Biblical Christianity represents the greatest obstacle to the normalization of homosexuality. The reason for this is quite simple–the Bible emphatically condemns all forms of homosexual behavior. If homosexual advocates are to succeed, they must either marginalize or neutralize the Bible as an authority.

Homosexuality is now the most controversial issue of debate in American culture – and it is likely to stay that way for a long time. Once famously described as “the love that dares not speak its name,” homosexuality is now openly discussed and debated throughout American society.

The words of Jesus are unambiguous: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” [Matt. 5:9] These familiar words from the Sermon on the Mount form the basis of any Christian understanding of war and its morality. For the Christian, the standard is already set and the goal is absolutely clear–we are to seek the peace.

In the age of world terror–and with the reality of conflict never far from sight–many secularists are convinced that religious truth claims are the root of the problem. Following this logic, peace and stability cannot be achieved until all truth claims are relativized and the potential for religious conflict is removed.

Homosexual advocates have won a massive victory in the court of public opinion, and they won without even having to prove their case. Millions of Americans simply assume that science has “discovered” a genetic basis for homosexual attraction and behavior, and then assume that this would mean that homosexuality is just a predetermined trait. Of course, no genetic basis for homosexuality has ever been proved, and scientists are deeply divided over the very idea that homosexuality–or any human behavior–can be traced to our genetic structure.

Will legalization of same-sex marriage lead to the legalization of polygamy? Proponents of same-sex marriage dismiss the question, for if they ever did face it squarely, they would have to admit the truly radical nature of the case for homosexual marriage. The logic of the polygamy question is this–If marriage can now be homosexual as well as heterosexual, why must it be limited to two persons rather than three . . . or several? Proponents of same-sex marriages have dismissed this question as irresponsible, irrelevant, and inflammatory. The question is indeed controversial, but only because it demands to be answered. It is by no means irrelevant.

No discussion of our national ills is complete without some mention of slippery “values” in the public square. Indeed, though talk of moral absolutes is portrayed as outdated and simplistic, the debate concerning national values has never been more heated.

Will America’s evangelicals turn left in the coming presidential election? That’s the fervent hope of the liberal press, and The American Prospect is counting on “freestyle evangelicals” to swing conservative Christians toward the Democratic Party and its agenda. But don’t hold your breath on this one. The magazine’s analysis turns out to be full of holes and wishful thinking.

The Culture of Death is losing its grip. When Sen. Diane Feinstein [D-Cal.] took to the Senate floor to fight the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, she complained that the law would offer legal protection to “children who aren’t children.” Her concern was only with the woman seeking an abortion, not with the unborn child within her, so she saw the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act as a direct assault on the logic of abortion rights. “This will be the first strike against all abortion in the United States of America,” she said. “That’s where this debate is taking us. That’s the reason for this bill.”

More often than not, the Culture of Death has been winning key battles over issues of abortion and the status of unborn life. Nevertheless, it now appears that the logic of death may be running out of steam. President Bush recently signed the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” and the unborn child is now granted federal protection against violence and murder. The Act, finally passed by both houses of Congress after an intensive effort, defines a “child in utero” as “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”