"Miraculous." That's the one-word review of "Superman Returns" that I offered to the opinion-taker outside of the theater. The new movie takes most of what we loved about the 1978 "Superman: The Movie" and kicks it up a notch. Taking its cue from that earlier film, the gospel imagery on display in the new Superman movie is, in fact, awe inspiring.

But don't take the word of this Christian evangelical for it. I saw the movie with a friend who is not a Christian believer. Immediately afterward, as we said goodbye, we remarked casually about what a great movie it was -- both of us having different reasons for thinking so, I was sure. Then the next night, we spoke by phone. Without my asking, he volunteered, "I can't stop thinking about 'Superman Returns.' I mean, the Gospel imagery was just so incredible."

And then he said it: "You know, 'Superman Returns' spoke more to me about Jesus than 'The Passion of the Christ.'"

I know my friend's reaction is one that will be replicated millions of times over in the coming weeks. "The Passion" was a literal presentation of Jesus Christ, which meant that nonbelievers could easily dismiss it. But "Superman Returns" speaks of Christ through symbolism, which often reaches the heart before the head.

Last week British scientists announced a revolutionary screening process for inherited diseases in embryos. It will be quicker and more accurate than the existing method and it will detect thousands more genetic defects than previously possible.

About 200 heritable conditions can be detected by pre-implantation diagnosis in IVF treatment so that only healthy embryos are implanted in the mother or frozen; the new technique -- pre-implantation genetic haplotyping -- will be able to detect nearly 6,000 diseases and conditions. As one of the British pioneers said, this changes everything. One could almost call it godlike....It will be easier and better in every way to get rid of a tiny collection of cells. This is indeed playing God, as all the usual campaigners were quick to point out last week. But what on earth is wrong with humans playing God? I am all for it, especially as God doesn't seem to be doing it. Besides, whatever we may think about playing God and defying nature, we are doing it already and even though we don't necessarily recognise it, we approve of it.

The new leader of the Episcopal Church in America, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, says she does not believe homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender....The Episcopal Church isn't the only denomination having trouble deciding what it believes. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has voted to "receive" a policy paper on sex-inclusive language for the Trinity. Instead of the traditional (and biblical) Father, Son and Holy Spirit, these liberal Presbyterians will consider using "Mother, Child and Womb," or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend," among others. Never mind what God calls Himself. These people want a name change without asking permission.

No wonder liberal denominations are losing members while the conservative ones are growing. The liberal ones don't seem to care. Seeking only to be "relevant" they face condemnation from the One they are supposed to represent, whose attitude about such things is anything but "inclusive."

In other words, the rejection of biblical language by which God has named Himself in favor of imaginative new language that fits the church's current tastes and imaginings is not merely a shift in language--it is a reformulation of the faith itself. Beyond this, it inevitably runs the risk of turning into a new form of paganism--a new linguistic form of idolatry.

Language matters. It always has, and it always will. This explains why God is so clear in naming Himself in Scripture....The line here is not merely between traditional and imaginative language--it is the line between the worship of the one true and living God and the worship of idols.

Last week the Supreme Court agreed to cogitate once more about capital punishment, a boomerang the justices find coming back at them time and time again. This new case is about the way lethal injection is administered....Just because the electric chair has been phased out doesn't mean civilization has prevailed; it only means that people didn't like how reports of a convicted man's head bursting into flame made them feel about what they were doing. In judicial terms, Justice Harry Blackmun concluded in 1994 that all it came down to was figuring out how to "tinker with the machinery of death."

And he was officially finished with it, writing: "Rather than continue to coddle the Court's delusion that the desired level of fairness has been achieved and the need for regulation eviscerated, I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed." The question isn't whether executions can be made painless: it's whether they're wrong. Everything else is just quibbling. And most of the quibbling simply boils down to trying to make the wrong seem right.

That a president of the United States would feel compelled, for whatever reason, to make a public statement that marriage should be reserved for men and women is a leading indicator of the moral state of the union. Imagine Calvin Coolidge saying such a thing, even in the "Roaring '20s." He might as well have stated the equally obvious that the sun rises in the east.

Today, right and wrong, an objective concept rooted in unchanging truth, has been dismissed in favor of the imposed rulings of federal judges guided by their own whims and opinion polls (various polls show the country equally split between those who oppose same-sex marriage and those who would allow it). We are now adrift to sort out our choices based on a weather vane principle: whichever way the wind blows is where we'll go.

When nothing is either true or false and all decisions about life and morals are based on personal choices and whatever new "trend" happens to capture our attention, we lose our moral sense, which, like an immune system, was established to protect us from cultural, as well as biological viruses.

Singles can feel subjected to an endless stream of Couplists riding bicycles while holding hands and asking as they pedal by: "So, when are you going to get married?"

It is the question that has dogged single people - perhaps more than any other - ever since the invention of the prying mother. But now, tired of being marginalized and scrutinized by a wedded society, unattached Americans are throwing a cultural curveball. They're announcing they're happy just as they are. They're buying houses on their own, having children on their own, and even planning to retire on their own. Single folks today have what one advertising executive calls a feeling of "growing militancy." And they've got numbers. More than ever before, men and women are living single well into their 30s, 40s, and beyond. It's been estimated that, as early as 2008, a majority of US households will be headed by an unmarried person - a shift that has already taken hold in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and 15 other states. People continue to marry later in life, especially in this state, and some are opting out altogether, posing Couplists a question of their own: "Why bother?"

The conservative politics of the Bush administration forced me to have an abortion I didn't want. Well, not literally, but let me explain.

I am a 42-year-old happily married mother of two elementary-schoolers. My husband and I both work, and like many couples, we're starved for time together. One Thursday evening this past March, we managed to snag some rare couple time and, in a sudden rush of passion, I failed to insert my diaphragm....I felt sick. Although I've always been in favor of abortion rights, this was a choice I had hoped never to have to make myself. When I realized the seriousness of my predicament, I became angry. I knew that Plan B, which could have prevented it, was supposed to have been available over the counter by now. But I also remembered hearing that conservative politics have held up its approval.

It's a vote to impose discrimination on all 50 states, denying them their right to interpret their own state constitutions and to pass their own state laws.

The proposed amendment is inconsistent with our values and our humanity. Americans believe in tearing down the walls of discrimination and inequality, not creating new barriers for civil rights. For our entire history, each state has been able to address marriage and family law matters as each state sees fit. This tradition has allowed different states to choose different paths, and for many states to accept - and even celebrate - the love and commitment between so many couples and their families, regardless of sexual orientation.

I'm proud that Massachusetts continues to be a leader on marriage equality for our citizens. We recognize that being part of a family is a basic right, and I look forward to the day when every state - and every senator - accepts this basic principle of fairness. Marriage is a solemn commitment to plan a future together, to share in life's celebrations, and be a source of comfort easing life's burdens and pains. Gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights as married couples under state law, including the right to be treated fairly by federal tax laws, to share insurance coverage, to visit loved ones in the hospital, to have health and family-leave benefits, and the many other protections that only come with marriage.

Once dismissed as a sop to social conservatives, the proposed amendment has become a serious rallying point for opponents of same-sex marriage. The June 6 vote will put senators on the record and make their position on the amendment a potential campaign issue. And the formation of the religious coalition means the issue won't go away soon.

Much of the conventional wisdom about the amendment and the marriage issue turns out to be wrong. For instance, the amendment is not being pushed by Republicans as a wedge issue aimed at dividing Democratic voters. Republican senators regard the issue as touchy and awkward. In fact, they agree with First Lady Laura Bush, who said on Fox News Sunday that the subject of gay marriage "requires a lot of sensitivity" and shouldn't "be used as a campaign tool." They'd prefer the issue--and the amendment--go away.

When Majority Leader Bill Frist asked Senate Republican committee chairmen in 2004 if they wanted him to schedule a vote on the amendment, none urged him to. Frist did anyway. This year, the same was true. He received no pressure from Republican senators for a vote. Instead, his talks with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council led Frist to put at least a day of debate on the amendment, then a vote, on the Senate schedule.