I would agree, and they have ample reason to be terrified.
With this CFA incident alone already much has changed.
From all of the articles and OpEds I have read and from viewing hundreds of declines to gay events on Facebook, I would say that the CFA dibacle alone has accomplished the following:
1. Revealed the ground swell of support for first amendment rights and traditional marriage.
2. Revealed the Rainbow Agenda to be an over-reaching, obnoxious and selfish affair, and caused not only moderate conservatives and libertarians, but from what I’ve seen also a good number of liberal sympathizers, to lose interest in the gay marriage movement. I have noticed a whole secion of liberals who seem to have suddenly broken from the movement. This is good for social conservatives.
3. Sounded a note to many that the liberal gay agenda is dangerous and must not be allowed to hold sway. Ergo, Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage and the Democrats including the plank in the DNC now looks like bad, bad timing.
—With this CFA incident alone already much has changed.—
One thing that changed is that I discovered Chick-Fil-A.
Their food is excellent and healthy for fast food. I’ve been there twice now since last Wednesday, and I gave up fast food back in 1997 (except for the rare trip to Subway - once or twice a year on road trips).
I beg to differ with you. From my point of view it was the perfect timing to get the silent majority, sleeping giant into action.
I do wish more conservatives would properly recognize what the movement is really about. Much of society long ago recognized that there was considerable value in having something resembling generalized reciprocity on behalf of permanent family units; one major purpose behind government acknowledgment of marriage is to allow those who would bestow benefits upon the heads of a permanent family unit to distinguish those who qualify from those who do not.
What proponents of "gay marriage" are really seeking to do is compel those who would voluntarily bestow benefits upon what they would recognize as permanent family units, to also bestow those benefits upon couples whom they would not so recognize. The issue is not what gay people should be allowed to do among themselves--the issue is the extent to which others should be involuntarily compelled to regard their unions as being the equal of marriage.
I have no problem with laws which would allow any couple to register as a civil union for purposes like hospital visitation, survivorship, inheritance, etc, without regard for sex or sibling/cousin relationship (if parent/child relationships could be so registered, many such "relationships" would likely be formed as an inheritance-tax dodge; it would probably be best to disallow such relationships unless or until tax laws are changed so as to not encourage such a thing). Indeed, there may be some situations where it might be entirely reasonable for siblings to establish such a relationship (e.g. if two siblings, both with children, are widowed, it may be logical for them to share a household, and for each to want the other recognized as guardian of the children in case of death or incapacity. Curiously, however, proponents of same-sex marriage consistently seem to insist that civil unions should be unavailable for siblings, perhaps because if they were available to siblings, they would not imply legitimate sexual relations.