233

Ex-Kentucky clerk asks Supreme Court to hear case that could upend same-sex marriage (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 3 days ago by MuskyMelon@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

No more same-sex marriages? Next will be interracial marriages.

Child marriages will still be okay cause pedophiles are protected by Republicans.

top 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 114 points 3 days ago

This case should have been stamped out a very long time ago. Her first amendment rights do not give her the authority to reject a valid marriage application. Refusing to do your job is not protected by any amendment, because it isn't speech. There is no valid legal argument in defense of her actions.

The fact that we're here, still talking about it, and there's a chance she could be heard by this corrupted supreme court, that tells you where we are as a free nation.

[-] legion02@lemmy.world 39 points 3 days ago

Exactly. If you have moral or religious beliefs that will prevent you from doing your job it's on you to find another.

[-] prole 3 points 1 day ago

Especially when it's a public sector position that's financed through taxes

[-] Action_Bastid@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yes, but have you considered that the Supreme Court doesn't care and wants instead to allow religious activists (like themselves) to disregard prior precedent and other religious beliefs in favor of enshrining their own personal beliefs as civil law? It's really rather unfair of you to not consider their personal beliefs, which says they should be able to impose theirs and ignores yours, y'know.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

To the right wing authoritarian mindset, unless their unwarranted special privileges (of being xtian) are not only centered, but put up on a pedestal, they think they are being "oppressed" and that they don't have "freedom".

The Southern notion of "freedom" and "liberty" involves things like owning others and forcing your own views onto everyone else, with the blessing and the power of the government.

So we get the idiocy of these people acting like they are the keepers of "liberty", and "freedom" and say things about being for the Constitution and a "small government" with a straight face, even though all of it is a brazen lie. Forcing other peoples' kids to pray to their god, use something like the "trump bible" and be denied their right to marry who they please is the exact opposite of freedom.

[-] simplejack@lemmy.world 44 points 2 days ago

Imagine if this lady put this much energy into feeding the needy.

[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago

But if she did that she wouldn't be an American Christian.

[-] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

Imagine if this lady put this much energy into being in a good healthy marriage instead getting married 3 times.

[-] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 days ago

LMFAO why is it ALWAYS a wild ride with these people

Davis has been married four times to three husbands

Her third husband is the biological father of the twins, the children being conceived while Davis was still married to her first husband. The twins were adopted by Davis's current husband, Joe Davis, who was also her second husband; the couple initially divorced in 2006 but later remarried

Davis says she experienced a religious awakening in 2011, following her mother-in-law's dying wish that she attend church.[13] Since then Davis has identified herself as a Christian, belonging to the Apostolic Pentecostal movement,[199] which favors what they describe as a literal interpretation of the Bible.[200] She worships three times a week[201] at the Solid Rock Apostolic Church near Morehead.[13][202] Following her conversion, Davis let her hair grow long, stopped wearing makeup and jewelry, and began wearing skirts and dresses that fall below the knee, in keeping with Apostolic Pentecostal tenets regarding outward holiness and modest dress.[98][202] She also held a weekly Bible study for female inmates at the local jail.[13][202] In an interview in January 2016, Davis said that she believed that "we are living in end times."[203] Davis also expressed her view that the Bible is infallible.[203]

these people are simply fucking nutjobs, absolute messes

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

I thought it was 4 because one dude married her twice?

[-] ileftreddit@piefed.social 50 points 3 days ago

How is this stupid cunt still around?! I guess SCOTUS is going to codify a state religion

[-] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 23 points 3 days ago

It's all in Project 2025.

[-] Glitterbomb@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

How many years and this bitch still hasn't done anything about that mess she calls hair

[-] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago

I could have sworn she died. Maybe it was just wishful thinking.

[-] Auntievenim@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Still plenty of time

[-] criss_cross@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

There’s a John Oliver vid that goes into the Org “Alliance Defending Freedom” that does nothing but prop up suits like this. They go and set up suits that are clearly meant to trigger SC battles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCAuHH5EYnE

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago

Funny how this is a religious violation but I've never seen a catholic cop suing the government over complicity in someone's execution

[-] xyzzy@lemmy.today 30 points 3 days ago

OK, so she was a county clerk who refused to issue a marriage certificate to a same-sex couple and was briefly jailed and fined as a result. Now she's the vehicle to overturn same-sex marriage because she's seen as basically the only person who would have standing to bring the issue before the Supreme Court again?

But how does her case have any bearing on whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal? It's a separate and unrelated issue. The connection isn't even tenuous, it just seems nonexistent.

