For more than two centuries, Americans have been called to defend the founding ideals of our democracy. On Memorial Day, a grateful Nation remembers the proud patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of liberty's blessings.

From the opening battles of the American Revolution through the turmoil of the Civil War, to World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, to the Persian Gulf and today's operations in the war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world, the members of our military have built a tradition of honorable and faithful service. As we observe Memorial Day, we remember the more than one million Americans who have died to preserve our freedom, the more than 140,000 citizens who were prisoners of war, and all those who were declared missing in action. We also honor our veterans for their dedication to America and their sacrifice.

This year, we honor many heroes by observing the 60th anniversary of D-Day on the beaches of Normandy, and by dedicating the National World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. In a radio address on June 6, 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt described these service members as the 'pride of our Nation,' who struggled to preserve our civilization. The fallen from that fateful day and that war will always be remembered. They hold a cherished place in the history of the United States and in the memories of the people they liberated.

Today, all who wear the uniform of the United States are serving at a crucial hour in history, and each has answered a great call to serve our Nation on the front lines of freedom. As we continue to fight terrorism and promote peace and freedom, let us pray for the safety and strength of our troops, for God's blessing on them and their families, and for those who have lost loved ones.

On this Memorial Day, we honor all of our fallen soldiers, their commitment to our country, and their legacy of patriotism and sacrifice. By giving their lives in the cause of freedom, these heroes have protected and inspired all Americans.

There were more than 35,000 pictures of FDR taken. Two show him in a wheelchair. Why? Because the press almost unanimously agreed that -- despite the huge news value -- depicting FDR as a cripple would be bad for the war effort. The few dissenting photographers from that consensus were routinely blocked or deliberately jostled by the senior photographers so as to shield FDR from embarrassment and the public from its "right to know...."

Fox News offers a lesson here. I know the network's detractors think it's a rightwing propaganda factory. And, I certainly agree that much of Fox's programming is conservative (though liberals' sudden concern with ideologically loaded coverage is ironic). But at least one of the things that has made Fox News successful isn't that it's rightwing, it is that it's populist.

This is an important distinction. From the beginning, Fox anchors weren't ashamed to wear American flags on their lapels. They aren't afraid to refer to American troops as "our brave fighting men and women" or some such. They aren't terrified that they will lose their objectivity merit badges if they sound like they hope America wins.

The very prospect of homosexuality disgusts Mary's closed-minded classmates -- "What if you had married him [her boyfriend]?" one asks. "The gayness would be passed on to your children!" -- but after receiving a vision from Jesus, Mary realizes she must do whatever it takes to, um, straighten him out, and ends up pregnant.

As word spreads throughout her judgmental, insular world, she finds out who her true friends are: the outcasts, including Hilary Faye's brother, Roland, who's in a wheelchair; Cassandra, a chain-smoking rebel and the school's only Jewish student; and skateboarder Patrick, who wants to be more than just friends, even though she's with child.

Mary's mother isn't much help, either. When she isn't obsessing over her figure, she's flirting with too-hip Pastor Skip, who gets the American Eagle students psyched up at pep rallies by asking, "Who's down with G.O.D.?" and urging, "Let's get our Christ on!"

The film may stir up controversy and incite the ire of some Christians. But inspiring teens to discuss religion and ethics seems a mission worth having. And real faith is never mocked -- Pastor Skip's son embodies a more centrist and reasonable Christian position. Rather, it exposes the abuse of religion to control others and the hypocrisy among apparent devotees.

Saved's irreverent take on phony reverence is refreshing, particularly during times like these, when the political and cultural climate is steeped in religious moralizing.

Instead of becoming more moral, we are just redefining terms and standards to accommodate our addiction to licentiousness and our shameful repudiation of personal responsibility and accountability. If we don't like to live within certain standards we instinctively know are beneficial, healthy and morally sound, fine, we'll just change the standards....

But speaking of slippery slopes, let's not fall into the slippery slope of non-thinking to the point that we treat social issues as just one cog in the wheel of political conservatism. Our approach to these moral issues -- our worldview -- is foundational to all other issues.

So those who think that the erosion of traditional marriage is just one little setback in the overall societal struggle are sorely underestimating its substantive significance as well as the rationale upon which it has occurred. Gay marriage is a blow to traditional morality no matter how you cut it. But the wholesale abandonment of moral standards leading us to legitimize it is even more troublesome.

