Clerk who denied same-sex marriage licenses in 2015 is still fighting Supreme Court's ruling
The Kentucky county clerk who became known around the world for her opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage is still arguing in court that it should be overturned.
Kim Davis became a cultural lightning rod 10 years ago, bringing national media and conservative religious leaders to eastern Kentucky as she continued for weeks to deny the licenses. She later met Pope Francis in Rome and was parodied on 'Saturday Night Live.'
Kim Davis denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples
Davis began denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015.
Videos of a same-sex couple arguing with Davis in the clerk's office over their denial of a license drew national attention to her office.
She defied court orders to issue the licenses until a federal judge jailed her for contempt of court in September 2015. Davis was released after her staff issued the licenses on her behalf but removed her name from the form.
The Kentucky Legislature later enacted a law removing the names of all county clerks from state marriage licenses.
Davis cited her Christian faith
Davis said her faith forbade her from what she saw as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Faith leaders and conservative political leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and then-Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin rallied to her cause.
After her release from jail, Davis addressed the media, saying that issuing same-sex marriage licenses 'would be conflicting with God's definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This would be an act of disobedience to my God.'
Davis declined a request for an interview from The Associated Press for this story.
A man who was denied a license ran for her officeIn 2018, one of the men who had confronted Davis over her defiance ran for her office. David Ermold said he believed people in Rowan County were sick of Davis and wanted to move on.
When he went to file his papers for the Democratic primary, Davis, a Republican, was there in her capacity as clerk to sign him up. Sitting across a desk from each other, the cordial meeting contrasted the first time they met three years earlier.
Both candidates lost; Ermold in the primary and Davis in the general election. She has not returned to politics.
10 years later, Davis wants the Supreme Court to reconsider same-sex marriageDavis' lawyers are attempting again to get her case before the Supreme Court, after the high court declined to hear an appeal from her in 2020.
A federal judge has ordered Davis to pay a total of $360,000 in damages and attorney fees to Ermold and his partner.
Davis lost a bid in March to have her appeal of that ruling heard by a federal appeals court, but she will appeal again to the Supreme Court. Her attorney, Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel, said the goal is affirm Davis' constitutional rights and 'overturn Obergefell.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil Market Get Fresh Injection of Uncertainty After US Strikes Iran
(Bloomberg) -- US strikes on Iran over the weekend have added to risks for global oil supply, which has so far been unaffected by some of the most extreme military actions in the Middle East in years. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Brent crude jumped early on Monday to trade above $80 a barrel for the first time since mid-January after US President Donald Trump said air attacks had 'obliterated' Iran's three main nuclear sites. Prices then pared much of that gain, as the vital Strait of Hormuz remained open to tankers. Analysts are now trying to weigh the increased geopolitical risk against previous fears that strong production and a lukewarm global economy could result in a supply glut. Here's what oil watchers are saying: Rapidan Energy Group Iran will likely be very cautious about disrupting Hormuz, the narrow passage separating Iran and the Arabian peninsula through which about 25% of the world's oil and 20% of global liquefied natural gas must pass, said Bob McNally, president and founder of Rapidan Energy Group and a former White House energy official. 'Traders are holding their breath, waiting to see if Israel or Iran expand this conflict beyond military and political targets into traded energy,' McNally said on Bloomberg Television. 'So far, no one has pulled that trigger. And if they don't, I can see the price reversing.' Kpler Iran has other options for retaliation, including using its regional proxies to disrupt global trade flows more indirectly, according to Kpler Ltd. senior crude analyst Muyu Xu . That's what happened after Israel's invasion of the Gaza strip in 2023, when Houthi rebels in Yemen began attacking ships in the Red Sea. A direct move to disrupt Middle East oil flows would have severe consequences for prices, she said. 'If Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz, even for one day, oil can temporarily hit $120 or even $150 a barrel,' she said. 