I was in a political organization once where we needed to find an effective way to bring the majority of the voting population over to our side. Our cause was, of course, a correct one, but it was the PR part that was troublesome.
One of the members suggested he chain himself to the railings of the main entrance to city hall and hold a hunger strike until we had enough signatures to back our cause.
My only question to him was that, other than family and friends, would many people passing by him on the way into city hall care whether or not he was eating.
Was he of that great a significance to the population for them to care?
When it became clear that there was a good chance that SCOTUS would rule in favor of marriage equality, a sort of desperation set in.
The opponents of it, having no real argument against it, other than on religious grounds, as if we were a Sharia country, decided a personal approach would be the best way to show disapproval and made pledges to set themselves on fire, go to Canada, a country that has had marriage equality for years, and get divorced to show that marriage equality destroys marriage.
They did everything but pledge to hold their breaths until they turned blue.
Very mature responses to a serious subject.
Looking at states and countries that have had marriage equality for years should be poof enough that the doom and gloom predictions are total fiction.
Their opposition was based on the strength of their words and the need to have blind faith in what they were saying.
Now that SCOTUS has ruled, will we see the opponents stand on principal, or will we see them rationalizing a way out of their pledges?
I have a feeling they put too much stock in their own importance and figured a threat of self destruction would move millions into their side of the court.
It would appear that they are not as important as they had assumed themselves to be.