U.S. Supreme Court rejects marriage equality challenge
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will not hear the appeal of former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, the onetime county official who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the landmark 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
By denying review, the Court let stand lower-court rulings that found Davis personally liable for violating the constitutional rights of same-sex couples she refused to serve after Obergefell was decided. The move leaves marriage equality intact, marking a quiet but significant moment in a decade-long legal battle over the scope of religious exemptions in public office.
Davis, who rose to prominence for her defiance of the 2015 ruling, had asked the Court to revisit not only her liability but Obergefell itself. GLAD Law legal director Josh Rovenger, whose organization helped argue the original case, said the petition was always unlikely to succeed. "It would really be anomalous for the Court to take a case with such a narrow fact pattern and use it to revisit Obergefell," Rovenger told The Advocate before the court's announcement.
He described the legal questions in Davis's appeal — about emotional-distress damages and qualified immunity — as "technical" and disconnected from the broader constitutional right at issue. Even so, Rovenger said advocates had remained prepared: "We're ready for all possibilities," he said.
For Jim Obergefell, whose case made history nearly a decade ago, the Court's refusal to hear Davis's appeal is cause for relief but not complacency. "They've turned the idea of freedom on its head," he told The Advocate ahead of the announcement. "Unless we stand up for what it truly means, we risk losing the very promise of equality itself."
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
Their rightwing social issues keep blowing back in MAGA faces.
Now Kim David has to pay up! HaHa!
she needs to go back to her cave in Kentucky with her 5 husbands.....after she pays up of course
I never saw yours. Multiple different versions of the same story don't bother me. I expect MAGA will have their take on this too. Talk of ripping families apart gets them excited...
Yours was posted 17 minutes before I posted mine. I try to be nice. But don't let that get out
I'll never say anything like that...
Kind of a dead horse, isn't it?
the white house doesn't have a stable ...
Thanks for posting this, JBB. I will delete mine
Great news!
Good for them, Everyone should have the same rights. Legislatures should stay the hell out of peoples personal lives.
Well Fuck Me! I agree...
I am usually an easy-going person especially where women are concerned, but this 'wrench' has some balls to continue to press the issue and promising to do even more attempts to break up homes and marriages and benefits that accrue to married LGBTQ couples. She will likely have some action committee pay her political/court debts since she looks like she has 'nothing' to contribute but 'herself.'
As to the Supreme Court- good on them for 'listening' if that is what they did and having a 'heart' after all for fairness. People need a damn break from all the bull that conservatives stir up from the 'pit' for us to swallow and 'rot' our lives.
another dumbass trying to push her idiotic views on others.
lots of that going around now. gee, I wonder who she voted for, the last 3 times ...
Don't really care. I've seen stupidity go both ways.
like christo-fascism, thumper and maga ...
Kim Davis has four children. We are left to wonder if she would feel differently about marriage for 'everybody' doing no harm to others if one or several of her own had been 'blessed with being LGBTQ!
And, the ruling likely indicates that she had no standing before the court to bring the case (the rationale for rejection was not given out publicly). Such a bigoted foolish woman. She is part of the problem in this country with its meddlesome, tiresome, and obstinate 'parts.'
Someone's marriage does not affect her 60 marriages so why can't she just mind her own damn business
Stuck on stupid, I think. And she has the audacity to tell folks she is 'not done' trying to get same-sex marriages declared unconstitutional. Obviously, she imagines her case rejection can change or she has diluted herself into thinking she has some Trump 'magic' she can produce to be heard in court!
Right, and permit me to say it like I really feel it. . . at least once. . . What does it matter to HER who is sucking or 'sticking' what in a same-sex marriage?
These fools pretend that they want people to have freedom, but offer no provision for freedom to exist OUTSIDE of their sphere of influence (control)! So they are liars and worse! Time to talk about this like the trash it is!
She (and her 'supporters') keep running behind LGBTQ people (trolling, 'hunting') trying to stir up a divide between 'us' and 'straights' or keep it alive anyway.
As has been said before, if you don't like gay marriage don't get gay married. Seems so simple to me
if maga lets gay people get married, then there's fewer of them available on grindr for CPAC and other republican gatherings ...
you don't think married gays cheat?
hall pass?
I don't believe it. I was told told by hysterics the Trump judges will overturn gay marriage and throw gays in prison because they are no different than the Taliban.
Either they were lying the whole time or their heads must have exploded from the dissonance of the judges not even bothering to hear the argument.
Don't believe everything you're told
I thank the justices for this 'reprieve' but only time will tell if this is the end of the 'discussion' or its continuance. Case in point. Ms. 'Thang' Davis wants to continue to troll the LGBTQ marriage community. So don't applaud MAGA justices too fast. . .this is not over (as MAGA loves to troll and 'hunt' us).
I have heard, and have even said, because it's true, that many Trump supporters, rightwing religious conservatives, will continue to attempt to overturn gay marriage. Those Trump supporters believe that the conservative justices should and eventually will do their bidding. This time they refused to hear the case, but that doesn't mean religious conservatives aren't going to keep trying. You act as if it's "hysterics" to believe that a conservative court might ever go back on gay marriage, but they've already done so much damage it's completely believable that they could continue. They've already undone much of the voting rights act and are slowly stripping away the teeth of the civil rights act, they reversed Roe, they made corporations people and gave the President near limitless Executive power, stripping gay Americans of the right to marry based on conservative Christian-sharia law isn't far-fetched at all.
They lie to us. . . because that is "Okay" to do in (political) warfare. Just ignore them as best you can or keep turning the bucket 'over' so it sits upright!
Broken clocks are right twice a day. I wish the right had a similar success rate. More like twice a year.
I do believe that your imagination is working overtime
that works hand in hand with some religious beliefs ...
Ah, the hypocritical serial adulterer doesn't get to impose her laughable views on the so-called sanctity of marriage on others?
Good.
I hate mocking her life, but dang it she won't stop mocking us! I have no choice.
Exactly.
She wants to be a prude while simultaneously being the town bicycle.
town bicycle?
Everybody gets to ride.
Yuk, I'd rather masturbate with sandpaper.
so catty.
Disgusting whore.
You forgot to add 'self-righteous' in the middle there...
I think she might belong to one of those Pentecostal churches that don't allow women to cut their hair
You are correct on both accounts. She identifies as an Apostolic Christian (one of the smaller Pentecostal sects) and the women are not allowed to cut their hair (and must wear unflattering dresses)
Good for them. But damn that right wing supreme court. S/
Glad to hear the Supreme Court saw fit to do that. The woman is a hyper religious nut case trying to force her narrow minded views on others.
maga!
I simply do not get this:
One would think women, more so than men would understand the natures, plural, of children!