"..there is a difference between a law forbidding prayer at government-funded institutions, and a law requiring it."
Of course there is... but that obvious fact ignores the distinction I made. The equivocation comes from not distinguishing between a law that allows such prayers and one which requires them. When permission is given, then action is logically ...no, practically..embedded in the response.
Once more... **IF** the law allows public prayers at government-funded institutions, those fundamentalists who wish to have such prayers **will** see that prayers happen. Allowing, when there is pressure from such groups is essentially de facto ensuring that established religious observances -- almost always Christian, with Jesus being invoked, will occur.
Since the law already permits and defends the right of students/persons to pray silently in any way they wish, any pressure to 'allow' public prayer or other religious ritual is superfluous and designed to promote and establish prayer as a regular and authorized routine.

"School prayer isn't really a big issue anymore, is it?" Depends on what you mean by "anymore" and "big". Various schools, usually in the South, and especially in Texas, still do what they can to find loopholes and skirt the law. Not only that, but few courts or law enforcement agencies monitor such activities at woodworkers meeting where *I* have recently seen it.

I am glad to see that you agree that separation of church & state should be observed, but I fear that you are not dealing with reality when asserting that ..."there is a difference between trying to pass a law requiring prayer, and trying to get rid of the law prohibiting it...". It just doesn't deal with what happens when there is no law 'prohibiting' it.

(I work with wood, and know about endangered species. A few years ago, certain Mangroves along public waterways in Florida were being ruthlessly cut down as homeowners across the way wanted to "improve the view". A law was passed, forbidding cutting of Mangroves without a state permit. Well, after a few years people complained, saying that they 'just wanted a decent view, and those plants grew SO fast',...etc. So, the law was revised, 'permitting' reasonable trimming. Guess what happened? Homeowners interpreted the law to mean that THEY could decide what 'reasonable' trimming was, and again, they hacked the Mangroves mercilessly. The law had to be changed BACK to require permits for any trimming.)

It's common human nature to wish to do what they wish... and laws have to be there to try to make the game vaguely fair.