Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
after 2015 Supreme Court valid gay marriage Across the country, a county clerk in Kentucky refused to issue a marriage license to two men, starting a decade-long legal battle that has now reached the legal battle stage. High Court of the country,
Kim Davis still owes David Ermold and David Moore more than $300,000 after they lost a lawsuit accusing them of violating her constitutional rights by refusing to approve her marriage license. Davis appealed, claiming that she was immune from personal liability as a government official, and lost.
She’s now turning to judges for her bail – and hoping to get it knocked down historical decision In Obergefell v. Hodges With him.
The judge will consider whether to hear his challenge In his private conference on FridayThe court receives thousands of petitions every year. Legal experts told Independent They deeply doubt that their petition will go anywhere, but concerned same-sex couples and advocacy groups fear that the conservative-majority court will once again open the door to them. Debating LGBT+ rights under the guise of religious freedom.
,Obergefell This is the established law of the land, and we hope the court will dismiss the petition,” said William Powell, senior counsel at the Georgetown Law Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. Independent.
In her petition to the Supreme Court, Davis, a devout Christian, argued that as a public official she had a First Amendment right to refuse to issue licenses to LGBT+ couples, citing their religious beliefs.
,Obergefell v. Hodges The First Amendment’s free speech and religious practice protections cannot be overridden, according to Matt Staver, president of the evangelical Christian legal group Liberty Counsel, who is taking Davis’s arguments a step further and asking the high court to strike down gay marriage protections entirely.
“Like abortion decision roe vs wade, Obergefell It was very wrong from the beginning. According to Staver, this opinion has no basis in the Constitution.
In their petition to the court, Davis’ attorneys said Ermold and Moore could not sue over “hurt feelings” over her “religious expression.” Without the intervention of the Supreme Court, Obergefell They claim that “First Amendment protections for public officials who hold sincerely held religious beliefs” would remain in place.
“This case provides an appropriate vehicle for establishing clear guidance that lower courts and government officials currently lack,” the lawyers wrote.
At least 823,000 same-sex couples are legally married in the United States, according to research from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. About 600,000 of those couples got married in the years that followed. Obergefell.
Those couples are also raising nearly 300,000 children under the age of 18, the institute found.
“For more than a decade, far-right groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom and Liberty Council have been fighting to take us back to a time where LGBTQ+ people didn’t have the freedom to marry like every other American,” said Kelly Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign. Independent.
“They want to scare us,” she said. “But here are the facts: Marriage equality is the law of the land, and is supported by a bipartisan, supermajority of the American public.”
Davis’s petition is one of thousands that the High Court receives each year, most of which are rejected.
Same-sex couples who are currently married are also likely to retain those protections. Under Marriage Respect ActWhich was signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022, it ensures that same-sex marriages performed in one state are recognized by other states as well as the federal government. But not every state is required by law to issue a marriage license in case of force majeure. Obergefell Has been overturned.
“Regardless of whether the court considers it, this litigation focuses on the damages owed by Kim Davis – not necessarily the broader question of marriage equality. Pro-equality Americans fought hard for the Marriage Respect Act, which protects federal marriage rights for same-sex and interracial couples,” Robinson said.
Still thinking of installing it Hard-fought protections for LGBT+ couples are on trial again Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor says it has frustrated and angered advocates who fear the worst under the court The firewall between church and state has been broken.
He said it was “disgusting” to see Jim Obergefell, the man at the center of the case legalizing gay marriage, as a pervert of religious freedom. AdvocateHe said, “This modern version of religious liberty – the belief that one’s personal religion trumps everything else – is a distortion of the intent of our Founders.”
Court decision to end constitutional right to abortion care in 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization He proved how fragile precedent can be. “If they were willing to turn Roe deer “Having said that this is settled law,” Obergefell said, “why should I believe anything else he says?”
In their agreed opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health OrganizationJustice Clarence Thomas suggested that the court could “reconsider” key cases involving “fundamental due process precedent” – including the court’s landmark cases involving same-sex marriage, gay sex, and contraception.
Thomas wrote, “Since any due process decision is ‘plainly wrong’ … we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.” “The question will remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”
Those cases include Griswold v. Connecticutwhich ruled that states had no authority to ban contraception; lawrence vs texaswhich repealed laws banning gay sex; And Obergefell.
Attorneys for Ermold and Moore have argued in court filings that Kim Davis’ request should have been an easy case for judges to dismiss from the start.
In addition to Davis’s failures to argue for First Amendment protection in this case, which the appeals court had already rejected, “ Obergefell The constitutional status of existing same-sex marriages could be called into question and the lives of those who wish to have same-sex marriage, plan their affairs and benefit from it, could be disrupted,” he wrote.
She has already given up her right to challenge the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage protections because she “explicitly stated that she did not want to challenge the Supreme Court’s decision again.” Obergefell“he argued.
“The court should hold him to that representation,” he said.