When Prop 8 was in effect in California, you had clerks outrightly ignoring the law by marrying gay couples. There were no consequences, but they violated the law nonetheless. Liberals hailed them as heroes.
When the Supreme Court upheld the right of citizens to bear arms, clerks in Washington DC refused to issue gun permits. Once again, no consequences, and once again, they broke the law and liberals hailed it as an act of courage.
Those states which passed legislation legalizing marijuana did so in the face of established federal laws banning marijuana use. No consequences. None.
When Kate Steinle was murdered San Francisco, it was made clear that the city was one of dozens of "sanctuary cities" across America that do not enforce Federal immigration law. Once again, no consequences. No nothing. Someone died because of the willful noncompliance, because the city chose to let the murderer go instead of handing him over to federal custody. Yet liberals hail these kinds of places. Why?
And then ultimately there's Obama, who completely ignores the Supreme Court and therefore the US Constitution in general, and suffers no consequences for such behavior.
But when we get to the lowly clerk in Kentucky, suddenly the law applies. As it should. I happen to hold both sides accountable to the law. Laws are legal until they are struck down or stayed pending an appeal or what have you and anyone who is anyone should be made to obey the law. Not a difficult concept.
I know, I know, "in Nazi Germany, what Hitler did was legal" and all, but we are not nor will we ever be a country ruled by a genocidal megalomaniac. A great deal (but not all) of our laws are justified and rooted in precedent.
Here's the thing. We are a nation of laws. When we become a nation of men, we are done. Finished. The great experiment will fail. Kim Davis should still uphold her oath and obey the law, and we should hold that same expectation for all government officials instead of looking the other way when they don't.
Man should obey the law, not make the law obey man.
When the Supreme Court upheld the right of citizens to bear arms, clerks in Washington DC refused to issue gun permits. Once again, no consequences, and once again, they broke the law and liberals hailed it as an act of courage.
Those states which passed legislation legalizing marijuana did so in the face of established federal laws banning marijuana use. No consequences. None.
When Kate Steinle was murdered San Francisco, it was made clear that the city was one of dozens of "sanctuary cities" across America that do not enforce Federal immigration law. Once again, no consequences. No nothing. Someone died because of the willful noncompliance, because the city chose to let the murderer go instead of handing him over to federal custody. Yet liberals hail these kinds of places. Why?
And then ultimately there's Obama, who completely ignores the Supreme Court and therefore the US Constitution in general, and suffers no consequences for such behavior.
But when we get to the lowly clerk in Kentucky, suddenly the law applies. As it should. I happen to hold both sides accountable to the law. Laws are legal until they are struck down or stayed pending an appeal or what have you and anyone who is anyone should be made to obey the law. Not a difficult concept.
I know, I know, "in Nazi Germany, what Hitler did was legal" and all, but we are not nor will we ever be a country ruled by a genocidal megalomaniac. A great deal (but not all) of our laws are justified and rooted in precedent.
Here's the thing. We are a nation of laws. When we become a nation of men, we are done. Finished. The great experiment will fail. Kim Davis should still uphold her oath and obey the law, and we should hold that same expectation for all government officials instead of looking the other way when they don't.
Man should obey the law, not make the law obey man.
Last edited:
