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."