible al Qaeda attack?

If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

But the Bible can be a problematic source. Though countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product of human authors who were writing in particular times and places with particular points to make and visions to advance. And the roots of Christian anti-Semitism lie in overly literal readings -- which are, in fact, misreadings -- of many New Testament texts.

Apparently, the idea of a movie that accurately portrays the death and resurrection of Christ and that "has the power to evangelize" is more than certain members of the liberal media establishment can stomach.

In my estimation, the liberal backlash against "The Passion of the Christ" is incredibly significant. Shaky charges of "anti-Semitism" are really just a smokescreen. I believe the real problem the liberal establishment has with this movie is that it has the audacity to portray Christ as He really was -- not only as a historical figure, but as the Savior of mankind.

The threat of WMDs may have been the centerpiece of the administration's arguments to go to war, but for most of us, there were plenty of other -- and far more important reasons -- for prompt action now.

Let us for the nth time recite them: Saddam had broken the 1991 armistice agreements and after September 11 it was no longer tolerable to allow Middle East dictators to continue as rogue states and virtual belligerents. Two-thirds of Iraqi airspace were de facto controlled by the United States -- ultimately an unsustainable commitment requiring over a decade of daily vigilance, billions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of sorties to prevent further genocide. He had defied U.N. resolutions; and he had expelled inspectors, demanding either enforcement or appeasement and subsequent humiliation of the international community.

Gay marriage is becoming an explosive national controversy not because of conservative emotionalism, because a small band of activists have bypassed the electoral process and tried to force an immense social change through the courts -- all in order to avoid the open public discussion they otherwise say they want.

It is true, however, that whether traditionalists win this battle will depend very largely on whether they can keep their temper. This debate will be won by whichever side does the better job of convincing the public that it stands up for the deepest values of American life - and conservatives should remember at all times, as if they didn't know, that any incidents of extremism or harshness or vilification will instantly be publicized nationwide. And they should remember, again as if they didn't know, that the other side will not be held to the same standard.

The leader who strives for peace when others beat war drums is a hero, if good results can be gained peacefully. The leader who sees the need for war when others scream appeasement is also a hero, if peace means surrender. Discernment is all.

In Braveheart, when evil men slit the throat of William Wallace's wife, it's clearly time to fight. In The Lord of the Rings, when orcs attack Gondor and Rohan, it's clearly time to fight. So when federal courts overreach, do we also then go to war? Or do such decisions provide strategic openings?

John Edwards has a whole shtick about how the country is divided into "two Americas": There's an America for people of "privilege," and then there's an America for "the rest of us." Meanwhile the editorialists -- liberal as well as many conservatives -- wring their hands about the terrible fissures in American life dividing Americans. Former Clinton pollster Stanley Greenberg, in his new book The Two Americas, also says America is divided into, uh, two Americas. He writes: "Our nation's political landscape is now divided more deeply and more evenly than perhaps ever before."

Phooey. Well, half p