Pity Dennis Prager! The homos have nearly got him!

Next to the presidential election, California Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America.

It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.

Now, given that this anti-gay marriage proposition is being put up for a public vote, when would think that any result would, by definition, reflect the decision of society. One would, of course, be horribly wrong, because Jerry Brown, “a liberal Democrat”, is very, very mean. Also terribly mean: liberals. Or something – I don’t know, it makes no sense. But what are the stakes? Prager:

[I]n May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.

As a result of this judicial act, the only way to ensure that we continue to define marriage the way every religious and secular society in recorded history has defined marriage — as between men and women — is to amend the California Constitution.

Indeed, one must simply look at the examples of the Netherlands, Belgium, Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, South Africa, and, soon, Norway to see how, after allowing gay marriage, these societies were erased from the pages of recorded history, leaving no counter-examples to Prager’s argument.  This leads us to wonder: would the mythical land of Atlantis have ever sunk below the waters had its citizens more fully appreciated the distinction between Adam and Eve and Adam and Steve?  Puts the rising sea levels attributed to so-called “global warming” in a whole new light.

Prager continues, asserting that gay marriage opponents are not motivated by hate; which, in Prager’s case, is plainly true.  Prager is motivated by comical fear:

The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity — especially females [oh, Ja! –Gunther] — can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction — until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is “heterosexism,” a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger — if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians — i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture — will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it — a man and a woman.
Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.

Chilling.  And that’s even before the inevitable Night of the Tranny Zombies.

It might seem a tad unlikely that a billion-odd years of evolution could be overturned by a single state failing to change its constitution.  But then, you probably believe in evolution, you poor, all-of-history’s-tragedies-causing fool.  It might seem a smidge odd that while homosexuality endures despite media and cultural disapproval and the ubiquity of heterosexual marriage, heterosexuality will, within a generation, be completely abolished if children see two ladies register for china.  But then, you are probably insufficiently sensitive to the terrible, polymorphous allure of homosexuality, which can only be resisted by constant, obsessive affirmations that it will destroy the world, and by driving any acknowledgment of its existence from the public realm.  You may even think that getting so ridiculously worked up about it seems kind of, well, kind of gay.  Shows what you know.

Anyway, what I’m trying to say is vote Yes on #2 or we’ll all be furries by Christmas, leading to the decline of Human Civilization and/or rug burn.  Fact: no religious or secular society has ever gotten egg nog out of mascot fur.