Selective
Justice: A Double Standard for Kentucky
Published in Marietta Daily Journal Sept. 13, 2015
The
jailing of county clerk Kim Davis of Rowan County, Kentucky is a clear example
of selective justice. Although freed
this past week, Ms. Davis took a stand that has shed light on how inconsistent law
enforcement can be.
Jailed for refusing to grant
marriage licenses to homosexual couples, Davis has forced the issue of double
standard to the forefront. Consider the many examples of failure to
enforce the law. The prime example is
sanctuary cities.
Today over 200 cities in America are
sanctuary cities, that is, havens for illegal aliens. Whether or not they have declared themselves
as such, these cities have chosen to ignore federal law. Some have forbidden their police or municipal
employees to inquire about an individual’s immigration status. Others have instructed their law enforcement
officers not to inform the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens
living in their communities. And what has
the Justice Department had to say about this?
Guess.
Sanctuary cities are violating the Illegal
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that requires local governments to
cooperate with the feds in enforcing the law.
Their defense? They are
protecting “immigrant rights.” Never mind that illegal aliens are not
immigrants.
Why haven’t mayors and city council members of the sanctuary cities been
arrested? Why aren’t they in jail?
Ms. Davis is the first American
citizen to be jailed as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling on homosexual
marriage. President Obama, the Supreme
Court and public officials of every level may soon learn there are not enough
jails to hold the Christians who are willing to be jailed for what they
believe.
Slavery, segregation, abortion, and
now the re-definition of marriage.
Slavery and segregation are settled issues. Abortion and re-defined marriage certainly
are not. Ms. Davis, who argues that her
Christian convictions prevent her from granting homosexual marriage licenses, has
become the face of resistance to America’s new definition of marriage.
When U.S. District Judge David
Bunning jailed Ms. Davis for contempt, he remarked, “Jailing is necessary in
this case. It sets a dangerous precedent
to allow people to assume they can pick and choose which court orders they will
follow.” What a laugh, particularly in
light of President Obama’s total disregard for our highest law, the U.S.
Constitution. One might ask what happens
when a President or the Supreme Court acts unconstitutionally.
Ms. Davis’ incarceration highlights
the tension between individual religious beliefs and laws that violate those
beliefs. Happy we should be that Abraham
Lincoln did not acquiesce and accept the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision as
“the law of the land.” And who would
argue that Martin Luther King should not have taken his bold stand against
segregation laws, which he did at great sacrifice?
Would
Judge Bunning have anything to say about President Obama’s failure to enforce
the Defense of Marriage Act? What does
the judge think about Attorney General Eric Holder’s brash public announcement
that he would not enforce that law? And
where was the concern for rule of law when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom
issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of California state
law? Or when Newsome set San Francisco
on the path to be a sanctuary city, thus violating federal law?
Holder
and Newsom were as guilty as Ms. Davis, yet they were never called into
account. Instead they were celebrated by
the homosexual lobby, some of whom traveled far to Rowan County to paint Ms.
Davis as a Christian radical. Yes, she
is a government official, but so were Holder and Newsome.
Ms. Davis actually is a radical, if a radical
is one who challenges the existing order.
The existing order (our Supreme Court and contemporary culture) has
demolished a 2000-year definition and tradition of marriage. It appears not to know that life is sexually
transmitted, that mutilating oneself cannot change one’s gender, and that, as
dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts put it, “For the good of children and society,
sexual relations that lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a
woman committed to a lasting bond.”
Ms.
Davis’ opponents hold that marriage has nothing to do with procreation, and they
will continue to stigmatize people like her.
If we are to ever turn back the assault on marriage, it is essential to
elect a pro-marriage president in 2016 and to support others like Ms. Davis who
have the courage to stand up for their convictions.
Thomas
Jefferson understood judicial tyranny and warned us of it: “It is very dangerous to consider judges as
the ultimate arbiter of all constitutional questions. To do so is to place us under the despotism
of an oligarchy.”
Roger
Hines
9/9/15
No comments:
Post a Comment