Consistency Isn't Their Strong Suit

A few days ago, I mentioned a possible silver lining to the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell vs Hodges: "a fairly welcome "side-effect" of the SCOTUS Obergefell decision would be the enforcement of concealed carry reciprocity for all 50 states + DC. But, I suppose it is probably too much to ask for the Court to be consistent."

Unfortunately, consistency is not the strong suit of progressives in general--their strong suit, alas, is persistence--and consistency is also not the strong suit of this court in particular:

"[Proponents of "gay marriage"] have a history of making whatever assurance seems necessary, before discarding it in due course. It used to be that prominent supporters of gay marriage pooh-poohed the idea of a judicial imposition of their view on the country. 

In the Supreme Court’s prior pro-gay-marriage decision, just two years ago, it said that domestic relations were exclusively a matter for the states — before turning around and throwing out state marriage laws not to its liking."

I suppose it is too much to ask that we be governed by consistent laws or even ruler by consistent oligarchs. It's a sure sign of tyranny that the rulers become unfettered by established law and legal tradition and cease to act with consistency.