MODERN AGE SUMMER 2016 The conservative Marriage Movement often seemed to act as though this LGBTQ anthropology was a ruse, designed merely to loosen up the laws for libertine reasons. The more accurate read may be that these advocates were quite serious, and actually were/are more committed to their view of human nature than contemporary Christian and Jews were/are to theirs. This would explain their readiness to suppress "the reactionaries": for example, stripping recalcitrant churches of their tax exemptions; or separating children from their "homophobic" parents; or shutting down Christian homeschools. From their perspective, fulfilling the most basic of human rights requires such actions. They also parallel the way Christians behaved when they held sway for the first three centuries of the American experiment. Ryan Anderson understands a good share of this, I suspect. Yet his book frequently returns to the arguments "that reasonable people of good will are to be found on both sides of this debate"; that religious liberty is strong enough to contain the final push of the sexual revolution; and that mutual toleration of radically different visions of human nature is possible. I wish that these assertions would prove true. Yet I doubt that the institutions and assumptions of liberalism can fairly contain such a dispute. Simply put, the liberal deck is stacked against conservative outcomes. Facing a cage fight over the nature of the most fundamental human institution and the fate of children, appeals to the rules of the Marquess of Queensberry will probably not suffice. 116 moder nagejour nal .comhttp://www.modernagejournal.com