The speculation continues to grow over whether the issue of protecting the institution of marriage will in fact be a major political issue in 2004. The headlines of major newspapers from one coast to the other, in my opinion, have answered that speculation. It already is. In light of this, some observations about the issue.

1. Those on the left have already successfully hijacked the language on the issue.

When the president spoke recently about the institution of marriage and the need for a constitutional amendment, the words "gay marriage" were never uttered. Not once in the little over seven-minute speech did the president refer to "gay marriage." Yet, read the headline of any story that deals with the constitutional amendment issue and all you read is how the president is attempting to ban "gay marriage."

So why is the coverage written the way it is? Because it's easier to try to inflame people's passion on the issue by saying that the president is attempting to "ban gay marriage" than it is to say that the amendment would protect the definition understood for millennia of the institution of marriage. To write every op-ed piece from the standpoint that the amendment bans homosexual marriage is unfair and dishonest. At the very least, it doesn't fully describe the entire picture.

The same amendment would also ban "incest marriage," "threesome marriage," "pedophile marriage" and the ever-popular "anything that you can think of other than one woman and one man marriage." The truth is marriage is an institution, authorized by God, recognized for a specific purpose by the state. To create any other arrangement and call it marriage ceases to make it marriage. The amendment is designed to protect what marriage already is and has been for thousands of years.

2. Homosexual "marriage" proponents believe that the time to press on is now.

No one can quite figure out why, but since Texas v. Lawrence the codeword has been "operation go." A statewide case now cleared in Massachusetts, a rogue mayor in San Francisco, then the mayors in Illinois, New York, Oregon, New Mexico and Michigan all began itching to bring homosexual "marriage" to their respective areas. It is perhaps the thought that Americans truly do not care about the issue and that there will be nothing but a positive political outflow of this for the pro-homosexual Democrat John Kerry.

Perhaps proponents see their window of opportunity to get activist judges to legitimize their efforts closing. If only a handful of Senate races go to the Republicans, more non-activist judges run the chance of getting confirmed and putting a stop to some of the activist judicial nonsense.

Certainly if the base of voters who believe that sanctioning homosexual behavior is unhealthy and even immoral were to become energized, the results would be disastrous for Kerry and the Democratic Party. But nonetheless, it is Democrats across the country who insist upon pushing the envelope on this issue and are forcing Americans to deal with the reality of it.

3. African American communities are not appreciative of the "co-opting" of the civil-rights message being pimped by homosexual radicals.

In seeming record numbers in recent days, on my talk show in New York City, African Americans are bemoaning the illegitimate comparisons of privileged and elite homosexuals to the African American experience in the march towards civil rights. Callers who were mere weeks ago arguing with me about the economy or the War on Terror – and choosing to agreeably disagree – are now calling and saying very different things.

A caller last week said little else when she got on the show other than to say, "I'm an African American woman, and I'm talking to everyone in my church and community about the issue of marriage and, as far as I'm concerned, President Bush has three votes in my house." Hundreds of other callers have told my producers: "I have been a Democrat all my life, but on this issue I will become a vote for President Bush."

The outrage expressed by average African Americans is worth considering. Using economic comparisons, the average two-income homosexual household dwarfs the average houshold of the two-worker African American married couple – earning nearly four times more per year on average.

African Americans also do not see the suffering their community has known over the generations as comparable to any mistreatment of homosexuals today. As one caller put it, "If you're 'gay' in America today you have everything, no one is raping your daughters, enslaving your sons, or keeping you locked in public welfare." Another caller added, "Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King would have both opposed giving someone special treatment simply because you decide to have sex with someone just like you."

The implications are clear: While some in the civil-rights movement have tried to marry the black and homosexual communities, the African American community today wants none of it.

4. The onslaught will continue, and lawlessness will be admired.

The complete disregard for what the law says concerning states' rights and voters' rights in recent days is appalling, yet nary a word is written in the media about the problems that the lawlessness presents. The message by the lawbreakers then becomes "keep on doing what we're doing."

Not only are rogue mayor's defying the law of the land in California, New York and other places, but complacent Democrat attorneys general in those states continue to empower them. The initial excuse presented by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer – a Democrat – was that "he probably wouldn't win" if he took the matter to the courts.

The reaction by the attorney general in California was "the governor is not the boss of me." What make's the California case particularly damning is that it flies directly in the face of the voters of that state. When the people were asked what they wished to allow in terms of marriage, they spoke with clarity and with overwhelming poll numbers. In one fell swoop, Mayor Newsom of San Francisco disenfranchised the will of the entire population of the state of California.

5. Many of those who seem inept in dealing with the matter are so because of pragmatic political aspirations.

Let's face it: The Democrat mayor of San Francisco wishes to be re-elected. Homosexual lobbyist dollars in San Francisco are huge. Such realities begin to warp the judgment and, in Newsom's case, cause him to careen off the highway. The same could be said of the 26-year-old, still wet behind the ears, mayor of New Paltz, N.Y. Still showing the impetuousness of his youth, the mayor now faces 19 criminal charges for performing illegal marriages, yet vows to continue to marry another 25 couples this weekend.

And then there is the chief political pragmatist of his day – John Kerry – a Democrat. As an elected politician he has promoted every advance possible for the expansion of the radical homosexual lobby. He has written dozens of personal letters of support to his home state of Massachusetts to encourage support of every expansion of preferential rights for homosexuals that have been raised. And to really underscore how steadfast his support has been for the homosexual lobby, Kerry was one of only 14 senators who voted against the "Defense Of Marriage Act."

Kerry was so liberal on the issue that he was in the minority of even his own party on the matter – underscored when President Bill Clinton signed the law into effect. John Kerry supports the homosexual-marriage movement in every way, but because he desires to be president he must pretend that he does not. Nonetheless, his record speaks for itself.

6. The battle is not lost.

In the elections in Massachusetts this week, the seat of the state senator who was the most pro-actively supportive of the radical homosexual movement was won instead by a strong pro-marriage state assemblyman.

In New York on Tuesday, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer – a Democrat – was on record has having defied the state law of New York and the direct wishes of Gov. Pataki in pursuing justice under the rule of law for the rogue mayors who were unlawfully promoting "gay marriage." He stated that he did not feel compelled to act on the request. By Wednesday morning, due in part to the efforts of thousands of my listeners dialing, faxing and e-mailing, their outrage at this publicly elected official refusing to perform his public responsibilities, Eliot Spitzer reversed course.

Where only 24 hours previously there was much ambiguity in his mind concerning the letter of the law, AG Spitzer was forced to admit that the statute on marriage in the state does in fact refer numerous times to the terms husband, wife, bride, groom. Not only that, he was forced to also admit that the mayors performing or desiring to perform the act of homosexual marriage in the state of New York were indeed in violation of the law and, by rights, should be prosecuted.

He hated having to admit it, but the pressure had caused him to tell the truth. The simple act of those of us who govern this country – the citizens – awakened the attorney general to the reality that we who vote still hold the power over his future. If law-abiding citizens were to be activated to do the same in California, New Mexico, Illinois and Oregon, similar results would soon follow.

As this election cycle moves forward, leadership will be tested – and our country needs "steady leadership in changing times." Will you be one to help provide it?