Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

In It to Win It

(11,566 posts)
Thu Jul 24, 2025, 09:36 PM Jul 24

Former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis asks Supreme Court to reverse same-sex marriage decision [View all]

Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was briefly jailed in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to revisit its landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide and celebrated its 10th anniversary in June.

Davis’s attorneys at the Christian nonprofit Liberty Counsel asked the court in a 90-page filing to review a March ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a lower court’s finding that Davis violated David Ermold and David Moore’s constitutional right to marry when she denied them a marriage license in 2015, shortly after the Supreme Court issued its Obergefell decision.

A federal jury awarded the couple $100,000 in damages in 2023, and a federal judge ordered Davis last year to pay Ermold and Moore an additional $260,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Davis argued in 2015 that granting the couple a marriage license would have violated her religious beliefs as a born-again Christian and “God’s definition of marriage.” She and her legal team have argued throughout a decadelong legal battle that, in denying the license, Davis was protected by her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion.

In March, a three-judge panel for the 6th Circuit ruled that Davis cannot raise a First Amendment defense in the case “because she is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/former-kentucky-county-clerk-kim-214807806.html
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Former Kentucky county cl...