RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM: Marriage means putting choking hazards on your baby's toes » Video: Ben Carson is apparently one felony conviction away from fellating a man » NOM to gay families: Your relationships are 'simply about adult sexual desires' » Maggie Gallagher's new gig » How do you even talk with a movement that insists we 'cannot coexist'? » Sen. Manchin picks odd way to (D-istinguish) himself » Photo: Before city council votes on nondiscrimination, Charlotte anti-LGBT activists frame us as 'Homo-Nazis' » AG Holder: 'Marriage equality is an idea whose time has come.' » Viciously anti-gay activist Scott Lively to help us show SCOTUS what animus looks like; thanks, doll! » Audio: NOM prez equates his anti-gay fight with defeating slavery, conquering 'evils that were occurring in the Roman empire'  

« 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