1. says

    well met!

    he is a sad man. he’s either incredibly unintelligent or a complete wimp who is hoping that his regurgitation of meaningless empty buzz-terms will earn him favor.

    and really, i can’t tell if he’s another brutal silver-spooned closet case or one of those legacy-admission date-rapers.

    or both.

    but it’s getting to that point – there are no intelligent arguments against allowing gay couples to marry. those that pretend they have some only prove themselves to be complete fools. and bigots.

  2. Moz's says

    hoping andy is prepping a thread on Snoop lion’s (formerly dogg)recent comments on gays

    “People can do what they want and as they please,” he said. “Satisfy yourself accordingly. I have no issues with nobody, I live for me and I live my life doing what I do, so you should have the right to do whatever you want to do.”

    & the track “No Guns Allowed” that has his daughter in it as well is cool, mellow, and great message

  3. Brent says

    I love how they are desperately trying to put a nice face on their bigotry. He starts by not being able to even admit that he’s against gay marriage, says that it should be put up to a vote of the people, but then halfway through, when pressed, doesn’t want it put up to a “mob vote”.

    It is clear that their message is dying.

  4. Gigi says

    I’ve never seen the odious Anderson look so uncomfortable. Good job!

    Did he say he’s been involved with the Heritage Foundation for 10 years? He’s only 31! Can you say: INDOCTRINATION?

  5. Not that Rob says

    That was difficult to watch. Seeing ppl trying to rationalize completely irrational thoughts and opinions is just sad. And kind of pathetic.

  6. Mike_in_Houston says

    The video was kind of a disappointment, at least in terms of each side getting equal time to speak. Suze is a class act. Everybody gave that jackass far too much air time. He constantly interrupted her and spoke over her, to the point that she really didn’t get to make her points the way she should have been able to do; she didn’t get close to the five minutes he did for uninterrupted speaking. After his first five minutes, neither Piers nor anybody else ever told him to shut up and give Suze her chance to speak.

  7. Gigi says

    @Little Kiwi

    I agree. No compelling arguments against gay marriage at all, other than the “what about the children” trip. Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly said the very same thing. Kelly said Tony Perkins was on her show and he had nothing. Nada. Zilch. I thought it was amazing that she’d admit that considering that he was their “guy” for so many years. O’Reilly said they just thump their bibles. And then came Rush to attack Bill…LOVE IT!

  8. lucas says

    I know that people say that you shouldn’t say every homophobe is a closet case…but if this man isn’t gay…well, I just don’t know.

  9. atomic says

    Piers Morgan, I think, did a much better job at the very end of the video than Suze did. As much as I love Suze and think she’s a fantastic role model and a persuasive, logical, courteous, and level-headed person, she never explicitly hit on the point that Piers did (as does Dan Savage and Justice Kennedy): that if marriage is about “protecting children” as these bigots claim it is, then what of the real and immediate harm that comes to children of same-sex couples?

    When it comes down to it, the bottom line of these bigots is that their opposition to marriage equality has to do with the notion that gay people CHOOSE to be gay. Their twisted logic is that if people of the same sex can be married, then more people would choose to be gay, rather than choose a straight lifestyle, whatever that means. They don’t understand that what marriage equality and gay equality would do is simply take those people who ARE gay, and stop them from living a self-loathing, closeted life in denial, marrying someone under false pretenses. You would significantly reduce one cause of divorce and household turmoil. What these people don’t get is that the talking points that they’re now relying on–“think of the children!” and “let the people decide!” are rapidly shifting against their favor.

    And yes, it is absolutely hypocritical that when Suze asked the audience, the guy responds that it’s just this studio audience, when all along he’s suggesting that people should continue the debate.

  10. Diver39 says

    Wow. Ryan Anderson’s arguments are so specious it’s appalling. I guess he really believes what he’s arguing for, but it sounds hollow and rehearsed. The opening exchange where he denies he’s “against” same-sex marriage is some of the best comedy writing I’ve seen on TV.


    “I know you believe very strongly what you believe but I also know that you’re very, very uneducated in how it really, really works. I believe from the bottom of my heart that if you really, really understood why the government does need to get involved, why it does need to be legal on a federal level. If you really understood that there’s no way you would sit there and say what you are saying right now.”

    WRONG! This freak works for the Heritage Foundation and understands 101% what he’s saying and doing.

  12. Bart says

    Facts aren’t on their side. Reality isn’t on their side. History isn’t on their side. The only thing you can cling to when you have nothing else is ignorance and lies.

  13. t says

    thanks piers

    sometimes it takes a non American’s reflections of us to see how silly our laws are

    15 other countries have marriage equality, and they make it law without all the bs we have to go through

  14. rjp3 says

    Having worked for the heritage foundation for half of his young life it is obvious to me that this man is projecting his religious views onto the structure of society at large, instead of the admission that religion is a part of society, it is laid bare that his belief is that religion is society or that religion actively creates society.

    What is this? the 17th century? I am not sure how this man got so far in his life without seeing reality, I can only guess and cultivate my beliefs as such based on the evidence.

    Understanding marriage the religious sacrament vs civil unions(civil marriage) is really the simplest way to break it all down. The government uses the word marriage and in doing so actually endorses religion and the projection of religion onto the foundations of society by people like this because they didn’t think to call it something else at the time. They really should, it would change the entire argument and shut down a lot of this twisted projection.

    Separate church and state! Stop calling it marriage!

  15. Kyle says

    Ryan Anderson was apparently impressed with Charles Cooper’s arguments. He repeats Cooper’s response to the analogy between older couples and same-sex couples. He adds that it’s important for fertile men to have their fertility contained in a marriage, which would seem to embrace bisexual people’s right to marry someone of the same sex.

    Opponents of same-sex marriage fail to recognize that marriage has already been redefined by feminism and industrialization among other things. That is to say, it’s already gender-neutral and optionally prolific. At this point, it is merely discrimination to exclude gay couples from marriage.

    One heartening thing to take from all this is that Ryan Anderson, Charles Cooper and Paul Clement all made some point complimenting committed gay relationships. Cynics won’t appreciate it, and probably rightly, but it’s a sure sign of progress.

  16. Kyle says

    @rjp3 I don’t believe that marriage is a religious term. Are weddings religious ceremonies? Should irreligious people not call their unions marriages? Should they not have weddings?

  17. Dwight says

    Why is everyone getting away with this false canard that there was no legally recognized gay marriage until 2000? South Africa’s 1994 constitution allowed it!

  18. jleo71 says

    Suze gave him his time to speak and never interrupted him once. You would think that anyone with half a brain and a modicum of decency would reciprocate. Yet he interrupted her at every turn, no doubt for fear of a rational rebuttal to his nonsense.

  19. Rollins says

    Suze’s great but I think Don Lemon did a better job of putting that Heritage guy in his place the other day.

  20. John B. says

    Aren’t groups like the Heritage Foundation trying to SHUT DOWN “our constitutional authority to have a debate” by supporting a federal marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

  21. says

    Suze Orman is FIERCE. If you’re looking for someone who could be to the Gay Rights movement what Martin Luther King, Jr was to the anti-segregation movement, she comes closer than anybody I can think of.

  22. Carlos says

    Anderson’s bio at the Heritage foundation does not say if he is MARRIED. Can someone at Towleroad verify his marital status? That would be like a heterosexual discussing what it is like to be gay. Wait that happens everyday. It’s like a virgin researching then writing a book about sex.

  23. anon says

    Think tanks are paid promoters of ideas. Their job is to come up with the most compelling arguments to advance a particular partisan cause and get as much press on them as possible. Spokesmen are not citing their own views.

  24. MArf says

    I would wager LOTS of money his parents were divorced. MUCH the same as MAGGIE from NOM was a single mother and that’s why she’s leading a crusade on STR8 marriage as well. It’s related to their personal life history and it’s bs. Get over yourselves already…

  25. Tinyfirefly says

    Look, this gentleman’s argument can be destroyed head on. It is true, that marriage really isn’t about children, and modern marriage isn’t “traditional”. But his argument is about the “welfare of children”. Ok, let’s go there. Let’s assume, for the moment, that all his arguments are ok at face value, then evaluate his central demand on its own merits.

