Appeals court rules against Kentucky official who denied same-sex marriage licenses
By: YahooNews
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
An appeals panel ruled Thursday that a Kentucky county official is not protected from being sued personally for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The ruling also affirmed that former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis violated the Constitutional rights of the couples to get married.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down the ruling Thursday.
Davis could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the ruling.
However, Lexington attorney Michael J. Gartland, who represents a couple suing Davis, said he believed U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning will soon schedule a trial in the case.
Gartland said the issues in the trial would be how much Davis should pay the two couples for refusing to issue them marriage licenses, called compensatory damages, and whether Bunning will allow them to seek an award to punish Davis, called punitive damages.
Gartland said his clients, David Ermold and David Moore, were pleased by the appeals court ruling.
"She had no excuse for doing what she did," Gartland said of Davis.
One of Davis' attorneys, Mathew D. Staver of Liberty Counsel, said he will ask the entire appeals court to hear her case.
Absent that, Staver said the case will proceed to trial.
The ruling is the latest development in a case that stretches back years and has received national attention.
After the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in the summer of 2015, Davis had her office stop issuing any marriage licenses so that she wouldn't have to issue a license to a gay couple, according to court records.
Davis said she was an evangelical Christian who believed marriage is only proper between one man and one woman. She said issuing a license to a gay couple would violate her beliefs and rights.
In this Sept. 14, 2015, file photo, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis made a statement to the media at the front door of the Rowan County Judicial Center in Morehead. She announced that her office will issue marriage licenses under order of a federal judge, but the licenses will not have her name or office listed. Davis spent five days in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
One couple, James Yates and Will Smith, was turned away five times when they sought a license. Davis denied a license to Ermold and Moore three times.
On their last try, Davis said she could not issue them a license "under God's authority," according to court records.
A deputy clerk ultimately issued licenses to the couples while Davis was in jail for several days for contempt of court. That was for violating Bunning's order that she issue licenses as called for under the Supreme Court decision.
The couples sued Davis, saying that her actions humiliated them and caused them mental anguish and emotional distress.
Bunning agreed with Davis that she was protected by sovereign immunity in her official capacity as clerk, but not by qualified immunity personally, according to court records.
That's the issue Davis appealed.
The appeals panel upheld Bunning's ruling that Davis is not shielded by qualified immunity.
That is a doctrine that shields public officials from personal liability unless they "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known," the appeals panel said.
The appeals decision said the right for same-sex couples to marry was clear, and that Davis understood it.
Then-Gov. Steve Beshear sent a letter to county clerks the same day as the Supreme Court ruling saying the state would recognize same-sex marriages, and Davis talked to the county attorney, who told her she had to issue licenses.
She refused after that.
The appeals court had already ruled once that Davis was not protected by qualified immunity.
Her second appeal on that issue was frivolous, Gartland said Friday.
Davis asked the appeals judges to consider that she had a religious freedom right under the First Amendment to refuse to issue the licenses, but the panel said the issue before it did not include "whether Davis had a justification for taking the action (or, as here, inaction) that violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights."
Staver said the defenses Davis' attorneys will raise during the trial on damages will include that issuing same-sex marriage licenses would have violated her religious freedom.
"We have confidence that we will ultimately succeed on the religious freedom defense," Staver said. "This case is far from over."
Gartland, however, noted that Bunning rejected Davis' argument about religious freedom in his decision earlier this year.
"Ultimately, this Court's determination is simple — Davis cannot use her own constitutional rights as a shield to violate the constitutional rights of others while performing her duties as an elected official," Bunning said.
Tags
Who is online
103 visitors
Yeah, that's not going to work either. Davis was a representative of the State. I guess that whole separation thing escapes them.
There is no reason that people should be denied marriage licenses.
I also don’t understand why we discriminate against people who want plural marriages.
Unfortunately there are some blithering idiots out there that feel that their perspective is what everybody should abide by.
Because some people think they have the market cornered on stupidity and bigotry.
I think the basic reason is probably religious and social tradition. However, there are at least secular arguments to be made.
Since spouses have rights, responsibilities, and privileges protected by law, it would become very difficult and complicated to protect the rights of multiple spouses. How will community property be divided? Who gets parental control of children? Who makes medical decisions for a spouse or child? How would it work with the tax code?
While these things could be dealt with specifically in a marriage contract, they are automatic in a two-person marriage. No contract required.
Other than parental control it would probably be a special section of corporate contract law.
Really, It's automatic with a two-person marriage? is that why we have custody battles and divorce lawyers to settle disputes? because it's automatic?
The same would be true for a plural marriage, the only place i could see conflict legally would be if a person was incapacitated and there was a dispute between the 2 to 100 spouses on what to do, Unplug or Wait if you will.
Even with disputes, it’s a straightforward matter of this person vs. the other one. Multiple people in the relationship would greatly complicate things, and that’s something our legal system really doesn’t need.
Considered from the other direction, what is the motivation for the state to get into the business of polygamy? To this point, the state has long recognized the value in the stability of monogamous matrimony (the fact of divorce notwithstanding). Is there greater societal benefit to be had in sanctioned polygamy? I doubt it. There certainly isn’t a big enough demand for states to go to the trouble of creating new law - and it would have to be new.
By contrast, gay marriage didn’t change any of this stuff. The only difference is the sex of the participants.
But as I mentioned below, if you want to shack up with a bunch of friends, no one is going to stop you.
So, what is being defended here? Everyone should realize that marriages are only legitimate if the state sanctions the marriage. The state, and only the state, has any authority over marriage. Marriages are not recognized as legal without a secular stamp of approval.
Only the secular state has authority over your birth, your marriage, your family, your death. And the state will punish and imprison anyone that dissents with the state's secular authority over every aspect of your life.
These two couples are suing because they were not given state approval to marry. And only state approval matters. Without a license from the state these couples could not legally marry. That's the important aspect of the situation that everyone wants to sweep under the rug. Should the secular state have that much authority over people's lives?
The state is involved because it protects the rights of the people in the marriage. As a married person under the laws of the state, you inherit property after death of the spouse. You control community property in case of divorce. You also have authority over children, as well as property and money. You have rights to Social Security. You can file taxes jointly. Open bank accounts together. You can visit a spouse in the hospital and make medical decisions for them in an emergency. You also have legal fiduciary responsibilities to your spouse.
So if you want government benefits and protection related to marriage, then you get a state-approved marriage. If you don’t care about all that shit, then you are free to just shack up with whomever you want. The state won’t stop you.
The state of Kentucky has allowed same sex marriage since 2015. Those couples did in fact have state approval. Sadly one individual in the state government took it upon herself alone to deny said licensing based on her own particular beliefs, so Davis was in fact in direct violation of state law. The state of Kentucky, nor any other state in this country is secular. Unlike some other countries there is no single state sponsored religion in the United States.
Yep, absolute power corrupts absolutely. What made it possible for Kim Davis to deny licenses was the state having absolute power. The state's authority is not limited to recording marriages. The state has authority to approve or deny marriage. The state, and only the state, has authority over marriage.
Every government in the United States is a secular government. That's how the separation between church and state has been interpreted. Church authority over marriage has no legal standing in the United States. A church approving or denying marriage means nothing. Only secular government has authority over marriage.
With respect for your views, let us agree to disagree here.
Hey Ed, I think where we tend to get caught up is in terminology, marriage is a civil contract between 2 people sanctioned by the state. Holy Matrimony is the church sanctioned joining of 2 people.
A public servant needs to comply with the law. It sounds really simple, but that’s pretty much the beginning and end of this case. If your beliefs won’t let you do that, you need to quit.
The problem with that it eliminates the opportunity for them to cry and play the victim. In this case Davis claimed that because she was an employee of the state she couldn't be sued. The problem with her claim is that she went against the state. Apparently she doesn't have the mental capacity to understand that.
Because it is.