Homosexual activists have made huge strides in the last two months, and they seem to have one goal in mind – legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Currently, * marriage between same-sex partners is not legal anywhere in the United States, but recent gay agenda victories indicate that our culture is heading for a showdown over the definition of marriage.

On May 29, Kentucky policy changed when Gov. Paul Patton signed an executive order mandating that all state government employees and job applicants be free from discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity. The order affects executive cabinet agencies, which employ more than 30,000 people.

In the same week, Lexington Mayor Teresa Isaac, without any discussion with the city council, decided to offer domestic partner benefits to all city employees, provided they were in a "relationship" for at least six months. This policy includes coverage for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, yet one council member described those in opposition as "homophobic."

The city council reacted to Isaac’s unilateral order by placing a three-month moratorium on the new policy. She, in turn, vetoed the moratorium but was once again overridden by the council. Until the policy is voted upon and debated this October, partners who have already signed up for benefits will continue to receive them.

In national headlines is the controversial June 26 ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas. In a 6-3 decision, the justices overturned the Texas law banning sodomy on the same premise used to justify abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision -- "right to privacy." While homosexual activists celebrate the decision they say paves the way for gay marriage, court watchers claim that this new, expanded "bedroom right to privacy" opens the door for legalizing prostitution, adultery, incest with adult children and bigamy.

According to Gary Bauer, chairman of Campaign for Working Families, "Once the highest court of the land says that ‘privacy’ outweighs the compelling interest a society has in promoting family, and reliable standards of right and wrong, there is no place to draw a line."

While these victories for the gay agenda do not directly deal with marriage, each is one step closer to the ultimate goal of redefining the meaning of marriage and family, something already happening in other nations.

On June 10, Canada joined Belgium and the Netherlands in legalizing homosexual marriage. Many American homosexual couples are expected to go to Canada to legalize their union, then return home and press their state courts to have their "marriage" recognized. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is expected to grant marital status to homosexuals any day now. * If that happens, homosexuals will flock to the Bay State in order to marry and then demand that their home states recognize their unions in accordance with the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause.

In Kentucky, the issue of legal recognition for same-sex couples is not new. In the early 1970’s in Jefferson County, two women applied for a marriage license, only to be denied by the circuit court clerk. The clerk was quoted as saying that such a marriage would "lead to a breakdown in the sanctity of government" and the Kentucky Supreme Court supported his decision, concluding in 1973 that "Marriage has always been considered as the union of a man and a woman."

The general public became more aware of the fight for same-sex marriage in the early 1990’s when activists targeted Hawaii to legalize same-sex marriage. That effort failed but was later followed by the Vermont Supreme Court’s 1999 decision to recognize "civil unions" through which homosexuals were given many of the same rights as married couples.

There is still hope for traditional marriage, though. Every time same-sex marriage has been taken to the voters, they have rejected it. For example, 61.4 percent of citizens in California voted against gay marriage by accepting Proposition 22 in 2001, declaring marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. Although polls show that Americans have become increasingly more tolerant of homosexuality, they still disapprove of redefining marriage. Gay marriage initiatives succeed only when they are removed from voters and placed in the hands of unelected justices.

Some state legislators have already taken action to stand up and fight for the beliefs of those they were elected to represent. Currently, 37 states, including Kentucky, have passed a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Such legislation mandates that homosexual unions from other states not be recognized. For example, 85 percent of the more than 5,000 civil unions granted in Vermont since 1999 went to out-of-state recipients.

Tom Minnery, Vice President of Public Policy at Focus on the Family, said "If the people have no right to regulate sexuality, then ultimately the institution of marriage is in peril, and with it, the welfare of the coming generations of children."

U. S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) has introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which was endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. The constitutional amendment "declares that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." It "prohibits the Constitution or any State constitution, or State and Federal law from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Ron Lewis, congressman from Kentucky’s second district, is one of the legislation’s 25 original co-sponsors. "I am troubled by recent litigation in Massachusetts and Canada that undermines the institution of marriage and traditional family values. These developments make the establishment of the Federal Marriage Act in the U.S. Constitution more important than ever," Lewis said.

But if the FMA is to pass, it needs a wide range of support.

Last year, a poll of 1,500 homosexual rights activists found that the number one priority of their movement was same-sex marriage. Pro-homosexual groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are already fighting to stop passage of the FMA. On its website, the ACLU asks people to "oppose writing intolerance into the U.S. Constitution," claiming that the FMA "would wipe out every single law protecting millions of families no matter what their sexual orientation."

Maggie Gallagher, a nationally known sociological expert on marriage, sees the gay marriage debate in another way. "Losing this battle means losing the idea that children need mothers and fathers," she said. "It means losing the marriage debate. It means losing limited government. It means losing American civilization. It means losing, period."

Bauer voices similar concerns. "The greatest battle for traditional marriage and family in decades has begun and the result is far from certain."

Homosexual activists are fighting with force and are not giving up. The question remains whether pro-family activists will do the same.