    A child of a gay couple, out of a ban of gay marriage, doesn’t gain a mommy and a daddy by virtue of that denial. You can’t turn gay people straight by banning them. The most potent argument against this guy is one that wasn’t used. The ideal situation in his mind is not the normative situation – so if the biological parent of a couple in a gay marriage DIES, what do you do with the CHILD afterwards? What does he suggest, since to the law, HIS law, the law he FAVORS, the remaining PARENT and CHILD are now STRANGERS. Does he intend to bleat TO that child that his ideal situation is a mommy and daddy?

    This child normally would be sent to a foster home, since the surviving partner has no legal authority over the life of the child.

    Is that really in the best interest of the child – to send them to foster care because they can’t have a “mommy and daddy”?

    Is sending kids to foster couples this man’s idea of protecting children? Because positively affirming heterosexual marriage is not doing what this man says he wants to do, which is to uphold bans.

  26. Tinyfirefly says

    And President Obama is wrong. there aren’t intelligent educated people of good will on both sides of the issue. The anti-gay side is wrong. At minimum. Because bans are about animus and punishment.

  27. SFRowGuy says

    same BS rhetoric that always comes up ‘Marriage is about children’. Marriage has nothing to do with children. If it was, then there should be a law that says once a couple (hetro) has a child then they can’t get divorced until the child becomes an adult. Marriage is a proclamation of one person’s love for another. The government just chooses to recognize this with benefits. And even if a State has Civil Unions, the Federal government does not recognize or confer the same benefits to Civil Unions.

  28. PAUL B. says

    Debating with a naive adolescent is beneath Suze & Piers. It’s disappointing to watch because I think they’re both such accomplished people who should be doing more important things with their time…like even baking cookies would be more productive.

  29. noteasilyoffended says

    He certainly has his Heritage Foundation talking points down. Too bad they are all BS.

  30. noteasilyoffended says

    He certainly has his Heritage Foundation talking points down. Too bad they are all BS.

  31. PAUL B. says

    Did he say he was with the HF for 15 years…and then said he was 31 years old? So how does that work? He was 16 when the HF brought him on board to indoctrinate?

  32. says

    Suze was amazing. She kept calm, and explained her points in an intelligent manner. She explained her reasoning with logic, and then ended with an anecdote. Great job!

  33. Bernie says

    and again, I have to ask why this moron is called a “scholar”…… cat is more scholarly…..I commend Suze Orman for maintaining her cool and restrained response

  34. RexT says

    The ongoing ‘language evolution’ from the Heritage and like kind, ‘natural marriage’ – ‘traditional marriage’ – no legal marriage until ‘2000’ vs the truth of South Africa – thank you Nelson Mandela – 1994, etc. etc keeps rolling out and unchallenged. SCOTUS even using new language and terms as though appropriate. Anderson, like many of them, sticks to the message, uses the language, all words – without relationship to reality – intended only to further their hopeless positions.

  35. says

    It is IMMENSELY hypocritical of Mr. Anderson to declare that we need to slow down and have a conversation before we start changing our laws … now that the tide seems to have turned. Did we hear him or his ilk declaring that we should slow down and have a conversation when states were rushing in to ban same-sex marriage? No. These folks are quite happy to monkey with laws and disregard the outcomes for families as long as those changes reflect their personal ideologies.

    And one more thing: if folks like Mr. Anderson were sincere in their belief that the states should be empowered to decide this stuff on their own, they would INSIST that DOMA be overturned and that the federal government start respecting the decisions of those nine states that permit same-sex marriage.

  36. Joey Steel says

    As soon as this guy started talking, my gaydar went off the radar. He is so GAY (latent for sure) he and Mr. Michelle Bachman should be joined at the head….

  37. Tom says

    Recognize the strategy at work here.

