Kim Davis is appealing to the Supreme Court after being ordered to pay $100,000 to two homosexuals to whom she refused to issue a ‘marriage’ license.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) -- Former Rowan County, Kentucky, county clerk Kim Davis is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review her right to refuse to issue homosexual “marriage” licenses, saying that the case presents unresolved legal questions for the nation’s highest court to clarify.
After the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges ruling forced all 50 states to recognize homosexual unions as "marriages" (since codified in 2023 when former President Joe Biden signed the so-called "Respect for Marriage Act"), Davis declared that she would cease issuing marriage licenses, saying that her required signature on the documents would constitute a personal endorsement of homosexual unions that violated her Christian beliefs.
Her resistance to the "new normal" has persisted for years despite public pressure from lawsuits, judges, and politicians alike. In 2023, she was ordered to pay $100,000 to two homosexuals to whom she refused to issue a "marriage" license on top of damages awarded to other plaintiffs. The nonprofit Liberty Counsel vowed to appeal on her behalf and filed a brief with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2024.
A three-judge panel ruled against Davis, and the full Sixth Circuit declined to reconsider, so Liberty Counsel announced on April 28 that it is asking the Supreme Court to step in, arguing that if the First Amendment did not protect her when she was a government employee, it must protect her now as a private citizen.
“The case has raised the question of whether a government official sued in an individual capacity and stripped of governmental immunity may assert a personal First Amendment defense to monetary damages,” LC argues. “By taking the case, SCOTUS can answer the question of 'first impression,' resolve any conflicts with Supreme Court precedent, and ensure that former government defendants standing before the Court in their personal capacity do not lose First Amendment protections.”
Although none are enforceable, 32 states still have homosexual “marriage” bans on the books, according to World Population Review (which lists 33, but has not yet been updated to reflect Colorado’s recent repeal of its unenforced statute). Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia have no ban in place.
Meanwhile, at least half a dozen states have adopted resolutions urging the nation’s highest court to reverse Obergefell. They have no legal force nor can they begin any legal battle that could eventually put the issue back before the nation’s highest court, but they raise awareness of an issue that, while long since declared “settled” by the establishments of both parties, remains a major priority for conservative Christians and an extreme affront to biblical morality.
If the Supreme Court takes the case, it could potentially lead to reconsidering Obergefell itself, from which three of the current sitting justices – Chief Justice John Roberts and conservatives Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – dissented. The latter two are considered reliable votes to overturn if the chance arises, given statements both have made in the years since. But it is less certain how Roberts and the Court’s three more recent Republican appointees would rule, given their views of precedent and mixed records on cases important to conservatives.
Social conservatives are likely to have an uphill battle on the issue for the foreseeable future. In July 2024, the Republican Party adopted a dramatically shortened national platform with various changes sought by returned President Donald Trump. Among them was removing language declaring that “Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society” and calling for that understanding to be reflected in law, including with the “reversal” of Obergefell as judicial activism.
