It would require greater investigatory resources from the state. The clerk at your local courthouse can tell your gender by simply glancing at you, or at your driver’s license if you’re an “It’s Pat” type. Not so these other things. Yes, you could do a cutoff age, but that raises thorny questions about where to set it, especially in this age of medical fertility assistance.
But you asked if any of that would be rational. If you take as given that marriage is principally about procreation (and I remind you that I do not accept that proposition as true), then yes, those measures would indeed be rational. If the state wished to uses its scarce resources to further limit access to marriage to those who can procreate, it may assuredly do so. However, it also may, and does in fact, decline those measures on grounds of administrative convenience and cost.
(BTW, I’m discounting any gender discrimination claims these measures might entail, which would have to survive greater scrutiny than mere rational basis).
Yes. Pretending age can stand in for the ability to drive safely is as irrational as pretending sexual orientation can stand in for the ability to procreate.
I think you’ll have a hard time defending that position. Setting aside the gay marriage issue for the moment, there are significant information costs in evaluating the relative maturity of drivers, especially during the teen years. Setting an age cutoff allows the licensing process to move along with some measure of haste.
I mean, if you think the lines at the DMV are long now, just imagine if they had to evaluate each individual driver’s ability to appreciate the responsibility of operating a motor vehicle.
Well, let’s flip it around. Given the total cost of America’s current road and transport system, in dollars, to the enviornment, and in lives, can you say a system that only allowed the competent and mature to drive would be a bad thing, even if it ended up halving or quartering the number of cars on the road?
Then what do they want with 72 virgins? Or are they dreaming of 72 studs?
FWIW, Diane Rehm of WAMU-FM in Washington interviewed Bob Dole on her show this week. She read him Robertson’s comments. I don’t remember his exact words, but he unequivocally denounced them.
He also agreed that politics has become more personal and negative in the last few years.
Amazing what politicians can afford to say when they’re not running for anything.
Sure. So would setting a height or weight cutoff. You could even eliminate the actual driving test, and rely only on age, height, or weight, speeding up the process even more - but at the cost of making it even less accurate.
Just as limiting marriage to a man and a woman is less accurate than actually putting a tiny bit of effort into determining whether they’re fertile. At the moment, marriage licenses are handed out with such disregard for fertility that it’s hard to believe procreation is supposed to be a vital part of determining who can marry. Even asking “To the best of your knowledge, are you or your partner unable or unwilling to have children?” would be a big step… but currently, as long as you and your partner are of the opposite sex and not too closely related, no one in the entire marriage process cares at all about whether you’re going to have kids.
And if you think the lines at the white lunch counter are long now, just imagine if they had to let blacks use it too! Sometimes making things more fair is worth a little extra cost.
Some of that would be offset by the economic impact of the increased public transportation which would follow. Some more of that would be offset by removing from the roads the vast majority of the folks who cause the over 6,000,000 accidents and over 40,000 deaths each year.
I have long felt that driving competency should be tested each and every time a license is renewed.
Oh come now. Surely we can agree that there is a correlation, however weak, between age and maturity.
Hey, look, you’re preaching to the choir on this; I disagree that marriage is principally about procreation. However, just because I find that argument unpersuasive does not mean it is irrational.
Well, all that is fine, but surely you can see that there are serious economic impact issues to deal with, not to mention the cost of hiring and training all those new DMV employees. My point being that while you may be unpersuaded by a defender of the status quo, surely you can see that opposition to your plan is not irrational.
Just as there’s a correlation between height or weight and maturity. I don’t think you’ll find many safe drivers who weigh less than 70 lbs or are less than 4 feet tall. Sure, you might exclude some midgets by setting such a limit, but that’s no worse than excluding some teenagers. In both cases, you’re excluding them based on something beyond their control.
Thing is, when we’re talking about the driving age, we can point to the fact that even applicants over 16 are tested for their driving skill, and use that as evidence that the age limit is a stand-in for driving skill. “We’re not trying to discriminate against teens, we just know from experience that it’s a waste of time to give them the driving test.” We can’t do the same for marriage, which makes it harder to argue that there’s a rational basis.
Nope. In fact, I’d say teens are more affected by not being allowed to drive than blacks ever were by not being allowed to eat at the same lunch counters.
Now you’re just being silly. You’re using height/weight as a proxy for age, and in turn using that as a proxy for maturity. Far simpler to simply use age from the get-go, and at no additional cost to boot (indeed, at lesser cost, since height/weight would have to be measured at the DMV, rather than simply having a clerk not the DOB on one’s birth certificate).
The age cutoff isn’t so much about being able to competently manage the mechanical aspects of operating a motor vehicle – parallel parking and the like – as it is about having the emotional maturity to handle the responsibility of operating a motor vehicle.
Can’t do what? Claim we know from experience that a same-sex couple cannot reproduce on their own? I think we certainly can do precisely that.
You are aware that the lunch counters were a small part of a larger struggle, right?
I love when you post things like this, because it just squanders whatever little credibility you have here. Please do continue.
Cost of massive amounts of railway safety.
Cost of health care for those injured.
Salaries of police officers who exist primarily to enforce traffic law.
Now, combined with the fact that professional drivers should easily be able to pass a strong competency-based driving exam, what kinds of economic impact were you thinking of?