I really hope the Supreme Court just declines to hear the case. At least Kavanaugh and Barrett don't seem interested in revisiting the issue.

[-] nman90@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

My guess would be allowing people to refuse marriage certificates based on their biased beliefs, and i don't think this stops at just same sex either, it probably will extend to race, religion or just that they don't like you because you were not "nice" to them

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago

When has a conservative ever given you a reason to believe that they are arguing in good faith?

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 6 points 2 days ago

It's the oblique route for sure, but could be just as effective in the long run. You wouldn't have to actually overturn the legal concept of gay marriage, while at the same time being able to prevent gay marriage from happening in the future.

You just have to empower the position with the power to deny access to a marriage license and then fill those positions with people who don't think it should exist. With one ruling you could potentially make it legal to deny gay people marriages, deny women the right to a divorce, or whatever insanely bigoted shit religious people dream up.

[-] watson387@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago

Exactly, and I'm sure that's the intention here.

[-] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

Well, it shouldn't but the Supreme Court is going to jump at any excuse to overturn same-sex marriage. No legal reason, they just want to

[-] TheMinister@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 days ago

Why the fuck is this woman still tormenting us all with her existence

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Because madame l'guillotine takes time to build

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

Sir rope and lord spear take of easy access.

[-] deltapi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

You need to have standing to take a case before the court. I promise you a room full of people convinced her to try this and is paying her way.

[-] xiwi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 days ago

What kind of miserable shit you have to be, just get help or kill yourself lady

[-] sturmblast@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

Kim Davis is a rotten cunt.

[-] YoiksAndAway@lemmy.zip 22 points 3 days ago

Here come the right wing chuds from a decade ago. Great.

[-] watson387@sopuli.xyz 10 points 2 days ago

Walking scumbag of a woman...

[-] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 22 points 3 days ago

Urgh, not this asshole again. I thought she had crawled back under her hoarder fundie-Christian bridge a while ago.

[-] possumparty 18 points 3 days ago

Idk if you've been paying attention, but the fundies are 46% of the way through P2025.

[-] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago

Yeah I know. I just thought (hoped) that particular insufferable fundie had fucked off.

[-] Nightlight17776@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 days ago

I'm so happy to see everyone in agreement here. Lemmy is so much better than reddit. I just gotta learn how to use it all but that's the fun part

[-] sturmblast@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

Can we all band together and sue the fuck out of Kim Davis?

[-] watson387@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 days ago

I hear you. Right wing mofo are always suing somebody. Biggest bunch of crybabies I've ever seen.

[-] rustyfish@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago

And then there is this stupid cunt who is still around, spewing her hate. WTF?!

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

I'd like some reporter to ask Bessent (on camera) about his own marriage and if it should be nullified by SCOTUS.

[-] IcedRaktajino@startrek.website 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I hope SNL can talk John Goodman into playing her (à la Linda Tripp).

Edit: Because I was curious what that would look like...

[-] wetbeardhairs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 3 days ago

Anyone who is into cryptobiology should take a solid look at her - a living breathing troll.

[-] altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago

Besides funny rituals invloving deities, what is material in neoliberal capitalistic world is that there are various exclusive legal rights for partners over property, in labor forces, over child upbringing and in other fields. A select group of heterosexual partners who co-signed and keeps that deal with church/gvmnt gets a different treatment and some benefits no other party gets. It sounds petty and surreal to hold belief this custom should exist for that whole group but not +2% percents who are not heterosexual.

Single people, single parents, partners not married are way larger groups that are to look into discussing the marriage privelege. There can be no logical reason into pushing LGBTQ+ folks out but, emh, being more occupied with their personal live than their own. And with how many legalized gay marriage are in her state, there'd probably more court clerk involved into reviewing her whining than there are actual married gays, portraying how relevant and/or significant her problem with them.

For both law and market it isn't reasonable to generate subcategories that small, as they seek the most optimized approach in classificating clients. While the state would instinctively want to calculate owned taxes as clear as possible, the market would feel ganked on for it doesn't know what to do there, like, they need to invent new flavors of rings and decorations for incorrectly wed people? It is unreasonable to say the least, I bet they would still sell the same rings for hetero pairs and it would only lead into a spiral of moral-inspired lawsuits.

I don't feel that person can be involved in any discussion about gay people. I'm not a gay person myself but I have a gay friend so I get it naturally. Sorry for rambling, I was farming for my second diamond hoe while dictating it.

this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2025

233 points (100.0% liked)

politics

25210 readers

2794 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News