Heritage Foundation fellow Ryan T. Anderson just released a book that purports to give marriage equality opponents a way forward following the Supreme Court's
Obergefell ruling. Good luck with that. Zack Ford
highlights just a few of the rave reviews for
Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom:
“Absolutely nothing new here.”
“Ryan T. Anderson’s Checklist of Failed Arguments”
“Nothing new. Not challenging. Not entertaining. Not enlightening.”
“Pointless debate of a settled issue”
“A Tired read full of dog whistles to Anti-Gay bigotry”
“read it if you already agree with the author and just want to read something supporting your view.”
Case in point—here's an Anderson nugget:
“Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.”
Fresh. Insights like that must be what inspired Rick Warren to call it a "
tour de force."
But Anderson must think pretty highly of himself to believe he's got something new and original to bring to the discussion after Ted Olson and David Boies used the Prop 8 case (Perry) to essentially obliterate every unfounded anti-gay trope the right wing has been rolling out for decades in support of "traditional marriage."
Hey, I have an idea. Let's have a matching of the wits between Anderson and Matthew Vines and see who makes the best case. Should be a cinch for Anderson, right? He's a PhD, after all. Vines, on the other hand, wrote "God and the Gay Christian" and originated "The Gay Debate," which in the interest of full disclosure, I have not watched.
But here's what others said when it first surfaced in 2012.
Dan Savage posted it on his blog and called it “brilliant.” Leonard Pitts Jr., syndicated columnist with The Miami Herald, called it “a masterwork of scriptural exegesis” in a column in May. In July, Mark Sandlin, a founder of The Christian Left, called it “the final nail in the ‘you’re being homophobic coffin’ ” in an article for The Huffington Post.
Something tells me that Vines v. Anderson could really shed some light on who has the fresh ideas and who's just trying to dress up yesteryear in hipster clothing.