The central premise of the federal partial-birth statute is the defense of the border against the encroachment of abortion into infanticide. What matters most to this specific defense is the protection of all children who, while still alive and therefore capable of being protected, break the plane that currently marks the dividing line between non-personhood and personhood, between abortion and infanticide. The label the abortionist uses for his lethal procedure is irrelevant. The reason for using this macabre method of killing is irrelevant. What is crucial is maintenance of the bulwark against infanticide....

The U.S. Supreme Court in Roe held that human children prior to birth are not "persons" for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This ruling is itself unconstitutional, as well as violative of fundamental human rights, because it drives a wedge between biological humanity (which prenatal human offspring undeniably have) and legal personhood (i.e., the right to the equal protection of the law). The repellant notion underlying Roe -- that there are "subhuman" members of the human species -- conflicts directly with the very purposes of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, which undid the great injustice of treating black Americans as slaves and property instead of as human beings entitled at law to full respect.

What strikes me most about the president's speech is the truth he did not speak:
Three years after 9/11, there has been not a single major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Who would have dared to predict such a victory that dark day in September 2001? Terrorists still want to sow death and destruction in America, but they have not succeeded. One measure of our new sense of security: Ralph Nader can seek votes by claiming President Bush 'exaggerated the threat of al-Qaida.'

Why doesn't President Bush try to take more public (and political) credit for three years without a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil? Iraq is now the front line of the war on terror: Some of our soldiers are still dying, but our citizens here at home are not....

Our current sense of relative safety is, in fact, an illusion, a precious, unexpected and ultimately fragile gift, for which many of us thank God, of course, but also President George W. Bush. Enjoy it while we can.

It is almost like a witnessing the incitement of a lynch mob -- except that the ones inciting the mob are the ones who will eventually be the guests of honor at the necktie party. It isn't like al-Qaida's operatives are planning to separate Republicans from Democrats in their next attack.

There are two Americas right now, at a time when America desperately needs to stand united against a common foe. As in Vietnam, America can only be defeated from within. And our enemy knows that. That is what he is counting on. It isn't a new tactic. 'Divide and conquer' has been in the military handbook since the first soldiers picked up their first spears and faced each other across the battlefield.

As the Europeans haggle over the final wording of their first constitution, they are bedeviled by a three-letter word: God.

Mind-numbing arguments over budget rules and weighted voting have been more time consuming, but can be delegated to technocrats. The issue of whether the most ambitious document in European Union history should include a reference to the continent's Christian heritage is different, an emotional, theological wrangle over the meaning of culture, history and faith.

"Embryonic stem-cell studies are controversial because they involve the destruction of human embryos," the New York Times explained in a May 6 article reporting on the shifting politics of stem-cell research. (For example, Nancy Reagan, whose husband has Alzheimer's, has gone public with her opposition to the Bush restrictions.) But that can't be right. Fertility clinics destroy far more human embryos than stem-cell research ever would, yet they are not controversial. Death or deep freeze is the fate of any embryo spared by the Bush policy from the indignity of contributing to medical progress....

It's not complicated. An embryo used in stem-cell research (and fertility treatments) is three to five days past conception. It consists of a few dozen cells that together are too small to be seen without a microscope. It has no consciousness, no self-awareness, no ability to feel love or pain. The smallest insect is far more human in every respect except potential.

Some bishops don't want to use Communion as a threat when dealing with prochoice Catholic politicians. But it is certainly appropriate. Communion is the moment in church life at which we most deeply realize our connectedness, both to Jesus and to all his followers.

Our age idolizes personal autonomy. Both sexuality and Communion, by their very nature, create and foster interdependence. Our culture fights sexual interdependence by promoting abortion-on-demand and the misuse of contraception to help people bypass normal family and reproductive life. Sexual liberalism fosters the philosophy of personal autonomy -- and that is in direct conflict with the interdependence created by both biblical sexuality and participation in Communion.

The religious schizophrenia of some politicians reveals the unintended fruit of hypermodern individualism. In many churches, this same spirit causes members to forget who they are: members, in the antique sense of "body parts."

Advocates of traditional marriage who once relied on dictionary definitions to bolster their case for the preservation of "one man-one woman" marriage might have to cite another authority.

Boston-based Houghton Mifflin, publisher of the American Heritage Dictionary, added a "same sex" clause to its definition of marriage in 2000.

