Loading …Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who became a national symbol of religious resistance to same-sex marriage, is now taking her fight to the Supreme Court.
Keep reading below to find out why she was briefly jailed and what her new, momentous mission is now.
Discussion
Kim Davis is right, it’s time to bring common sense back to America!
Go Kim! Stand up for religious freedom against this liberal nonsense! 🇺🇸
Religious freedom is not the right to impose your beliefs another people, especially when it restricts their rights.
Leave a Comment
Leave a Comment
A decade after she was briefly jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, she is asking the nation’s highest court not just to absolve her of legal fees, but to do something far more momentous: to overturn its landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision entirely.
This petition is not merely the final chapter of one woman’s legal battle. It is a direct and calculated challenge to a major constitutional precedent that has reshaped American society.
The case forces a national re-examination of the enduring conflict between two of our most deeply held principles: the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom and the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equal protection under the law.
A Collision of Constitutional Principles
This decade-long saga has always been a story of two competing constitutional claims.
On one side is the foundation of the 2015 Obergefell ruling. The Supreme Court found that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. It ruled that states could not deny this right to same-sex couples, as doing so would deny them the equal dignity and legal standing afforded to other citizens.
On the other side is the foundation of Kim Davis’s defense. She argues that her actions were protected by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, which forbids the government from infringing on the free exercise of religion. She contends that being forced to sign a marriage license for a same-sex couple would be a violation of her devout Christian belief that marriage is solely between one man and one woman.
The Duty of a Public Official
The core legal question that the lower courts have already answered is whether a public official can use their personal religious beliefs as a reason to refuse to perform their official government duties. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled decisively against Davis.
“Davis cannot raise a Free Exercise Clause defense,” the court wrote, “because she is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect.”
This is a critical constitutional distinction. A private citizen has broad protections for their religious conscience. A government official, however, has a sworn duty to uphold and apply the law neutrally to all citizens. When Kim Davis acted in her capacity as the Rowan County Clerk, she was the state. Her refusal to issue a license was not a private act of faith; it was an act of the state denying citizens a constitutional right that had been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The Broader Goal: Overturning a Landmark Precedent
Davis’s legal team is making it clear that their goal is larger than this one case. They are attacking the very foundation of Obergefell, arguing that the legal doctrine it rests on—substantive due process—is a “legal fiction.” This is a bold legal strategy, as substantive due process is the same doctrine that has been used by the Court to protect other fundamental rights, such as the right to contraception.
Her attorney, Mat Staver, believes the time is right for this challenge. He notes that three of the four justices who dissented in Obergefell—Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito—remain on the bench. With four new justices appointed by President Trump, he believes there is a “good chance” the Court will agree to hear the case and potentially reconsider its 2015 decision.
The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to even hear this case will be a major signal of its current direction. To grant the petition would be to announce its willingness to relitigate a major, decade-old precedent that has become woven into the fabric of American life. The saga that began in a small Kentucky courthouse has now reached the steps of the highest court, carrying with it one of the most profound questions in our constitutional system: When the duties of public office and the demands of private faith are in direct conflict, which must give way?
It's complex, isn't it? Balancing religious freedom with equal rights for everyone. I respect Kim's conviction but am cautious about overturning something that grants fundamental civil rights. We gotta be careful not to let personal beliefs dictate public duties. This'll be quite a Supreme Court showdown!