How the U.S. went from "marriage is between a man and woman" to "Men can be *REAL* women

In 1996 congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and banned the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage.  

On September 21, 1996, Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton signed that bill into law.  Slick was facing a tough election just six weeks later, and realized that if he didn't sign the bill he almost certainly wouldn't be re-elected.

Just 8 years later, the legislature of Massachusetts--home of Bawny Fwank, an openly gay congress"man"--became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage.  

So in just 8 years the nation went from a LAW saying marriage was between a man and a woman, to the first state to legalize SSM.

Hugely encouraged by this win, homosexual "activists" massively increased pressure on other states, and by 2015 37 states had legalized SSM.

That same year, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court forced gay marriage on the remaining states.  The crucial swing vote--the deciding vote--was cast by Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the opinion for the majority.  It contained the alleged "legal reasoning" underlying the ruling--which was, "It's just not fair that some people aren't allowed to be happy, condemned to live in loneliness..."

Except that was a lie: nothing prevented same-sex couples from living together, presumably in bliss.  So evidently there had to be more to the "reasoning," eh?  And here ya go: "...excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions."

Now, 8 years after this...interesting...reasoning, we're on the brink of the same sort of ruling, based on the same quality of "reasoning."

Male mental case: "Being female is one of civilization's oldest institutions.  I declare that I cannot be happy unless you and every member of society--including your kids--recognize me as a real woman.  Your highest court has said 'being happy' and wanting to be included in one of civilization's oldest institutions is all the legal reasoning I need to force you to do as I demand.  Are we clear here?"

Notice how neatly the current demands of trannies match the earlier reasoning of the supreme court's swing voter in the 2015 cram-down.  Think that's coincidence?

"Getting to an altered state of consciousness--or unconsciousness, if you prefer--is one of civilization's oldest institutions.  I declare that I cannot be happy unless you allow me to both consume and sell any drug I like.  Your highest court said I have the absolute right to be happy, as long as I claim your laws are preventing me from "being included in one of civilization's oldest institutions.
    So I insist that you allow me to do as I demand.  After all, just because someone is addicted to drugs doesn't mean they pose a danger to society by robbery or mugging or stealing.  No one has ever done a random, controlled trial to study this, so until that's done you really can't enforce your laws against me."

"My name is Ketanji Brown-Jackson.  At my senate confirmation hearing to award me a lifetime seat on the supreme court, a nasty, raaaacist Rethuglican asked me if I could define a 'woman.'  Naturally I said I couldn't do that.  See, my advisors had guessed that a Republican would ask this nasty, raaacist question, and suggested that response.  
   See, if I'd said "A woman is a biological female," half the Democrats would have voted against me for not being woke enough--which is ridiculous.  If I'd said 'any person who claims to be female'--which is Democrat policy--all the Republicans and just enough Democrats would have voted against me.  
   So my answer was a masterpiece of political evasion, and your history books will say I was the most brilliant justice evah.
   Now let's hear that case of those deplorable sorority girls who filed suit to kick a six-foot 260-pound "real woman" out of their sorority.  You certainly know how I'll be voting, cuz 'trans women ARE women,' right?  And if the dumb white folx on this 'court' have any brains at all they'll beg me to write the majority opinion."