"A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage," the addition -- or "sub sense" -- states.

"But we'll be altering that in the future to reflect the Massachusetts decision," editor Joe Pickett said.

Some young women keep it in their head, others in a drawer of their bedside table. One even preserves it on a spreadsheet in her laptop.

We're talking about "the number," that sum of sex partners that college women either have had or hope to goodness they can avoid reaching. In the highly sexualized atmosphere of campus, a number gives them something to compare and dish about with their close girlfriends.

A bizarre new kids' sex craze is sweeping the city's elementary schools.
Girls as young as 11 are stacking colorful rubber "sex bracelets" up their arms while their parents are unaware that each piece of the cheap jewelry represents a different sex act, according to a secret-code the kids share.

Some symbolize an invitation to kinky get-togethers, several kids told The Post.

These women analyze their numbers as if they were comparison shopping for the right size and color of shoes. They tell each other that sex is separate from love. And few adults tell them any different. Sex education teachers lecture on body parts and disease, and we know that parents would rather throw themselves in front of a truck than talk in depth about sex and romance.

From a Christian perspective, the economic issues are important, but not paramount. Phillip Longman's new book is a prophetic warning about falling birthrates and a population implosion. He makes his case with skill and authority, and his book serves an important purpose in punching holes through the arguments put forward by 'population explosion' theorists.

The Christian conscience should be primarily directed at the consequences of an anti-natalist worldview that sees children as economic liabilities, rather than as gifts to be received with joy. The prejudice against babies and children is evident in America's public life, especially among the elites.

Falling birthrates point to spiritual, as well as economic causes. The population implosion the world seems soon to experience will be due to the confluence of materialism, human ambition, self-interests, and secular ideologies.

On the first day of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, two-thirds of the couples who applied for licenses were female, according to a Boston Globe survey.

No one can say why, exactly. No studies have been done on the phenomenon.

Christmas Leubrie, 54, a nurse at San Francisco General Hospital who wed Alice Heimsoth, 52, a health care worker in the city AIDS office, after 19 years together, speculated that many men who would otherwise have partners have lost their longtime companions to AIDS....

But they and other female couples who have wed recently guess there are other reasons for the women's marriage march. "Everyone wants to be a bride," Heimsoth said with a wide grin.

Or, as Chun put it, "women are socialized to be married."

Jacoby departs from earlier liberal counterattacks against the religious right by faulting liberals nearly as much as conservatives for riding roughshod over our secular heritage. She is incensed that President Bush strode into Washington's National Cathedral after 9/11 and asked God to "always guide our country." When addressing the whole nation, presidents should avoid sectarian pulpits or religious language that inevitably excludes nonbelievers like her. But the Democrats, far from mounting effective resistance to President Bush's official piety, have in Jacoby's view climbed on the holy bandwagon, too. She winces at Al Gore's comment in 2000 that he frequently asks himself, "What would Jesus do?" She fumes at Joe Lieberman's support for faith-based initiatives, accusing him of forgetting his European Jewish ancestors. Jacoby thinks they would have cared more than Lieberman does "about what erosion of the church-state barrier might do to Jews."

Many readers across the political spectrum will applaud Jacoby's call for defending scientific literacy in the face of the Evangelicals' "intelligent design" theory, which rules out "evolution across species." But does reason as such need shoring up against the power of religion, and does the separation of church and state require keeping religion out of politics? Many liberals will contend that secularists such as Jacoby are wrong to ask religious Americans to keep their beliefs "private." Religious commitment does not automatically entail reduced devotion to reason or to pluralism. And even liberals who share Jacoby's sense that religiosity and rationality are fundamentally at odds may balk at her claim that freethinking is the right way to promote the primacy of reason. Jacoby has greatly overstated the influence of free thought in the American past, and hence overestimated the prospects for getting it back as a vibrant social force.

We in the Western press often praise "moderate Islam." But in practice, "moderate Islam" often turns out to be moderate in its actions only. As decent human beings, moderate Muslims will of course refrain from committing acts of oppression, cruelty, and terrorism. But intellectually, moderate Muslims have a difficult time explaining why these acts are "un-Islamic...."

What Westerners are really yearning for is not a "moderate" Islam, but a "liberal" Islam -- one that accepts peace and tolerance on principle, and not just as unfortunate necessities.

Yet such a "liberal" Islam, if it ever came to be, would pose a very serious challenge to the whole elaborate structure of Islamic thought and practice.