'And if it attacks major oil production or export facilities in neighboring countries, it may drive up prices higher for longer.' Vanda Insights Oil markets have been incredibly choppy since Israel began strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure earlier this month, with some trading sessions beginning with price spikes before they retreated into daily losses. Traders need to look past the surprise of the news and analyze whether the underlying risks have actually changed, said Vandana Hari, founder of consultancy Vanda Insights. 'Beyond the knee-jerk reaction to the shock US attacks, the market needs to assess if the risk of the worst-case supply disruption scenarios has risen,' Hari said. 'I don't see a material increase.' Onyx Commodities Long-time oil market hand Harry Tchilinguirian said he's particularly watching whether Iran risks pulling the US deeper into the conflict by responding with strikes on American military assets or energy infrastructure in the region, which could drive prices higher. If the response is confined to Israel, that could reduce fears of escalation. 'Basically, the ball is now in Iran's court to respond, and while it says all options are on the table, some are more consequential than others,' said Tchilinguirian, head of oil research and analytics for Onyx Commodities Ltd. Sparta Commodities It's not just crude oil that faces risk. The Strait of Hormuz is also a major chokepoint for LNG and refined products including diesel and jet fuel. Some fuel markets may see the biggest price responses to the latest development, said June Goh, senior oil market analyst with Sparta Commodities. Diesel and jet fuel supply chains are most exposed to the Middle East as oil products from the Arab Gulf flow through Hormuz to feed the main demand hub in Europe, Goh said. 'The east-west spread for middle distillates is expected to widen further to incentivize barrels to flow into Western markets.' Saxo Bank Even without a full-scale disruption, the threat of Iranian action in the strait could hamper shipments, said Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy for Saxo Bank A/S. Such delays could lead to short-term price spikes, but gains would be capped after countries released strategic reserves, and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates redirected some crude to facilities outside Hormuz. 'The current geopolitical risk premium — now exceeding $10 a barrel — cannot be sustained for long without a tangible supply disruption,' Hansen said. 'Absent that, price gains may struggle to hold.' RBC Capital Markets Iran has options for retaliation beyond attempting to fully shut the strait, such as strikes on tankers or the port of Fujairah in the UAE, or exerting pressure on remaining allied groups in Iraq and Yemen to assist, said RBC Capital Markets LLC analysts including Helima Croft. It may take days or even weeks to comprehend the nation's full response. 'Above all, we would caution against the knee-jerk 'the worst is behind us' hot take at this stage,' Croft said. 'President Trump may indeed have successfully executed an 'escalate to de-escalate' move, but a wider expansion cannot still be ruled out at this juncture.' (Updates with comments from Saxo and RBC. A previous version was corrected to remove a reference to Indian product flows.) Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump admin live updates: Trump to meet with national security team on Monday
President Donald Trump on Sunday pushed Republicans to get behind his taxation bill that will fund his agenda as the self-imposed Fourth of July deadline approaches. "Great unity in the Republican Party, perhaps unity like we have never seen before. Now let's get the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill done," Trump wrote on social media. Trump addressed the nation on Saturday night after the U.S. carried out airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facility, which he called "a spectacular military success."Jun 23, 2:44 AMTrump to meet with national security team on Monday President Donald Trump is scheduled to host a closed meeting with his national security team on Monday as the administration prepares for possible Iranian retaliation following this weekend's U.S. attacks on Tehran's nuclear meeting will take place in the Oval Office at 1 p.m. ET, according to the president's public schedule. -ABC News Michelle Stoddart Jun 22, 12:13 PMAfter Iran strike, Trump sets sights on his 'big, beautiful bill' Following the U.S. military strike on Iran, Trump publicly praised what he called "great unity" within the Republican Party and shifted his focus to the administration's next legislative priority.'Great unity in the Republican Party, perhaps unity like we have never seen before. Now let's get the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill done,' Trump wrote on social media. 'Our Country is doing GREAT. MAGA!' The post was the president's first public comment since his address to the nation about the Iran attack on Saturday evening. The administration is aiming to pass the president's tax legislation ahead of the self-imposed July Fourth deadline.-ABC News' Kelsey Walsh Click here to read the rest of the blog.
