Kim Davis asks Sixth Circuit to reverse damages for denying marriage license to gay couple

Courthouse News Service ^ | January 31, 2025 | David Wells

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

The Sixth Circuit heard a challenge Thursday by former Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, who argued that two men should not have been awarded damages after she refused to issue them a marriage license.

Davis asked a three-judge panel to overturn the $50,000 jury award to each plaintiff. The total of $100,000 in damages for emotional distress came after a federal judge found Davis liable in 2022 for denying a marriage license to plaintiffs David Ermold and David Moore.

[Tell It Right]

...damages for emotional distress

What a joke! If gays suffer "emotional distress" over anything it's the rampant domestic violence among gays.

[Resolute Conservative]

I have had emotional distress every year since I started working as adult on how much the government steals from me and wastes on grift, welfare, illegals, other countries and useless crap. There was a good post yesterday about grants that have been given on the most idiotic projects.

[circlecity]

This appeal will go nowhere. I wonder if she’s paying the attorney fees out of her own pocket?

[Uncle Sham]

The key question is what was the law in Kentucky at the time. If Davis was simply enforcing Kentucky state law there should have been no case much less damages. Remember, the Supreme Court decision ONLY pertains to the case before the court and does NOT effect the law at all. Changing laws is a legislative process, NOT a judicial process.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Yes how funny, these boys claim some emotional distress.

[Deepeasttx]

Changing laws is a legislative process, NOT a judicial process.

---

I wish this was true in all cases. But remember when Robert’s (chief justice that is) changed the Obama Care wording to make it pass! From taxes to fine or vice versa. And no one challenged it, IIRC. Makes me sick even to this day.

[Vigilanteman]

To refresh our reader's memories, this gay couple was from Ohio. They went to Kentucky for express purpose of putting Davis into this situation.

[MamaTexan]

The key question is what was the law in Kentucky at the time.

Exactly! All the federal decision said was the federal government had no authority over marriage...it didn't negate existing laws.

Kentucky prohibited gay marriage when Davis was there, so by refusing a license to two men, she was basically prosecuted for following the law. 😒

[fwdude]

Just to be clear, she ceased issuing ANY marriage licenses due to conflict with the KY Constitution. The little fairies weren’t singled out.

[fwdude]

There is an ongoing underlying case currently working it’s way through the courts which could reverse Obergefell. Kim is involved in it.

[KrisKrinkle]

“The key question is what was the law in Kentucky at the time. “

Same as it is now as far as I can find.

2023 Kentucky Revised Statutes
Chapter 402 - Marriage
402.005 Definition of marriage.
Universal Citation:
KY Rev Stat § 402.005 (2023)
402.005 Definition of marriage.As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, “marriage” refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
Effective:July 15, 1998
History:Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998

And from the Kentucky Constitution (I think):

Section 233A Valid or recognized marriage — Legal status of unmarried individuals.
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage
for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
Text as Ratified on: November 2, 2004.
History: Creation proposed by 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 128, sec. 1.

[joesbucks]

I’m no fan of gay marriage, but there is rampant abuse among heterosexual couples. May as well ban marriage all together.

[jeffersondem]

“I'm no fan of gay marriage, but there is rampant abuse among heterosexual couples. May as well ban marriage all together.”

It is not clear if this is a statement from the Bee.

Regardless, heterosexual marriage falls within the category of “common sense.”

Hom*se*ual marriage is way outside common sense. It would not exist at all in the U.S. except for the ill-compounded and hastily adopted hom*se*ual marriage amendment (14th).

[daniel1212]

Davis was correct in denying a license to an immoral and illicit marriage, as was Jack Phillips in refusing to be complicit in celebrating the same, but since SCOTUS (5/4) perverted it then both were pursued with vengeance, for the devil lusts to perverts all that reflects God's wisdom and power, as the serpent seeks a world which gives him the glory and dominion that he originally sought for.