The campaign tactics behind four historic electoral wins at the November 2012 polls for same-sex "marriage" (SSM) in Maine, Maryland, Washington State, and my boyhood home of Minnesota are well worth analyzing.  Although homosexual advocates carefully crafted a public relations campaign presenting homosexuality and its legal recognition as benign phenomena, the reality in Minnesota belies the rhetoric.

As analyzed online by Nathanial Frank of Slate, surveys had shown people conceiving of marriage in terms "of love, commitment and responsibility," while past pro-SSM rhetoric had emphasized "rights and benefits" for homosexuals demanding a redefinition of marriage.  A corresponding "sea change in the way gay advocates pled their case ... was a way to invite straight people to empathize with gay people, to reassure the majority that gay people wanted the same things that they did, and to shift focus from minority rights to points of commonality."

As described by Frank, central to this campaign was the organization Freedom to Marry, founded in 2003 by the homosexual lawyer Evan Wolfson, a man called by Newsweek/The Daily Beast the "godfather of gay marriage."  As The Daily Beast reported in 2011, Wolfson became "sexually active" while in West Africa with the Peace Corps in the late 1970s and himself intended to take advantage of New York's recent SSM law to "wed" his partner of nine years.

Actual analysis of homosexual advocacy groups and interaction with homosexuals, though, presents a picture far different from that given in liberal public relations campaigns.  Catholics for Marriage Equality-MN (C4ME-MN), a Minnesota group "advocating civil marriage for all as Roman Catholics," for example, considers in its talking points not "homosexual sex ... in itself," but rather an undefined "heterosexism (prejudice against people who are homosexual)" as a "sin."  Another section of the talking points declares that all people, irrespective of sexual orientation, "flourish when they engage in and build relational lives that are experienced and expressed sexually," an understanding seemingly excluding celibate Catholic clergy.  This assessment of homosexuals who "flourish" through sex, though, unfortunately ignores the serious health risks posed by homosexuality, such as the increased susceptibility for men to sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) like AIDS, as reported by the Center for Disease Control (CDC).

"Like the fig tree in Jesus' parable," C4ME-MN contrasts, "the Roman Catholic clerical leadership's position on homosexuality is barren."  This includes, presumably, the Catechism of the Catholic Church's condemnation of homosexuality as "intrinsically disordered" (paragraph 2357).  C4ME-MN, meanwhile, does not bother to explain how homosexuality under any understanding can be "fruitful."

C4ME-MN also dismisses any objections to homosexuality concerning "who puts what body part where and with whom."  Such a "fixation," these "Catholics" proclaim, is often "typical of the psycho-sexually stunted."  A classmate of mine from Edina High School in a suburb of Minneapolis, Caroline (Coco) Soodek, echoed these comments to me at the conclusion of an argument conducted on Facebook.  A lawyer with the firm Bryan Cave, Coco has come out as a lesbian since high school and accordingly did not appreciate my arguments against homosexuality in general and homosexual "marriage" in particular posted to Facebook in the context of the Minnesota marriage fight.  Several exchanged paragraphs of debate ultimately left an exasperated Coco writing:

Andy, we're done.  I can't convince you or even move your needle.  You sound like someone who is deeply troubled and perhaps a victim of abuse.  Or struggling with your own latency issues.  I typically don't have much interaction with such extreme homophobes; I just thank God that your type is vanishing.

A similarly disturbing Facebook comment came from another lesbian high school acquaintance in the graduating class ahead of me.  Now raising a son named Kevin in conjunction with her lesbian partner, my high school acquaintance expressed on Facebook a wish for "equality" for all families in the context of the Minnesota marriage debate.  My posted wish in response for Kevin to know his father elicited from my acquaintance's partner the response that "Kevin will know his father, when he turns 18 and if he decides.  His father sold his sperm to a cryo bank.  For an extra fee we bought the option for Kevin."

Such is the future awaiting communities that should fail to maintain the traditional institution of marriage like Minnesota, the home of Garrison Keillor's folksy fictional town of Lake Wobegon beloved nationwide by NPR listeners.  More children like Kevin (What other name shall he have, given that children and wives traditionally adopt the name of the husband and father?  A double-barreled hyphenated name of the lesbian parents?) will grow up by design without at least one natural parent.  Depending on circumstances such as the purchase of a future parental visitation "option," individuals like Kevin may, indeed, never know their absent biological parent, something that could entail dangers in terms of medical treatment.  The lack of a parent from one of two human genders, moreover, will deny individuals like Kevin a role model from that gender and the ability to experience both human genders sharing their lives together.

Even if a person like Kevin should ultimately inquire about his father, his discoveries could very well be disturbing.  He will learn that his conception is not the result of love between a man and a woman, but rather from an insemination facilitated by a donation of semen in a porn-laden "masturbatorium," as discussed in the film Donor Unknown, shown on PBS, and an investigative journalism article on Slate.  Any person like Kevin, along with any of his similarly conceived half-siblings, might also not like the father whom they meet.  Jeffrey Harrison, for example, the sperm donor profiled in Donor Unknown, is a self-professed "beach bum" living with his four dogs and a pigeon in a ramshackle RV in Venice Beach, California, who believes that a "ruling elite" controls the weather.

Individuals like Kevin will also come to understand that they have a biological relationship with only one of their homosexual "parents."  This disparity could easily involve favoritism of a child towards the biologically related homosexual parent (who, in the case of lesbians, actually gave birth to the child) as opposed to the biologically unrelated homosexual partner.  In the case of homosexual "divorce," should the biological parent have custody priority over the non-biological homosexual partner?

Homosexual households will also presumably instruct children like Kevin that, in the words of C4ME-MN, it is irrelevant "who puts what body part" -- or, for that matter, object -- "where and with whom."  Such households will then most likely encourage their indoctrinated children to advocate such pro-homosexual views in society at large.  Social acceptance of the sexual and lifestyle behavior in such households would then lead to the abolition of traditional recognized standards of decency, including even obscenity laws. 

Given such foregoing logical analysis, it is no wonder that a review of scholarly studies concerning household structure's effects upon child development by the conservative Family Research Council (FRC) concluded that a "mass of scholarly literature" precluded "any serious debate" about a committed marriage between a mother and father being the "ideal family form for children."  Yet, as Soodek's and C4ME-MN's comments indicate, anyone publicly making arguments against their homosexual agenda will encounter a rude reception.  Along with other Americans, residents of the Land of 10,000 Lakes are going to discover that behind the slick marketing of SSM lies an agenda having nothing to do with the state's stereotypical "Minnesota Nice."