The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Make no mistake about it. From the moment gay activists came out of the closet in America, their agenda was clear. Society must get over its anti-gay sentiments and embrace everything gay – and I mean everything.

That’s why many of them were so brazen, chanting, “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.”

That’s why gay pride parades were marked by the most offensive elements of the gay community, even if they were not representative of the whole.

That’s why it was drag queens who led the way in the 1969 Stonewall Riots. They were part of the frontline resistance, and they were out, proud, and unashamed.

To be sure, some gay leaders in the 1980’s realized that this was a self-defeating strategy. If gay activism was to achieve its goals, it would have to put forth a different image, a more family-oriented, less-promiscuous, less-bizarre image.

Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen articulated some of this new strategy, writing, “The effect of presenting a bigot with an extreme instance of his stereotypic picture/label pair is to augment the strength of the bigotry” (After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s (New York: Penguin, 1989, p. 145).

In other words, we were the bigots, and to present us with the most extreme images of the gay community was to confirm and even heighten our bigotry.

So, Kirk and Madsen called for a “Self-Policing Social Code,” with words of advice like this: “If I’m a Pederast or a Sadomasochist, I’ll Keep It Under Wraps, and Out of Gay Pride Marches.”

They also called for the “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media” (p. 153).

And what would this propaganda look like?

Rather than exposing “bigots” like us to images of drag queens in their weird outfits or gay men gyrating in their underwear, we’d be bombarded by images of couples like Dan and Don, who’ve been together for 30 years, along with their adopted son Jason, and their pet dog Molly.

Do such gay couples exist? Of course. Are they more common than drag queens? Maybe so.

But statistics weren’t the issue. Image was the issue. And gay strategists fully understood that America would not embrace their goals as long as the most extreme elements of their society were at the forefront.

Transgender activists understood this strategy as well, making a clear distinction between themselves and drag queens. “No, we’re not like them, and this has nothing to do with sexual orientation. We’re just normal people trapped in the wrong body, like little Sammy who’s really Sally.”

Americans could embrace that before they could embrace “Little Hot Mess” the drag queen.

But now that so many of the goals of LGBT activism have been realized, there’s no reason to push some of their own to the back of the bus, so to say.

And what does this mean, practically speaking? It means here come the drag queens.

It was drag queens who put pressure on Facebook in 2014 to change one of its fundamental policies, namely, that you had to use your real name, not a made-up name. Before this time, drag queen John Doe could not use the name “Big Suzie Q,” which in his mind was his real name. Facebook apologized and changed its policy.

But that was minor compared to what’s happening today.

A concerned parent from Bloomington, Indiana wrote to me, saying, “Our local library always has a summer reading program for children.” Included was a link with this announcement for parents of children ages 2-6: “Learn about someone new! Local drag queens present stories and encourage us all to embrace our uniqueness.” Yes, for children ages 2-6!

This is perverse and outrageous. “Parents, bring your toddlers and little children to the library where local homosexual men who dress up as flamboyant women will read stories to them.” Here come the drag queens!

But it gets even worse. Much worse.

As Todd Starnes reports, “Parents are furious after children as young as 5-years-old were exposed to an erotic drag show performance at what was supposed to be a school district talent show.”

How bad was it?

Take a moment to read some excerpts from the article.

“The New York Daily News described the lewd performance as ‘complete with gyrations, tongue gymnastics and a flashed G-string.’” (If this seems vulgar to read – and it is – can you imagine being there with your little kids?)

“The May 25th performance shocked and enraged parents who could not believe the school district would allow a grown man to spread his legs and display his crotch to wide-eyed children.”

One parent “filmed the seven-minute routine on her cell phone and provided me with a copy. It’s jaw-dropping, folks. And when the drag queen dropped to the floor and began writhing in a sexually-suggestive manner, the auditorium erupted.”

Did you get that? This perverse performance was 7 minutes long. In front of 5-year-olds. I’m shocked some parents didn’t walk right up to the stage and shut the whole thing down.

And what happened when this drag queen started writhing on the floor in a sexually-suggestive manor?

“Once he got to that part it was chaos,” parent Raquel Morales said. “People were yelling and leaving. A lot of parents were saying had they known this was going to happen they would have taken their kids out after they had performed.” I would hope so! This is absolute madness.

And how did such a degraded performance take place at all?

“The talent show was emceed by District 4 Superintendent Alexandra Estrella. And the individual who performed in drag was identified as the president of the Public School 96 Parent Association” (my emphasis).

This is sick, and this man needs serious help. (If you’re offended by my saying this, be offended. Truth is sometimes offensive.) The district superintendent needs serious help too. How can these people be trusted with such positions of authority?

Now, I personally believe there are gay readers who are also upset as they read this account, saying, “That drag queen does not represent me. What he did is just plain filthy.”

Unfortunately, the cat is now of the bag, and if it’s gay (or trans), it’s got to be good.

That means if a gay couple is monogamish rather than monogamous, we’ve got to embrace it. Gay love is good!

And that means when a boy who identifies as a girl beats the girls at a track meet, we’ve got to celebrate it. You go boy-girl!

And that means when a drag queen wants to read stories to your two-year-old or, better still, gyrate and flash his G-string in front of your 5-year-old, you should show your appreciation.

In other words, our sentiments should be, “You’re here, you’re queer, and we’re used to it. In fact, we love it.”

Count me out of that one, friends. Enough is simply enough.