    Conservatives are going to continue to say horrific, insulting, over-the-top theings presented as their “honest beliefs”, and SOME of them actually DO believer some of the things they say, but most of them are saying these things for one primary purpose.

    To elicit a profoundly negative response that they can point to and replay, over and over, to justify how hateful, socially destructive, and shameful they ARE.

    Suzy knows not to give that to them.

    I sincerely hope the rest of us do, too.

  38. LincolnLounger says

    I am loving seeing Ryan Anderson on television night and day. There’s no one more effective in advancing the cause for marriage equality.

  39. Ryan says

    Health care is “secondary issues” to marriage…

    How about when one of the two gets cancer, and isn’t covered under a spouse’s insurance?

  40. Beekeeper says

    I’ll bet Ryan Anderson was very good at dodgeball when he was a kid. He managed to dodge direct answers to most of the questions he was asked. Not to mention that he doesn’t even know what the real purpose of marriage is: To ensure the orderly tranmission of property rights and money. Look it up, Mr Ryan.

  41. Beekeeper says

    I’ll bet Ryan Anderson was very good at dodgeball when he was a kid. He managed to dodge direct answers to most of the questions he was asked. Not to mention that he doesn’t even know what the real purpose of marriage is: To ensure the orderly tranmission of property rights and money. Look it up, Mr Ryan.

  42. anonymous says

    That was literally the most offensive, shameful, biased, condescending set up I’ve ever witnessed on television. Piers Morgan has reached an ALL TIME LOW. Ryan T. Anderson, God bless you! I stand behind you!

    THIS is a respectful debate (remove spaces to link):
    “VIDEO: Heritage’s Ryan Anderson and The Blaze’s S.E. Cupp Debate Marriage”
    http : //blog. heritage. org/2013/03/28/video-heritages-ryan-anderson-talks-marriage-on-the-blaze/

  43. Jeff says

    That was literally the most offensive, shameful, biased, condescending rude jerk I’ve ever witnessed on television. Ryan Anderson stooped really LOW. He needs to learn to treat others with some respect during a conversation and not interupt the other guests when they are speaking.

    I wonder who he will have on his side once history rolls over him like a steam roller on a hot June afternoon.

    My gaydar also went instantly flying into the red. I can’t find any information on Anderson being married or single.

    He could have been as dangerous in the long term as Ralph Reed, but he is not that smart, we won’t have to worry about Anderson too much longer.

  44. Jon says

    So, if you are gay you can’t be loving parents?! Why is this guy not this passionate about people that divorce

  45. DannyEastVillage says

    by far, the majority of the history of marriage (in every culture) is about protecting property – NOT that sentimental hallmark card nonsense about protecting children. In the middle ages the church authorities didn’t even care of poor people got married or not because there was no property to be concerned about. In the Christian West marriage was about protecting the interests of wealthy families and making sure that your wealth went where you wanted it to go when you died.

    Well, the argument today FOR gay marriage consists largely of the same ideas: making sure your your assets are protected and that your loved ones are legally entitled to them when you die.

    That stuff about protecting children is just so much hot air intended to appeal to emotions. Many gay couples are doing a phenomenal job raising children. But the law needs to make sure that their parents’ assets are protected. THAT ALSO is part of taking care of children.

  46. DannyEastVillage says

    it all goes back to stability in society by protecting/stabilizing the assets of the wealthy and powerful so that chaos – social AND financial – doesn’t ensue when a wealthy player dies. It has ALWAYS been that. What other conceivable reason could the state have for interesting itself in marriage?

  47. gunther says

    I find this format frustrating.

    I think equality in marriage is important because it clears up the inequalities in wealth distribution. The right wants to control how many people have as much money as they do. They want to fix the inequalities incrementally, retaining that control.

    I’m also pissed off that some young adults have been denied the opportunity to start a family with who they truly love. The right does not give a damn about that. So they have no standing in this issue.

    So why is Piers Morgan putting these two sides together? Who is Piers Morgan anyway? This presentation is simply a shouting match. A competition over cliches and zingers. It cheapens everything. Even my macbook.