New York Times
43 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Fears Run High as Iran Weighs Response to U.S. Strikes
Demonstrators hold signs against the U.S. strikes against Iran in Washington outside the White House on Sunday. Before he ordered strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, President Trump did not seek permission from Congress, to which the U.S. Constitution grants the sole power to declare war. Many Democrats and even some Republicans say that the attack was tantamount to a declaration of war and that Mr. Trump acted illegally. Several Trump aides say they disagree, calling the strike a limited action aimed solely at Iran's nuclear capabilities that does not meet the definition of war. 'This is not a war against Iran,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News on Sunday. Vice President JD Vance argued that Mr. Trump had 'clear authority to act to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.' However, later on Sunday, Mr. Trump wrote online that his military aims could be much more expansive: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Criticisms of the attack, which came less than two weeks after Israel began its bombing campaign against Iran, include Mr. Trump not giving American policymakers, lawmakers and the public enough time to debate a role in a conflict that experts warn could grow quickly if Iran retaliates. The furor over the sudden strikes follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president's ability to order military action, efforts that arose because of disastrous American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. So is the United States at war with Iran? And did Mr. Trump have the authority to order his attack without consulting Congress? What does the U.S. Constitution say about war? Image A demonstrator holds a shredded copy of the Constitution of the United States on Sunday. Credit... Eric Lee for The New York Times Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution assigns Congress dozens of powers like collecting taxes and creating post offices, as well as the power to 'declare war' and to 'raise and support armies.' The Constitution's framers considered that clause a crucial check on presidential power, according to an essay by the law professors Michael D. Ramsey and Stephen I. Vladeck for the National Constitution Center. Early in American history, Congress approved even limited conflicts, including frontier clashes with Native American tribes. But the question is complicated by Article II of the Constitution, which delineates the powers of the president, and which designates the U.S. leader as the 'commander in chief' of the U.S. military. Presidents of both parties, relying heavily on legal opinions written by executive-branch lawyers, have cited that language to justify military action without congressional involvement. Congress tried asserting itself with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the American president must 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' But presidents have repeatedly disregarded that language or argued for a narrow definition of the 'introduction' of forces. Congress has done little to enforce the resolution. What are members of Congress saying about the U.S. strikes? Image President Trump walking across the South Lawn as he returned to the White House on Sunday. Credit... Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times Democrats have almost uniformly criticized Mr. Trump for acting without legislative consent, and a few Republicans have as well. 'His actions are a clear violation of our Constitution — ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war,' Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, said in a statement echoed by many of his colleagues. Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, told CBS News that there was no 'imminent threat to the United States' from Iran. Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, said on the same CBS program that Congress must act this week to assert a role in any further U.S. military action. 'Would we think it was war if Iran bombed a U.S. nuclear facility? Of course we would,' Mr. Kaine said. 'This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump's urging, without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress.' Some Democrats say Mr. Trump has already gone unforgivably far. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York called on Saturday night for Mr. Trump's impeachment. Hawkish Republicans rejected such talk. 'He had all the authority he needs under the Constitution,' Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told NBC News on Sunday. Mr. Graham cited Mr. Trump's power as commander in chief under Article II of the Constitution. 'Congress can declare war, or cut off funding. We can't be the commander in chief. You can't have 535 commander-in-chiefs,' Mr. Graham said, referring to the combined number of U.S. representatives and senators. 'If you don't like what the president does in terms of war, you can cut off the funding.' Mr. Graham noted that Congress has made formal war declarations in only five conflicts, and none since World War II. However, there has been a legal equivalent from Congress that President George W. Bush was the last American leader to successfully seek: an authorization for the use of military force, often called an A.U.M.F. What are legal scholars saying? Image Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi of Iran called the U.S. attack an 'outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation' of international law and of the United Nations charter. Credit... Khalil Hamra/Associated Press Several lawyers and scholars who have studied the international law of armed conflict say the United States is without a doubt at war with Iran for purposes of application of that law, and that Mr. Trump acted in violation of international conventions. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' said Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department. Brian Finucane, a former lawyer at the State Department, agreed that Mr. Trump needed to ask Congress for authorization beforehand. He also said 'there is certainly a U.S. armed conflict with Iran, so the law of war applies.' On Sunday, Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, called the U.S. attack an 'outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation' of international law and of the United Nations charter, which forbids U.N. members from violating the sovereignty of other members. Mr. Araghchi did not specifically say that his country is now at war with America. Mr. Finucane also said the United States had violated the U.N. charter. Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University who has also worked at the Defense Department, said 'one important matter for both domestic law and especially international law is the issue of 'imminence.'' The Trump administration is justifying the U.S. attack by saying Iran's development of a nuclear weapon was imminent, Mr. Goodman noted. But 'the law would require that the attack would be imminent,' he said, and 'it is very hard to see how the administration can meet that test under even the most charitable legal assessment.' Even if one were to focus on the question of a nuclear bomb, U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Iran had not yet decided to make such a weapon, even though it had developed a large stockpile of the enriched uranium necessary for doing so. How often have presidents sought congressional approval for war? Image The furor over the sudden strikes also follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president's ability to order military action, efforts that arose because of disastrous American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times In the decades since Congress declared war on Japan and Germany in 1941, U.S. presidents have repeatedly joined or started major conflicts without congressional consent. President Harry S. Truman sent U.S. forces into Korea. President Ronald Reagan ordered military action in Libya, Grenada and Lebanon; President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama; President Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of mostly Serbian targets in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War; President Barack Obama joined a 2011 NATO bombing campaign against the government of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya and led a military campaign against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Mr. Obama broke with this trend in September 2013 when he decided against launching a planned strike against Syria without first seeking congressional authorization. The strike was unpopular in Congress, which never held a vote, and Mr. Obama did not act. President George W. Bush won separate congressional authorizations for the use of military force against Afghanistan and Iraq before ordering invasions of those countries in 2001 and 2003. In the years since the Al Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, several presidents have also ordered countless airstrikes and special operations raids on foreign soil to kill accused terrorists. Those have largely relied on broad interpretations of the two authorizations for the use of military force that Congress granted the executive branch for the so-called war on terror. Emma Ashford, a scholar of U.S. foreign policy at the Stimson Center, said that in the post-9/11 wars, 'some presidents have largely stopped asking permission at all.' In January 2020, Mr. Trump chose not to consult Congress before ordering an airstrike that killed a senior Iranian military commander, Qassim Suleimani, while he was visiting Iraq. Many members of Congress called that a clear act of war that was likely to begin wider hostilities. Iran responded by firing 27 missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq, inflicting traumatic brain injuries on about 100 U.S. troops. But the conflict did not expand further. Last year, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. ordered U.S. airstrikes against the Houthi militia in Yemen without getting congressional permission, and Mr. Trump did the same this year. Advances in military technology, including drones and precision-guided munitions, have allowed presidents to take action with minimal initial risk to U.S. forces. Military officials say that Saturday's strike in Iran, carried out by B-2 stealth bombers, encountered no resistance. But critics say the action invites Iranian retaliation that could escalate into full-scale war. What happens next Image Advances in military technology, including drones and precision-guided munitions, have allowed presidents to take action with minimal initial risk to U.S. forces. Credit... Eric Lee for The New York Times G.O.P. leaders in the House and Senate have signaled support for the strike, but Democrats and a few Republicans are demanding that Congress approve any further military action. Mr. Kaine, who serves on the committees on armed services and foreign relations, introduced a Senate resolution last week requiring that Mr. Trump get explicit congressional approval before taking military action against Iran. Mr. Kaine on Sunday said the measure was still relevant and that he hoped it would come to a vote this week. Mr. Massie, the Kentucky Republican, introduced a similar war powers resolution last week in the House with Ro Khanna, Democrat of California. 'When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that's an act of war,' Mr. Massie wrote on social media on Sunday. Mr. Massie said he was 'amazed at the mental gymnastics' Mr. Trump's defenders have employed to argue the United States was not entering a war by attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. Megan Mineiro contributed reporting.
