Bingo! Prager does it again!
The Gay-stapo is -- for the time being -- focusing on adults who have been together for decades, pushing white-haired male and female homosexual couples to the front of the line to be wed. The dirty little secret is that the In re Marriage Cases decision has laid down the groundwork for taxpayer-funded undermining of the fact that there is a ninety-plus percent chance that your offspring has normal sexual desire (that is to say, of course, opposite sex).
When the time comes for your children to learn about puberty and reproduction in a California school (since parents long ago yielded rights to sex education of their own family to their local union government educators), another lesson will be required: "Kids, you might be gay already but don't know it yet because you haven't tried it. And whoever says there's something wrong with it...well, they're the type of person that thought there was something wrong with interracial couples too."
In addition, the notion that there is something inherently normal about being born a child of a mother and father HAS to be jettisoned to protect the feelings of the kids who were the result of -- shall we say, less traditional methods of reproduction.
Scare tactics? Hardly. Anyone who remembers the Massachusetts "Fistgate" scandal of the late nineties and the legal kitchen sink Gay-stapo attorneys successfully used to suppress evidence of the outrage from public ears knows I am not overstating the case.
I put an (older) liberal professor relative into fits of conniption once as he was lambasting the conservatives for denying same-sex marriages.
“Why not a man and a dog?” I asked.
He claimed my argument was specious. I demanded that he answer. I wouldn’t let him off the hook...
“Because!” he protested, “we’re talking about humans, not animals!”
Ok, I said, how about a man and a boy? Does that meet your standard?
“No!” He was really getting angry.
What’s the problem? I asked. Is it consent? Is it because the dog and the boy can’t consent?
“No!” Again, he was really angry.
I pointed out to him that we didn’t disagree that there was perversity in the marriage argument. We just disagreed where we ought to draw the line.
Man, that guy was *very* angry at me about this discussion.