If you thought same-sex marriage was the terminal goal for homosexual activists, you haven’t been paying attention. The homosexual agenda has always employed a great deal of bait and switch. In other words, it baits supporters with a false narrative, then reveals its true nature only after it is too late—or when the false narrative has outlived its usefulness.

Inevitably, when you start to talk about the collateral effects of the march to homosexual “equality,” someone will start blathering about slippery slopes, prejudices, homophobia, narrow-mindedness, and the rest. But the fact is that the road that led us to Obergefell was a slippery slope.

You realize that the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a sociopathic personality disturbance in its first publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1952. It finally retracted that in 1973. Laws against sodomy were on the books in nearly every state in the union, and such laws weren’t deemed unconstitutional until 2003. When homosexuals first started calling for rights, they asked for hospital visitation rights, tax breaks, and civil unions. They had all of those things before Obergefell. It wasn’t enough. None of this has ever been enough.

Ever heard of a policy of appeasement? It actually works with some people. Reasonable people realize you’re making an effort to address some of their complaints. And they try to be content living in a society where the majority of people aren’t like them. But appeasement doesn’t work with sociopaths. They’ll just keep pushing until the whole world is made in their own image.

A brilliant piece in the Weekly Standard outlines the relentless homosexual strategy up to this point:

The Supreme Court thought it was settling the question of abortion in Roe. Instead, a political and cultural movement grew up around the pro-life cause, and over the course of 40 years, the argument over abortion has continued in the courts and legislatures and at the ballot box.

Which is why the gay-marriage movement wants to make Obergefell less like Roe and more like Brown v. Board of Education. As Anderson explains, the movement intends to cast supporters of traditional marriage once and for all as bigots who won’t be allowed to make their case in the public square. They want to salt the earth post-Obergefell and make certain it’s impossible for any traditional marriage movement to flower. In the same spirit, gay activists pressure corporations to take public stands against legislation protecting religious freedom, as happened in Indiana this spring. And corporations, in turn, increasingly pressure the law firms they contract with to stop their lawyers from doing pro bono work on religious freedom cases.

This determination from the same-sex marriage activists is, in its own way, an admission of their bait-and-switch tactics: They realize that they have not persuaded society of the rightness of the revolution they actually seek.

You really should read the whole article. It’s fantastic. The best part of it is that it quotes homosexual activists themselves, many of whom readily admit that Obergefell wasn’t the end game. It was barely the beginning. A radical redefinition of marriage was merely a start toward a radical redefinition of society as we’ve ever known it.