A federal appeals court says a gay couple's lawsuit seeking damages from a Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue them a marriage license can proceed.
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis refused to issue a marriage license to David Ermold and David Moore in 2015 because she said it violated her religious beliefs. Ermold and Moore sued, along with several other couples. Davis lost, and spent five days in jail for refusing to follow a court order.
The state legislature passed a law that removed county clerks' names from licenses. A district judge ruled this satisfied Ermold and Moore's lawsuit and dismissed the case. But they appealed, saying they wanted Davis to pay damages.
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday the case could continue.
Michael Gartland, one of the attorneys representing Ermold and Moore, told WKYT's Garrett Wymer that the suit never should have been thrown out, because, even though the couple eventually got their marriage license, they still went through emotional distress and had their constitutional rights violated when they were denied one.
"That doesn't go away because the office in Rowan County started issuing licenses to same-sex couples," Gartland said. "That doesn't mean we weren't damaged by the constitutional violation that happened months earlier. That's what this case is about."
Gartland did not have a dollar amount on the damages his clients are seeking, but he said it will not be a multimillion-dollar figure. Still, he said, he believes the couple deserves those damages.
Liberty Counsel, whose attorneys are representing Davis, has not yet responded to WKYT's request for comment on the ruling.
The case now goes back to Judge David Bunning, a district judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Bunning is the same judge who dismissed the lawsuit as "moot."
The entire process could take another year or two, Gartland said.
Gartland says this case may also finally settle the question of whether Kim Davis' actions violated the constitution, or whether she has the religious freedom to do what she did. (Gartland said previous cases had preliminary findings that showed as such, but nothing with evidence or through appellate court rulings.)
bogueart on May 3rd, 2017 at 00:16 UTC »
For a civil servant, I'm curious who funds her defense. Would it be a private law firm who does it pro bono or is the state on the hook?
You_Dont_Party on May 2nd, 2017 at 21:02 UTC »
The thing I can never get past is just how obviously disingenuous her refusal to marry homosexuals was. She had no problem marrying atheists, agnostics, people of different faiths, unmarried parents, or any other couple who wouldn't fit her religious criteria for 'marriage', yet it was only homosexuals she lost her shit over. I actually do give people a lot of leeway for religious beliefs that they hold genuinely, but I have absolutely no sympathy for those who hide behind their supposed faith to justify their bigotry. If she actually had a problem with signing wedding licenses that went against her religious beliefs, she would have had issues long before this.
bpadair31 on May 2nd, 2017 at 19:11 UTC »
People have a right to their political/religious beliefs, but, especially when they are public servants, they do not have a right to let that interfere with their jobs.
If they feel that strongly about it, then they should resign.