If you want to see the conversation on Twitter here’s the link.
Ryan T. Anderson @RyanT_Anderson Sep 27
Judges should not insert their own preferences about marriage and declare them to be required by the Constitution. http://wapo.st/1vmyQ4r
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Sep 27
@RyanT_Anderson hahahahaha….That you actually think it’s all a matter of preference and not equal protection under the law is funny.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Sep 27
@rjmedwed @RyanT_Anderson maybe a better word than “preference” is “personal stance”?
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Sep 27
@SlavePJ Not really, since it’s about the law, not personal stances or ideas. @RyanT_Anderson
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Sep 27
@rjmedwed got it. So you’re saying the “law” or constitution has gay rights already in it? @RyanT_Anderson
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Sep 27
@SlavePJ I’m saying that the Constitution calls for equal protection under the law. @RyanT_Anderson
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Sep 27
@rjmedwed I agree. But to keep from throwing around slogans, equal protection of who from what? @RyanT_Anderson
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Sep 27
@SlavePJ You need me to define what legal recognition of gay marriage gives someone?
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Sep 27
@rjmedwed maybe what it “protects” them from.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Sep 27
@SlavePJ I’m not sure I understand your question. Could you rephrase it?
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Sep 27
@rjmedwed sure. And thanks for the conversation. Question: what threats/dangers does the constitution “protect” gay people from?
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Sep 27
@SlavePJ Like straight couples, the issues that arise when their marriages are not legally recognized.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Sep 27
@rjmedwed anything specific come to your mind?
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Sep 27
@SlavePJ There are 1000+ rights that are denied to someone when their marriage is not legally recognized, including adoption, inheritance.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Sep 28
@rjmedwed So the constitution “calls for equal protection under the law” for everyone, whether married or not for inheritance rights?
Robbie Medwed@rjmedwed
@SlavePJ No, clearly not, otherwise we would not need these laws. But among the laws that exist, they must be equal.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Sep 29
@SlavePJ Obviously, there are laws that are not in the constitution, but are constitutional, and those that are not constitutional.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Sep 29
@SlavePJ Well over 30 judges have found marriage bans to be unconstitutional.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Sep 29
@rjmedwed so how do you define marriage and what’s not marriage?
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Sep 30
@SlavePJ Pretty simply. Two consenting adults who wish to enter into a partnership to share ownership, tax liability, and more.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Sep 30
@SlavePJ Remember, there’s a big difference between civil marriage and religious marriage, in terms of the law.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Sep 30
@rjmedwed I agree that there’s are big differences between civil marriage and the way different religions/beliefs view marriage.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Sep 30
@rjmedwed But in your view, I’m not sure why you have to limit it to 2 adults genuinely wishing to enter such “protective” partnership.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Sep 30
@rjmedwed And in your view, I’m not sure why you have to limit it to adults. What if a 17 year old “wished” to consent? Or a 12 year old?
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Sep 30
@rjmedwed Shouldn’t minors & those adults wishing for more than 2 be protected & have the same benefits to shared ownership and tax breaks?
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Sep 30
@rjmedwed I’m not sure why they shouldn’t be protected or why they should be excluded on your view.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ You’re right. There’s not a good reason.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ This is an absurd strawman. There are laws surrounding “age of consent” – and by the way 16 year olds can already get married.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ Again, an absurd strawman, minors are not adults. There are many other laws surrounding the status of minors. Different argument.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ Because minors and adults aren’t the same thing, and aren’t treated the same way in many, many laws, not just marriage.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ You’ve done a fine job of creating strawmen, but you haven’t shared any valid arguments for govt-sanctioned discrimination.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed you have just endorsed “govt-sanctioned discrimination” against 15 year olds and 3 adults who deeply want the same rights.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ Entirely a separate argument and one that’s not relevant here.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ I’m not getting into a discussion on how the government defines adulthood/being a minor. That’s not my concern.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed 3 consenting partners is relevant because we’re looking for a “reasonable” definition of marriage. “Irrelevant” isn’t a reason.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed I’m wondering why you think your definition of marriage is “reasonable” and should shape the law on marriage.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ “irrelevant” was in response to your sidetracking into the world of minor/adult legal differences.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ I’ve already given my answers. You have yet to give any reason why you are in favor of discrimination.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed so you’re answer for why you favor discrimination against 3 adult lovers is that their wish is irrelevant to marriage definition.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ No, that’s not at all what I said. If you’re not going to stick to what I’ve said, I’m going to stop talking to you.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed my answer to why the law should limit civil marriage to one man and one woman is because of the reasonable definition of marriage.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ what is reasonable about it?
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed Marriage is the bringing of a man & a woman together as husband & wife to be father & mother to any children their union produces.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ So your only argument is about children? That’s not valid.
