The Epoch Times
The Epoch Times
AD
The Epoch Times
Support Us
SHARE
USCourts

The Right to Same-Sex Marriage May Not Be ‘Settled’ Law After All

The case of a county clerk from Kentucky who refused to sign a marriage license for a same-sex couple in 2015 could make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court
Copy
Facebook
X
Truth
Gettr
LinkedIn
Telegram
Email
Save
The Right to Same-Sex Marriage May Not Be ‘Settled’ Law After All
Rowan County Clerk of Courts Kim Davis stands with her attorney Mat Staver (R) and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee in front of the Carter County Detention Center in Grayson, Ky., on Sept. 8, 2015. Ty Wright/Getty Images
Steven Kovac
By Steven Kovac
1/8/2024Updated: 1/8/2024
0:00

A path may be opening up to once again bring the issue of same-sex marriage before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The legal trail began in the U.S. District Court of Eastern Kentucky in the case of Ermold v. Davis, when Judge David Bunning assigned a jury the task of determining the amount of monetary damages a same-sex couple should be awarded because a Rowan County clerk refused, on religious grounds, to sign their marriage license.

Then-clerk Kim Davis’ refusal occurred in 2015, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision declaring same-sex marriage a constitutional right in Obergefell v. Hodges.

The high court also ruled at the time that a same-sex marriage from one state must be recognized as legal by all states.

In September 2023, a jury awarded $50,000 in damages to each plaintiff in the 2015 Kentucky case, and Judge Bunning awarded the couple an additional $246,000 in attorney’s fees and $14,000 for expenses.

Another same-sex couple sued Ms. Davis at the same time for the same reason. In that case (Yates v. Davis), a different jury refused to award any monetary damages to the plaintiffs due to a lack of evidence proving any payment was warranted.

Legal and Constitutional Issues Raised

In a Jan. 2, 2024, press release, Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian legal foundation representing Ms. Davis, stated that the jury verdict in Ermold v. Davis is “unsound and easily sets this case up for an eventual route to the U.S. Supreme Court,” and that “giving the case to the jury was impermissible, and that makes the verdict for damages reversible error, in addition to the constitutional issues.”
Related Stories
Trump Warns of ‘Big Trouble’ if Supreme Court Rules Against Ballot Access
1/7/2024
Trump Warns of ‘Big Trouble’ if Supreme Court Rules Against Ballot Access
Supreme Court Lets Idaho Enforce Strict Abortion Ban, Will Hear Case
1/5/2024
Supreme Court Lets Idaho Enforce Strict Abortion Ban, Will Hear Case

Liberty Counsel asserted that “the evidence presented at trial simply does not support that verdict because there were no lost wages, and they presented no supporting testimony regarding emotional injury.”

Such proof is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which prohibit a judge from giving the case to a jury when evidence presented at trial is insufficient to warrant cash damages, according to Liberty Counsel.

The first step on the road to the Supreme Court will begin in a few weeks with a request from Liberty Counsel that Judge Bunning reverse the jury’s verdict because there was not enough evidence to award the plaintiffs monetary damages.

If the motion to reverse is denied by the court, the next stop is the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and, possibly, beyond that to the U.S. Supreme Court.

According to Liberty Counsel, some prior 6th Circuit decisions make clear that the “mere testimony” of plaintiffs claiming a defendant’s action caused embarrassment and hurt their feelings “cannot suffice to merit a damages award,” without documented evidence of harm done.

Despite their seemingly good prospects in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, it is before the U.S. Supreme Court that Liberty Counsel attorneys hope to argue the greater issue of the religious liberty of Ms. Davis and others.

A win in the Supreme Court would correct the errors that Liberty Counsel contends were made by Judge Bunning, reverse the jury’s verdict, and nullify the monetary damages awarded to the plaintiffs.

Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. (Courtesy of Liberty Counsel)
Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. Courtesy of Liberty Counsel

Religious Discrimination?

At the original trial of Ermold v. Davis, Judge Bunning overruled the objection of the defense and allowed questioning that enabled plaintiffs’ lawyers to exclude from the jury anyone who had “religious beliefs and those who had objections to ‘same-sex marriage,’” according to Liberty Counsel.

“That question essentially excluded jurors based on religion, which is unlawful under current legal precedent and federal law,” the Liberty Counsel statement said.

In December 2015, newly elected Republican Gov. Matt Bevin, prompted by the lawsuit against Ms. Davis, issued an executive order granting a religious accommodation to all Kentucky clerks. The governor’s order was followed by the state Legislature voting unanimously to grant religious and conscience accommodations to all clerks over the refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Initially, Ms. Davis was not covered by the above actions because the case against her was filed before their implementation. Eventually, she requested and received a religious accommodation for future situations.

However, Liberty Counsel contends that Ms. Davis was covered all along by the protections of both existing Kentucky law and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“This case is far from over,” said Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel founder and chairman, in a statement. “This case has the potential to extend the same religious freedom protections beyond Kentucky and to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, which was wrongly decided and should be overturned.”

Later, when asked by The Epoch Times why the Supreme Court should overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, Mr. Staver called the narrow 5–4 decision an example of the “flawed judicial activist philosophy” that negates “millennia of human understanding and behavior.”

The definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman was upheld by court decisions, affirmed by referendums, and codified into statutes and constitutional amendments in many states prior to the high court’s 2015 decision, he said.

“That Supreme Court opinion has no basis in the Constitution and was built on the same shifting legal sand as Roe v Wade. Obergefell v. Hodges passed by a slim majority with strong dissents. The odds are high that this case could be overturned,” Mr. Staver said.

He added that the current Supreme Court has demonstrated a willingness to weather a storm of protests and social upheaval when important constitutional issues are at stake, as was seen by its striking down Roe v. Wade, which had been “settled law” for nearly 50 years.

Steven Kovac
Steven Kovac
Reporter
Steven Kovac reports for The Epoch Times from Michigan. He is a general news reporter who has covered topics related to rising consumer prices to election security issues. He can be reached at [email protected]
Author’s Selected Articles

Michigan’s Attorney General Says Secretary of State Violated Campaign Finance Act

May 22, 2025
Michigan’s Attorney General Says Secretary of State Violated Campaign Finance Act

Michigan Study Finds Democratic Poll Workers Far Outnumber Republicans

May 19, 2025
Michigan Study Finds Democratic Poll Workers Far Outnumber Republicans

Michigan’s Public Schools Get a Bad Report Card From Research Group

May 15, 2025
Michigan’s Public Schools Get a Bad Report Card From Research Group

Trump’s Memorandum Fast-Tracks Project to Keep Asian Carp out of the Great Lakes

May 12, 2025
Trump’s Memorandum Fast-Tracks Project to Keep Asian Carp out of the Great Lakes
Related Topics
same-sex marriage
religious liberty
Save
The Epoch Times
Copyright © 2000 - 2025 The Epoch Times Association Inc. All Rights Reserved.