Mention the word appeasement, especially when talking about foreign policy, and most people rightly assume that appeasement leads to more aggression. But it can also be said that compromise with many homosexual activists becomes the same thing as appeasement. Jonah Goldberg illustrated this first with a children’s book and then with the fallout from the Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage. He reads the book, If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, to his daughter. The theme is simple: give a mouse a cookie, then we wants a glass of milk, then a straw, etc. He said the story came to mind recently with the Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage. We also discovered that even when the cookie is really big (like the complete redefinition of marriage) the mice want something more. First, there was the call to challenge the tax-exempt status of anyone or any institution that disagreed with the five Supreme Court justices. Mark Oppenheimer wrote in Time magazine that “Now’s the Time to End Tax Exemption for Religious Institutions.” The day that came out, I sent an email to some colleagues with the subject line: “That didn’t take long.” Next was the call for a further redefinition of marriage. Politico ran an editorial “It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy: Why Group Marriage is the Next Horizon of Social Liberalism.” Again, that didn’t take long. Throughout the debate about same sex marriage, we were assured that all the homosexual activists wanted were the right to get married. What happened if you raised questions about religious liberty, losing tax exemption, or how this would slide into legalized polygamy? Well, those questions were smacked down as irrelevant or fear mongering at its worst. We were reminded that this was merely a battle for “marriage equality” and had nothing to do with a war on religious liberty. I think we all now know that the activists wanted more. Their agenda was always more than just homosexual marriage. No cookie, no matter how big, will satisfy their insatiable appetite for more.