Posted By LAF Editor on June 17, 2015
On Wednesday, the Washington Post ran a surprisingly sympathetic profile of Anderson, a Princeton graduate (he majored in music) with a doctorate in economic policy from Notre Dame.
The telegenic non-stop talker has won the respect of his opponents with his articulate arguments and courtesy. He is equally at ease debating at Harvard Law School or on talk-back radio. “He’s brought a level of sophistication and professionalism to [pro-marriage] communications,” says Fred Sainz, of the pro-gay rights Human Rights Campaign. “He’s a smart operative and a good hire for Heritage — but at the end of the day, he’s on the wrong side of history.”
To give the flavour of Anderson’s arguments, the Post quotes his response to a caller when he appeared on a radio station in Colorado.
“We argue that marriage really exists to unite a man and a woman as husband and wife to then be mother and father to any children that that union creates. This is based on anthropological truths that men and women are distinct and complementary. It’s based on a biological fact that reproduction requires both a man and a woman. It’s based on a social reality that children deserve a mom and a dad. Our argument is that this is what gets the government in the marriage business. It’s not because the state cares about consenting adult romance.”
Read the rest here