Yo, Imma let you finish celebrating, but someone needs to answer a question for me. Why did the Supreme Court even need to rule on marriage equality in the first place?

Thinking logically about this, I’m compelled to compare this to other “licenses” you need to have. The drivers’ license you received in your state allows you to drive across the county and into Canada and Mexico without any other state questioning your ability to do so. You are still a licensed driver while out-of-state. So, in this case you proved one time that you have this skill and they gave you a license good for all states.

For professions needing licensing in a state (lawyers and accountants, for example), you can’t practice out-of-state without becoming licensed in that state. So maybe they hold those licenses in higher regard than a driver’s license due to the skills involved to hold those licenses.

Which brings me to marriage licenses. “Some groups believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage license is unnecessary and/or immoral. The Libertarian Party, for instance, believes that marriage should be a matter of personal liberty, not requiring permission from the state. Libertarians argue that marriage is a right, and that by allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we merely have privilege, not the right, to marry.” [thanks, Wikipedia] Personally, I think marriage licenses are completely unnecessary. Why bring in a government to a completely private agreement between two people? The cynic in me says it’s so the government can profit at the end of of the marriage.

Now, let’s take this to my logical conclusion. My same-sex partner and I get married in a state allowing said marriages. We get a license before the wedding. There is no special skill involved to being married, so it’s not like going to a state banning this marriage makes you forget how to be married. A state that doesn’t recognize your marriage is like a state that can arrest you for driving on their roads without that state’s license. “You aren’t a driver in our state because we don’t recognize your out-of-state license.”

The logic just doesn’t support states’ rights to ban or refuse to recognize a marriage that happened in a state allowing the marriage. The only hole in my logic is, all states will give you a license to drive. There are no states that ban drivers’ licenses. But I still think the comparison is valid, which makes the Supreme Court’s decision a moot point. Yes, they had to rule on the constitutionality of the case before them. I just think the case should never have existed in the first place.