When allowed to choose, legislatures protect marriage rather than dismantle it. Therefore, advocates of same-sex marriage resort to strategies involving the executive or judicial branches. In states such as California, Oregon, New York, and New Mexico, rogue local officials have simply defied their own state marriage laws and married thousands of same-sex couples. While saying that New York law does not allow same-marriages, state attorney general Eliot Spitzer has promised that he will nonetheless recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

But in most cases, advocates turn to the courts to impose their preferred policies on their fellow citizens, and their legal war against traditional marriage has at least five fronts....

For a simple and compelling reason, traditional marriage has been the norm in every political community for 5,000 years. Society has an interest in the future generations created by men and women. Decoupling procreation from marriage in order to make some people feel more accepted denies the very purpose of marriage itself. And such a radical transformation should not be imposed by judges upon people who would not choose it for themselves. Yet absent a constitutional amendment, that is precisely what we face.

In Edwards' home state, a reporter told President Bush on Wednesday that the new vice-presidential candidate is described as "charming, engaging, a nimble campaigner, a populist and even sexy." How does Edwards stack up against Vice President Cheney, the reporter asked.

"Dick Cheney can be president," Bush said tersely before soliciting another question with an abrupt "Next."

I take no pleasure in telling you that the vote on the constitutional amendment designed to protect the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman will fail next week in the U.S. Senate.

Thousands of regular folks have been awakened from their political slumber and are writing letters, making phone calls, sending e-mails and holding prayer meetings in an effort to have some basic common sense written into our Constitution.

However, for over three decades, while we were sleeping, homosexual activists were working nonstop to get the government's seal of approval on same-sex unions and to make the issue of the marriage designation for these couples one of basic civil rights.

A majority of members, 65.3 percent, agreed, while 34.7 percent opposed the proposal.

Current guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that the unborn child should receive a lethal injection to the heart before delivery to ensure the infant does not survive.

Approximately 1 percent of all abortions in the UK result in a baby born alive, according to Adedugbe. Even abortions performed before 24 weeks have resulted in some live births.

The truth is that a law banning the killing of unborn babies, just like a law banning the killing of 2-year-olds or 92-year-olds, is not based on denominational religion. It is based, rather, on applying an objective moral principle to an objective fact in the interest of protecting a basic human right. The moral principle: It is wrong to deliberately take an innocent human life. The fact: The unborn child (as Kerry himself "believes") is a human life, just as the 2-year-old or 92-year-old is a human life. The basic human right preserved is the right to life itself.

Yes, the objective moral principle here comes from God -- as does "Thou shalt not steal," which protects the basic right of private property -- but it does not belong to any religious denomination. It is universal and precedes them all. It applied when Cain killed Abel; it applies when each American president puts his hand on the Bible and takes the oath of office.

Presidents may pursue policies that accord with this principle or violate it. They can act rightly or wrongly. But they cannot change the principle itself -- any more than they can change the facts of human biology.

When the Senate debates a constitutional amendment next week limiting marriage to a man and a woman, the outcome might not change the law of the land.

But it is likely to have a political effect in the next five months, as campaigns around the country deal with the ongoing fight over gay marriage and civil unions.

The modern world is in a headlong rush to bury the remnants of the Christian conscience. The post-Christian character of contemporary western culture is most clearly evident in the rejection of biblical ethics in favor of moral relativism. Most persons believe that morality is simply up for grabs.

We must honestly face the fact that this post-Christian morality is deeply rooted in a subtle form of atheism. Though most Americans habitually claim a belief in God, and even some form of Christian identity, Americans order their lives as if God does not exist. Otherwise, we would be required to care what God thinks, obey what God commands, and submit to His authority--or fear and face the consequences. It seems that millions of Americans claim to believe in a god they do not fear.

Kerry is the first prominent pro-abortion politician I can remember admitting that life begins at conception. In fact, I don't remember any pro-abortion person making that admission -- to himself, much less to the public.

People I've debated on the issue have generally taken the position that the baby in the womb is "potential life" or a clump of cells or a zygote. They seemed to sense that they would have no legitimate argument in favor of abortion if they admitted the baby was a life....If you acknowledge a fetus is a life, it's very difficult to justify killing it (with the possible exception of protecting the mother's life) without making a determination that the mother's convenience is so paramount that it must take precedence over an innocent life. That this notion is even "thinkable" is a staggering testament to the moral decline of our culture.