Proof that they've been lying all along is the enemy, and must be attacked. Simple as that.
First of all, that's ridiculous in a legal sense (and any other sense, naturally). Unless I'm mistaken there are no laws in VA regarding the sale of reading material and the like to minors. At least, I've never heard of any, and I didn't find any with a couple of quick Googles. I can only assume they mean to sue under federal obscenity law. Second, I'm not familiar with that book, what is it?
The U.S. Supreme Court established the test that judges and juries use to determine whether matter is obscene in three major cases: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 300-02, 309 (1977); and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987). The three-pronged Miller test is as follows:
1- Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);
2- Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and
3-Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Any material that satisfies this three-pronged test may be found obscene.
Federal law prohibits the possession with intent to sell or distribute obscenity, to send, ship, or receive obscenity, to import obscenity, and to transport obscenity across state borders for purposes of distribution.
This could be a much more important case than a simple jackass-sues-over-his-moral-indignation. If brought to court under the pretense of federal law, it could serve as a precedent for establishing LGBTQ (one way or the other) as a legally obscene concept or idea. Conversely, it could establish a precedent as legally inoffensive.