Socrates once posed a brain-twister to his disciples. "Is a good action good because it is approved by the gods? Or is it approved by the gods because it is good." In other words -- do the categories of right and wrong have an existence apart from divine will?

Islam's answer to Socrates' puzzle has been emphatic: An action is good because it is approved by Allah. There is no independent criterion of morality outside of the will of God. And since the Koran is an absolutely literal and accurate account of that will -- since indeed in a deep sense the Koran itself actually incarnates that will -- there is no independent criterion of morality outside the text of the Koran.

In other words: If the Koran says or teaches something that seems morally offensive, it is morality that is mistaken, not the Koran.

Weeks before The Post published its photographs, the public was well aware that prisoners at Abu Ghraib were mistreated. So, given the fact that pictures had been published and the legal process against the abusers was already going forward, what did the newspaper hope to achieve by running a new set of graphic, degrading photos of Iraqi prisoners?

Three objectionable possibilities come to mind: 1) to sell newspapers; 2) to damage President Bush politically; or 3) appallingly, to undermine the war effort in Iraq.

Whether the motivation was meretricious, partisan or antiwar, it was meant to excite rather than to elucidate -- and thus was journalistic pornography.

Without a set of beliefs that guide behavior, religion means nothing. These Catholic politicians are essentially asking that the Church debase itself so that they can get re-elected on a platform contradictory to Catholicism. They are asking the Church to discard its right of free speech and to subvert its own values for sake of personal political gain. This makes me wonder: Do these Democrats care about religion at all, or is that just another political weapon in their arsenal? If so, it's about time the Church disarmed them.

I was particularly comforted by the Psalm you had at the heading. I am sick with sorrow for my country that cannot see the devastating effects of killing babies in the womb and abolishing the sanctity of holy matrimony for the immorality of homosexual lifestyles.

Thanks for being one more voice speaking on the side of holiness and hope.

Surely God is good to Israel, To those who are pure in heart! But as for me, my feet came close to stumbling, My steps had almost slipped. For I was envious of the arrogant as I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no pains in their death, and their body is fat. They are not in trouble as other men, nor are they plagued like mankind. Therefore pride is their necklace; the garment of violence covers them. Their eye bulges from fatness; the imaginations of their heart run riot. They mock and wickedly speak of oppression; they speak from on high. They have set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue parades through the earth. Therefore his people return to this place, and waters of abundance are drunk by them. They say, 'How does God know? And is there knowledge with the Most High?'...

Nevertheless I am continually with You; You have taken hold of my right hand. With Your counsel You will guide me, and afterward receive me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but You? And besides You, I desire nothing on earth. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever. For, behold, those who are far from You will perish; You have destroyed all those who are unfaithful to You. But as for me, the nearness of God is my good; I have made the Lord GOD my refuge, that I may tell of all Your works.

On Mother's Day, May 9, the Sunday New York Times ran a long piece -- beginning on the front page and continuing on pages 9 and 10 -- on the background of the Abu Ghraib abuses. It was peppered with the names of military women....In a sign of how we've come to take the gender integration of the armed services for granted, the article did not draw attention to the high rank of the first two women. Nor did it take note of what would once have been thought a rarity: Women soldiers directing or participating in the sadistic treatment of male prisoners....

The restraints that shame once placed on what men and women would do in front of each other were part of the code of the "gentleman" and the "lady." They once had a great deal more to do with the social understanding of womanhood than anything you could buy. Possibly people of Pfc. Lynndie England's age believe that this code was mainly about stereotypes of female frailty and male strength. But it was much more about the remarkable way that men and women can -- or, at one time, could -- encourage kind and decent actions in one another by adhering to a code of conduct. And even in the absence of kindness and decency, traditional ideas of shame would have prevented certain kinds of abuse. At one time, a woman would have told the men of Abu Ghraib that she would have no part in stripping and shaming Iraqi prisoners. At one time a man would not have let a woman see him strip other men. He would at least have done it outside her view. And if women were ever-present in the environment, he wouldn't have committed those particular deeds at all.

Liberals oppose dodge-ball, they tell us, because it isolates and terrorizes the weak. Of course, they have the right to kill children still in the womb who have no way of protecting themselves.

The "its not fair crowd" always yells and screams about dodge-ball because not everybody wins. This is the purpose of games right? Not to push yourself to be more alert, active, hard working and achieve success, but rather it should always be about giving "every kid a trophy"..."Why can't we all be winners?"

The communist left wants to make a big deal about how in dodge-ball one team might hoard all the resources. I mean if a kid is fast enough, he may be able to, once the whistle is blown, sprint to mid-court and knock all the balls back in the direction of his teammates so they have all the "weapons" and the other team has none. I don't know if that's a military strategy or an economic one -- though it sure sounds a lot like Ronald Reagan to me -- and we all know how insulting that is.

"Pro family' groups have given it their best shot, but this debate is over. They would do better to spend their energy and resources building up their side of the cultural divide and demonstrating how their own precepts are supposed to work. Divorce remains a great threat to family stability, and there are far more heterosexuals divorcing and cohabiting than homosexuals wishing to 'marry.' If conservative religious people wish to exert maximum influence on culture, they will redirect their attention to repairing their own cracked foundation. An improved heterosexual family structure will do more for those families and the greater good than attempts to halt the inevitable. A topical solution does not cure a skin disease whose source is far deeper.

The idea that marriage is a contract has undermined more heterosexual marriages than anything, with the possible exception of adultery. The problem with sliding into the contractual view of marriage is that it shifts the focus from a generous sharing of the self to a narrow and stingy view of rights and obligations. A contract is a carefully orchestrated exchange of promises, spelling out specific duties for a specified length of time. The parties calculate in advance. They haggle over the terms of their cooperation to ensure that no one is cheated. When the purposes of the contract have been fulfilled, it ends.

By contrast, the sexual act involves the complete sharing of one's body with another person. I entrust myself to my spouse. He entrusts himself to me. This is not a carefully orchestrated exchange of promises; this is an act of self-giving abandon.

It is said that to win a battle you must be the one to choose the battleground. Since the Abu Ghraib abuses were revealed, the battleground has been chosen by those who would blur the lines between terrorists and those fighting against them. The Bush administration has contributed to the confusion with its ambiguous 'war on terror.' You cannot fight a word. You need targets, you need to know what you are fighting for and against. Most importantly you must have beliefs that enable you to distinguish friend from foe.

While al Qaeda may not have a headquarters to bomb, there is no shortage of visible adversaries. What is required is to name them and to take action against them. We must also drag into the light those leaders and media who fail to condemn acts of terror. It is not only Al Jazeera talking about 'insurgents' in Iraq, it is CNN. Many in Europe and even some in the U.S. are trying to differentiate 'legitimate' terrorism from 'bad' terrorism. Those who intentionally kill innocent civilians are terrorists, as are their sponsors. No political agenda should be allowed to advance through terrorist activity. We need to identify our enemy, not play with words."

The networks on Monday night approached the creation, by four of seven members of the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts, of a right to same-sex marriage, as a civil rights triumph without ever telling viewers about how the new law was imposed by judicial fiat which did not allow time for a legislative process to codify the majority view. All three broadcast networks led with same-sex marriage. ABC's Peter Jennings explicitly equated same-sex marriage rights with the Brown v Board of Education decision against unequal treatment of the races: "Two of our main stories tonight are about the struggle for rights and inclusion -- one of them in the 20th century, the other right now in the 21st."

Anthropologists tell us two of the biggest indicators of a doomed civilization are the practice of infanticide and human sacrifice. In other words, cultures and species that kill their own young do not survive. If history really does repeat itself, then American society may also be doomed to extinction.

Is America sacrificing its soul, and its young, on the altar of convenience? Do we bow down to the corrupt pagan god of moral expediency? Is anything really wrong anymore or only those things that disrupt our lives and our plans for ourselves?

Despite what his critics say, LaHaye considers it a message of comfort and hope, and its roots are as much personal as Biblical -- though that's a distinction LaHaye probably wouldn't make...."One of my driving passions has been to help laypeople understand that the word of God means what it says and says what it means."

End-of-timers, millenarians and fundamentalists envision a bleak and bloody future for humanity. Deeming a global catastrophe inevitable for their rapture and salvation, they work to bring it about. Nowadays they have the ears and hearts of a powerful elite in the world's formidable superpower. The sooner we perceive their menace, the better we can expose and isolate them among a majority of American Christians, who peacefully adhere to their faith. What Bush wisely said of Islam is also true of the faith he professes: Christianity is a religion of peace.

