RECENT  POSTS:  » You know what's not presidential? Like at all? » Inevitable justice temporarily delayed in Alabama » Read: Fed. judge strikes Alabama marriage ban; no stay on ruling » Derisively remembering when full equality was in 'Jeopardy!' » When all else fails, demand your letters are capitalized » Major Iowa caucus player calls on next President to 'politely reject unjust SCOTUS opinions' » Photo: Supreme Court's Thomas poses with NOM's cofounder, major equality opponent » Wait, even NewsMax is now pushing back against anti-gay spin?! » Deflating the anti-gay right's latest 'gotcha!' » POTUS hails marriage equality in State of the Union speech  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/03/2012

Separation of church and license plate

by Jeremy Hooper

The Minnesotan who wrote this line meant for it to be anti–civil marriage equality for qualified same-gender couples:

If the state can regulate who should have a driver's license, surely it should regulate who can marry (e.g., only those over a certain age, not from the same family, and, yes, only two people of the opposite gender). [SOURCE]

His argument actually helps us instead.

Yes, the state does regulate driver's licensing. Yes, the state does regulate civil marriage licensing. Operative phrase in both cases: the state. Not the church. Not the personal whims of a certain faith view. Not popularity contests. Not flawed arguments about reproduction and child rearing. But the state.


Is a team, largely led by Catholics, waging a campaign wherein they pit personal theology against the civil licensing of certain, otherwise qualified drivers?

Is this team, in its fury to keep certain citizens unlicensed, bringing up arguments about ancillary elements like whether or not the car has satellite radio or chooses to park in a garage?

Is this effort still trafficking in fear rhetoric about what more cars on the road will supposedly do to the sanctity of the American family, even thought legally licensed counterparts in other states have already belied their hyperbole?

Is it even okay to vote on the civil licensing rights of a minority population of drivers, subjecting deserved freedoms to majority tyranny?


Within the obvious and resounding "NO!" that logically follows all of the above queries lies the problem with both the letter-writer's supposedly solid talking point and his larger "protect marriage" cause.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails