People on both sides of the marriage debate have been eyeing closely the case of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who has refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples as doing so would violate her religious principles.
It’s a heated case and it only became more heated when Davis was actually thrown in jail for her refusal. The argument was simple: the court said that secular understandings of marriage trump the ancient and pious understanding of marriage and though we maintain alleged freedom of religion, those who wish to practice their religion must choose between being in violation of their beliefs or in violation of the court system’s conjured rulings.
Because Davis refused to compromise her principles, she was thrown in jail.
However, as we witness this struggle for religious freedom, we should all take notice of a glaring hypocrisy.
Davis was thrown in jail for her refusal to grant a license to homosexuals. However, despite repeated interventions by the judicial branch, Cathy Lanier, chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, still refuses to issue concealed carry permits to law-abiding Americans unless they can meet an incredibly-high standard that is nearly unattainable.
So, here’s my question: why isn’t Lanier in jail?
For years, the District of Columbia has fought and clawed to keep from being dragged into the age of enlightenment. While they were one of the last jurisdictions to allow concealed carry (at least, in theory), they have made it nearly impossible to obtain.
RELATED: D.C. Police Chief Gives Unexpected Advice to Citizens Facing a Paris-Type Terrorist Attack [VIDEO]
Not only must one apply and wait and wait, but the process is extremely costly and requires a whopping 18 hours of instruction. When the city set-up the process, they were clever; applicants must take the lengthy training course from a D.C.-certified instructor, however, D.C. would not certify instructors.
When the courts finally intervened, the officials begrudgingly allowed a trickle of concealed carry permits after a lengthy wait time and only after such applicants could demonstrate a “need” for such a permit to the bureaucrats’ satisfaction.
To offer an analogy: what if Kim Davis had said, “I’ll give out marriage licenses to homosexuals if both partners can run a five-minute mile”?
Would that have been satisfactory? Of course not! Still, D.C. officials and Lanier, for all intents and purposes, refuse to issue permits to allow citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
So, I ask again: why isn’t Lanier in jail for her obstruction?
Further, one of the chief complaints from legal scholars and conservatives regarding the Supreme court’s ruling in defense of same-sex marriage is that the ruling was predicated on what the justices believed the law should be, not what the law is. While I cannot claim to be a legal scholar, 2016 presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz can. The Harvard Law-educated scholar went on to clerk for former Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist and even served as the editor of the Harvard Law Review. About the Supreme Court decision, Cruz explained,
“It is not healthy for our democracy when judges on our Supreme Court are violating their judicial oath. And in both the Obamacare decision and the marriage decision, the justices decided that they wanted to re-write federal law and re-write the constitution. That’s not the way our Constitution operates, and, and it is a sad moment for the court when you have judges seizing authority that does not belong to them.”
Yet, it appears that the conjured and fictitious legal right of homosexuals to marry one another means more than the ironclad protections of the Second Amendment.
When viewed through this lens, it is obvious that the law is not being applied equitably.
If the law demands that those who violate their duty to uphold and apply the law should be placed in jail, we cannot cherry-pick who is subject to this punishment.
In truth, if we’re throwing people in jail who violate their duty to execute the law, we should also be throwing Barack Obama in the slammer for his continual and numerous violations of the Constitution- such as executive orders granting amnesty.
But one step at a time…