Fed Court Upholds Ruling Ordering Clerk To Issue Marriage Licenses To Gay Couples

Riz Dunaway of Bowling Green waives a rainbow and American flag together during a rally celebrating the Supreme Court decision on Friday, June 26, 2015, in front of the William H. Natcher Federal Courthouse in Bowlin... Riz Dunaway of Bowling Green waives a rainbow and American flag together during a rally celebrating the Supreme Court decision on Friday, June 26, 2015, in front of the William H. Natcher Federal Courthouse in Bowling Green, Ky. Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear told the state's county clerks to immediately issue marriage licenses to gay couples. (Austin Anthony/Daily News via AP) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — A federal appeals court has upheld a ruling ordering a Kentucky county clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis objects to issuing same-sex marriage licenses for religious reasons. She stopped issuing marriage licenses the day after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned state bans on same-sex marriage.

Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her. A U.S. district judge ordered Davis to issue the marriage licenses, but later delayed his order so that Davis could have time to appeal to the 6th circuit. Wednesday, the appeals court denied Davis’ request for a stay.

An attorney for Davis said he was disappointed in the ruling and that Davis could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said he did not know how Davis would react to the ruling.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Latest News

Notable Replies

  1. An attorney for Davis said he was disappointed in the ruling and that Davis could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Please proceed, lady. This would be a good thing for all of us.

  2. An attorney for Davis said he was disappointed in the ruling and that Davis could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    They wouldn’t hear that case, would they? What’s the point? Why would the Supreme Court feel the need to affirm that people actually need to abide by their recent decisions?

  3. Avatar for mantan mantan says:

    I’m pretty sure Kim will meet husband #5 in jail.

  4. Sure, she can appeal to the Supreme Court. But, in the meantime, the stay should be lifted.

    Also, she should have to pay for this ridiculous exercise out of her personal funds since it is her “personal” beliefs that are supposedly being infringed upon. Though, given that she is represented by that crazy extremist Christian law firm, maybe they are doing it as a freebie.

  5. Or in the unemployment line.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

36 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for lestatdelc Avatar for paulw Avatar for robertbrk Avatar for pluckyinky Avatar for blue_bear Avatar for butlerknights Avatar for gelfling545 Avatar for clunkertruck Avatar for redwoodr Avatar for cessnadriver Avatar for wwss Avatar for horrido Avatar for mantan Avatar for srsjones825 Avatar for skippyflipjack Avatar for grandpoobah Avatar for ryanwi Avatar for Talibaptist Avatar for cyberduckie Avatar for sfaw Avatar for 538liberal Avatar for hugopreuss Avatar for beattycat

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: