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.