Supporting an amendment to the Constitution to exclude a whole group of people from the rights and benefits of marriage is overreaching on a scale that Bush could regret. He dithered about it for weeks, hoping to avoid taking a definitive position. Polls show that a majority of the country opposes gay marriage, but a majority of voters also opposes amending the Constitution. A parade of influential social conservatives warned the White House that Bush couldn't stay on the sidelines. "It reminds me of his father's reelection campaign, when the senior Bush didn't have a strong hold on the conservative base and had to take positions he was uncomfortable with, culminating in the [1992] Houston convention," recalls an aide to a senior Senate Republican. "If you're a Republican, the fact he had to do it is discouraging."

This is the first time a proposed constitutional amendment seeks to exclude a group of people from the rights and benefits of a societal arrangement called marriage. It puts Bush on the side of intolerance -- a dangerous place to be for a man who doesn't want to repeat the mistakes of his father.

We always come back to that strong horse/weak horse thing. But the point to remember is that Osama bin Laden talked about who was seen as the strong horse: It's a perception issue. America may be, technically, the strong horse but, thanks to its press and its political class, the administration is showing dangerous signs of climbing into the rear end of the weak-horse burlesque suit. If America retreats into its own fatalistic apathy, there will be many more Nick Bergs in the years ahead.

A hit unscripted series in the United Kingdom, "Wife Swap," is making its way to the United States.

The title, which conjures up visions of a 1970s swingers party, is racier than the concept: Two married women switch places with one another for 10 days, living with the other's family and taking on the other woman's household duties. At the end of the 10 days, the families get together to discuss what they experienced.

Our war against Iraq is part of our larger war on terrorism. Some would have us believe that Iraq represented no threat to the United States either through WMD or as a launching-pad for terrorists. They point to the insurgency there now as proof that we stirred up a hornet's nest by invading Iraq.

I think it proves just the opposite: that international and local terrorists consider Iraq indispensable turf in the war on terror. As the deadline for the new government grows near, the level of violence intensifies, which is just further confirmation that the enemy badly wants us -- and the Iraqi people -- to fail.

Two separate discoveries of chemical weapons, possibly among the weapons of mass destruction Saddam hid from inspectors, were reported today in Iraq by U.S. officials.

What will all this mean for Massachusetts, for the nation, and for marriage? The media will show the nation a mass of smiling couples today -- basking in their newly-declared 'right' to marry. Commentators will describe this historic day as a monument on the road to the full liberation of homosexuals, the complete normalization of homosexuality, and the total flexibility of marriage. Where is the harm?, they will ask.

The harm is first to the institution of marriage itself. Today, the State of Massachusetts joins the Netherlands, Belgium, and three provinces of Canada as the only major jurisdictions where homosexual couples can marry. If this decision stands, marriage will never be the same again. Humanity's most venerable and cherished institution has been redefined by a secular elite in the name of liberation -- and it will inevitably be destroyed in the process.

The Massachusetts court ruled that marriage should be seen as a basically secular institution, and thus is open to secular reinterpretation and redefinition. But this logic ignores the fact that church and state have shared a common understanding of marriage at the basic level -- that it is the union of a man and a woman. That stands no more. From this point onward, the believing church must know that its definition of marriage is not shared by the state. This will lead to truly tragic levels of confusion -- and perhaps even to coercion.

Yarbrough, a part-time bartender who plans to wear leather pants, tuxedo shirt, and leather vest during the half-hour ceremony, has gotten hitched to Rogahn, a retired school superintendent, first in a civil commitment in Minnesota, then in Canada, and now in Massachusetts, the first U.S. state to recognize gay marriage.

But he says the concept of forever is "overrated'' and that he, as a bisexual, and Rogahn, who is gay, have chosen to enjoy an open marriage. "I think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner, not in the polygamist sense,'' he said. "In our case, it is, we have, an open marriage.''

The year-and-a-half delay between action in Afghanistan and Iraq mobilized the Arabs and the international left, weakened the connection with September 11, and prompted allies who would have been with us to fall away. The delay was especially unconscionable because it was due not merely to normal difficulties but to the aforementioned military insufficiencies and to indecision masquerading as circumspection. Once the Army and Marines were rolling, their supply lines were left deliberately unprotected, and are vulnerable to this day. Why? Why do the generals, in patently identifiable top-down-speak, repeatedly state that they need nothing more than the small number of troops (for occupying such a large country) that they are assigned? Why do they and the administration steadfastly hold this line even as one event cascading into another should make them recoil in piggy-eyed wonder at the lameness of their policy?

