While we're at it, why don't we change the definition of "blueberry" to include "pomegranate"?

Yet another federal judge concludes that the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to homosexual "marriage," thus adding Alaska to the list of states that are barred from retaining some sanity in their approach to the English language.

I have to hand it to the destroyers of Western civilization (the domestic Left branch, that is; the jihadist branch hates homosexuals).  They have found the perfect issue for working their foul designs.  Take a word that, while its definition has had some flexibility, has never, anywhere, had a scope that would include two people of the same sex, and dare people to point that out, with the assurance that they will be ostracized as bigots if they do.  And make sure it's a word that expresses the very most foundational relationship in a society, the basis for the next most foundational institution- namely, family.

Then couch arguments with people defending the sane view of language and societal organization by asking them how two homosexuals down the block getting married in any way affects the happiness or stability of their own marriages.

Here's how, you jackboots:  The person so asked finds ever-less reinforcement in society for the kind of family life he or she strives to foster at home.  Other couples and "families" with whom he or she and his or her family interact - at the park, at PTA functions, in sports leagues - hell, at church, in a lot of cases nowadays - are increasingly going to be distorted models of family, with whom bonds can never be as naturally and easily formed as they are between actual, normal families.  Who is an actual wife supposed to relate to when her family meets the adults in one of these "families?" The husband?  Are they going to plan a fishing trip, or a football-game tailgate party?  With which "spouse" does a wife swap recipes, or form a book club, or talk about gardening?

How far along is the cultural dare?  What kind of vitriol do you think anyone taking the opposite view from the one that Slate has about the new Cheerios commercial will come in for?

We already know what pustules of poison human-rights commissions, with their diversity-training programs, are.

No one - no one - in 1868, the year the FourteenthAmendment was adopted, had the remotest notion that the word "marriage" would ever be redefined to include people of the same gender.  Follow the line of reasoning in these recent judicial rulings, and the Freedom-Haters / West-Destroyers will be able to ascribe bigotry to the fact that people in the year 300 BC didn't provide classes in rhetoric and geometry for their dogs.

As I say, the Freedom-Haters picked a dandy.  There are plenty of folks on the right willing to say that this one is lost, that it's time to move on to issues on which we can win - tax reform, rolling back EPA regulations, doing something about socialized health care, fighting jihad, whatever.  But the ultimate softening-up of our civilization will have been completed, and any victories on these other fronts will be meaningless, because we won't be a society that understands the difference between up and down, light and dark, male and female, right and wrong, profane and Godly, anymore.  And we'll deserve the defeat we'll get.  By the way, these new-fangled "families" won't be spared.