It's easy to be a fortune teller when half the things you "predicted" are actually things that have been happening for eons and the other half are lies.
In an interview with the Iowa Republican this week, Bob Vander Plaats of The Family Leader was asked on video about his continuing stance against gay marriage and how he keeps from getting frustrated. He does it the same way that most anti-gay opponents keep their chins up: by lying to himself and others:
A lot of the things that we said early on that people said were red herrings, that we're just trying to scare people, they're starting to come true. A woman wants to marry herself, a man wants to marry a daughter, three people out on the East Coast want to get married, polygamy laws are getting labeled as unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, facts are pesky things that undermine every line of Vander Plaats' bigotry. The woman who married herself is 40-year-old Yasmin Eleby who took a joke about having a wedding by herself if single when she turned 40 and turned it into a public proclamation of loving herself and committing to her own self-worth. It was not a "marriage" in any sense beyond having the trappings of a dress and a cake.
The man wanting to marry his daughter is a story as old as the Bible itself. The story of God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah that the Bible-thumpers love to tote around as proof that gays are abominations deserving of hellfire (even though the Bible explicitly states that Sodom's sin was pride, gluttony, and abuse of the poor)? The "hero" of that story, Lot, had sex with his daughters to continue the family line. No fire from heaven ensued, so presumably father-daughter procreation is endorsed by the almighty.
Polygamy is also as old as the Bible itself - King Solomon allegedly had 700 wives and 300 concubines, after all, and there are more verses condoning polygamy than condemning it.
As for the "unconstitutional" polygamy laws, the truth is that a part of the polygamy laws in Utah were found to be unconstitutional by District Court. Specifically, the phrase "or cohabits with another person" was found to be a violation of both the First and 14th amendments and would infringe upon "religious cohabitation." In other words, it was found to be unconstitutional because the wording infringed upon religious freedoms, and isn't that something that Vander Plaats and his ilk are always screaming for?
You can watch the interview with Vander Plaats AFTER THE JUMP...