From the beginning, the scale of the war was based on the fundamental strategic misconception that the primary objective was Iraq rather than the imagination of the Arab World, which, if sufficiently stunned, would tip itself back into the heretofore easily induced fatalism that makes it hesitate to war against the West. After the true shock and awe of a campaign of massive surplus, as in the Gulf War, no regime would have risked its survival by failing to go after the terrorists within its purview. But a campaign of bare sufficiency, that had trouble punching through even ragtag irregulars, taught the Arabs that we could be effectively opposed.

Today is the day that gay citizens in this country cross a milestone of equality. Gay couples will be married in Massachusetts -- their love and commitment and responsibility fully cherished for the first time by the society they belong to. It is also, amazingly enough, the day of the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruling that ended racial segregation in schools across America. We should be wary of facile comparisons. The long march of African-Americans to civil equality was and is deeply different from the experience and legacy of gay Americans. But in one respect, the date is fitting, for both Brown and this new day revolve around a single, simple and yet deeply elusive idea: integration.

By order of its supreme court, Massachusetts will start giving marriage licenses to same-sex couples on May 17. We are not sure what will then happen. Will a public opposed to same-sex marriage be outraged enough to force corrective action? Or will it quickly grow used to the idea? How long will it take for other state courts to import Massachusetts marriages to their jurisdictions? Our hope is that the public reaction to Massachusetts will force the passage of a constitutional amendment blocking the courts from imposing same-sex marriage or civil unions. As we wait to see what happens, it may be a good time to restate our reasons for supporting an amendment....

If same-sex marriage were triumphing as a result of popular support, it would be pointless to try to stop it by constitutional amendment. But that is not what is happening. Judges are imposing it on the theory that constitutional guarantees of equality and due process entail it. But the law discriminates against no person by maintaining marriage as what it is. The law makes no inquiries into sexual desire: A gay man and a lesbian can get married in any state, if they so choose. The question here is one of definition, not eligibility.

Just days after the prison abuse story surfaced, a terror cell associated with Al Qaeda brutally executed American businessman Nicholas Berg -- supposedly in response to the prison abuse.

We must resist the temptation to moral equivalence here. The sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners is indeed a crime--but it is not tantamount to beheading an innocent civilian. The Al Qaeda thugs who killed Nicholas Berg and then sent the video around the world at least reminded us of what is at stake.

We are fighting for the survival of civilization itself. The Al Qaeda warriors who displayed Nicholas Berg's severed head as a trophy sent the world an urgent reminder of why terror must be opposed. The tragic photos from Abu Ghraib prison remind us that even a war with noble goals can bring out the very worst in those who fight. This lesson is too expensive to waste.

"War on Terror" is our government's top rhetorical catch-phrase. It is the way we define for the American people and the world -- especially the Islamic world -- what we are doing, and what we are about. It is the way we explain the nature of the menace that we are striving to defeat.

But is it accurate? Does it make sense? More importantly, does it serve our purposes? Does it make victory more identifiable, and hence more attainable? I humbly suggest that it fails on all these scores. This, furthermore, is no mere matter of rhetoric or semantics. It is all about substance, and it goes to the very core of our struggle.

Terrorism is not an enemy. It is a method. It is the most sinister, brutal, inhumane method of our age. But it is nonetheless just that: a method. You cannot, and you do not, make war on a method. War is made on an identified -- and identifiable -- enemy.

In the here and now, that enemy is militant Islam -- a very particular practice and interpretation of a very particular set of religious, political and social principles.

Getting too close to partisan politics risks undercutting Dr. Dobson's spiritual and psychological authority, just as evangelical conservative leaders like the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have lost some of their influence, political scientists and other influential Christian conservatives say....

"There are dangers, and that is why I have never done it before," he said, speaking on the phone from Washington, where he was lobbying for an amendment banning same-sex marriage. "But the attack and assault on marriage is so distressing that I just feel like I can't remain silent."

In truth, Dr. Dobson has never kept his views on what he calls moral issues to himself. He has worried aloud for 30 years about abortion, divorce, gay rights and contraception. Every few years, he has publicly warned Republicans not to take conservative Christian votes for granted, and two decades ago he set up a separate organization, the Family Research Council, to press social conservative causes in Washington.