Reply
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed Reasons: men/women are different; all children have a biological mom & dad & it’s for their wellbeing to have them as parents;
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed By encouraging marriage norms—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, permanence—the state strengthens civil society reducing its own role.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ Wow, talk about “big government.” And, none of your answers are rooted in science or sound policy.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed you keep saying what’s not valid or relevant or the same argument yet give no argument/reason for your definition of marriage.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed I’m happy to continue the discussion. Please give me reasons for your definition or reasons against mine.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ Here is a list of why we need marriage equality: http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/lovecantwait-america-needs-nationwide-marriage-equality-now …
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed “invalid” & “irrelevant” are not arguments or reasons. It’s just throwing around slogans without thoughtful discussion.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed Thanks for the link. I appreciate it. I’ll take a look. I’d still like to hear YOUR thinking and reasons if you have any.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ and you’re using tired tropes that bear no relationship to actual, proven science.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ I have many, those are many of them. As long as the government offers a special status for two people to be married, it must be >
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ offered equally. That’s all I need. SCOTUS agrees on that point, in fact.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ You’ve offered nothing but “feelings” and “opinions”. That list offers real consequences of marriage.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ You keep claiming I’ve said “irrelevant” to your arguments. I said talking about who is and is not an adult was irrelevant.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ You’re either a terrible reader or you genuinely don’t understand the issues here.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ Stopping gay people from being legally married won’t stop them from raising kids. Being unmarried hurts those kids.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ It won’t stop people from being together, and it won’t stop people from being gay. It will, however, ensure that they are >
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ always considered second-class citizens, and not treated like other adults. It is, absolutely, discrimination.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed I just want to understand why those who want to do it in a group of three are not being discriminated against by you & your view >
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed how are they not being treated like second-class citizens in your view? It seems that you’re doing that to them as well.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ they well may be, but that’s not my argument. You keep trying to deflect what I’m actually saying
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed Robbie, I’m not trying to deflect what you’re saying. I’m trying to see if your definition and reasoning holds as a good civil >
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed law for all people, not just those adults wishing to commit to one other adult. For the record I’d say polygamy is unlawful too.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 1
@SlavePJ I don’t know the legal issues involved in polygamy. I have no problem with it. But I don’t really care – that’s not my argument.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed Thank you for leveling with me there Robbie. That helps. Looking at that list of benefits you want I think we should change laws >
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed to grant the ones that make sense. But I don’t think we should redefine “marriage” to grant many of those benefits. If u redefine>
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed marriage with your definition or the polygamist definitions then we are consequently abolishing marriage & it’s not good for >
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed the kids who are born to unwed moms and dads. And that forces the government to use more $$ & services to care for kids half as >
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ Oct 1
@rjmedwed well as most married parents would. Does that make sense? I agree that some benefits on that list should be granted.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 2
@SlavePJ No. It doesn’t make sense that you want to selectively grant some of those benefits but not all. The government has NO business >
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 2
@SlavePJ telling people how or when to have kids. And even if they tried, it would not be successful.
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 2
@SlavePJ And stop with the doomsday prediction of “abolishing marriage.” That’s not happening at all. Look at the states where marriage >
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 2
@SlavePJ equality exists. You know what happened? Divorce rates went down. Families are stronger – of all kinds. You have no leg to stand >
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 2
@SlavePJ on here other than “I don’t think gay people should be treated equally because it makes me uncomfotable.” That’s not how laws >
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 2
@SlavePJ are made. I’m done with this conversation now because you’ve ignored any semblance of reality in your arguments. You’ve ignored >
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 2
@SlavePJ the reality of what’s actually happening on the ground and in real, actual families. You haven’t listened to my arguments and >
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 2
@SlavePJ you genuinely seems to think that gay people are unequal to straight people, and I refuse to engage with a person who thinks >
Robbie Medwed @rjmedwed Oct 2
@SlavePJ that some humans deserve less than others. Goodbye. I will not respond to any further comments.
PJ Tibayan @SlavePJ 20h19 hours ago
Thank you Robbie @rjmedwed for allowing me to attempt to have a reasonable conversation about important issues to us both and to our nation.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE ADDED TO THE CONVERSATION? OR WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE TAKEN OUT? LET ME KNOW IN THE COMMENT SECTION BELOW. THANKS!
Related resources:
- What You Need to Know About Marriage (free E-book)
- What is Marriage?
- What is Marriage (Video)? Stanford Lecture | Question and Answer Session Also posted below:
PJ's personal blog. For articles see gospelize.me 
I think you did a great job I practically and reasonably having a discussion with this person. It is unfortunate that he “didn’t” see your point because of the imbalance of his own thinking.
If I would suggest anything I would try to key in on the relevance of the law for him. He would probably say that it doesn’t matter if the law condemns gay marriage since that is discrimination; however, it does matter that the law condemns minor and plural marriage. Maybe out that way, he might have faced the issue that he is dealing with his desire for laws whose only check and balance is his own judgement – a scary thought indeed.
Good point. Certainly another angle that might be the trick. Thanks for sharing your thoughts brother. Let me know when you’re in town again so we can get together!