Former KY clerk violated rights of same-sex couples by refusing marriage licenses, judge rules
A former Kentucky county clerk violated the rights of two same-sex couples when she refused to issue them marriage licenses in 2015, a judge has ruled.
The ruling is the latest development in a controversy involving Kim Davis, who was clerk in Rowan County, that dates back more than six years and received nationwide attention.
The case was set in motion by the June 2015 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that said same-sex couples had a right to marry.
The next month, two same-sex couples — David Ermold and David Moore, and James Yates and Will Smith — went to Davis’ office to get marriage licenses. County clerks issue such licenses in Kentucky.
Davis’ office refused to issue licenses to the couples several times. Davis, an Apostolic Christian, said that God defines marriage as being between a man and woman, and that issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple would violate her religious convictions and conscience.
She spent several days in jail for contempt of court for refusing to issue the licenses.
For their part, the men that Davis refused to issues licenses to said they experienced mental anguish, emotional distress and humiliation.
“They were denied a right,” Michael J. Gartland, a Lexington attorney who represents Ermold and Moore, told the Herald-Leader Friday. “They were made to feel less than human.”
A deputy clerk in Davis’ office issued the marriage licenses while she was locked up.
The two couples sued in July 2015. The case has gone on so long because of appeals on several issues leading up to Friday’s ruling by U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning.
Details from ruling
Bunning granted summary judgment to the two couples, saying that Davis, who lost reelection in 2018, had violated the couples’ constitutional right to marry.
Bunning said Davis was familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court decision and a letter that then-Gov. Steve Beshear sent to clerks saying that Kentucky would recognize same-sex marriages.
She also consulted with the Rowan County attorney, who told her to issue the licenses, but she refused, Bunning said.
“The question is simple — did Davis knowingly violate the law? The answer here is clear — yes,” Bunning wrote.
Bunning said Davis argued she was protected by qualified immunity available to public officials.
But that only protects officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights,” Bunning said.
“Any argument that Davis made a mistake, instead of a conscious decision to violate the law, is not only contrary to the record, but also borders on incredulous,” the judge said.
Bunning rejected an argument by Davis that having to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple would violate her religious rights.
“Ultimately, this Court’s determination is simple — Davis cannot use her own constitutional rights as a shield to violate the constitutional rights of others while performing her duties as an elected official,” Bunning said.
Gartland said the ruling settles the issue of whether Davis violated the couples’ right to marry.
“The things that we alleged, we proved,” Gartland said. “We’re happy with the ruling.”
Rene Heinrich, an attorney for Yates and Smith, said they were pleased with Bunning’s decision and that she looks forward “to continue to fight to protect our clients’ rights.”
What happens next?
The remaining issue is how much money Davis will have to pay the couples, if any. They are suing her personally.
The two couples have asked for an unspecified amount of money to compensate them and punish Davis.
A jury will determine the amount of damages. After that, attorneys for the two couples could seek payment for their work.
Gartland said Davis could appeal Bunning’s summary judgment ruling, but wouldn’t likely win because of earlier rulings in the case.
Liberty Counsel, a Christian organization that represents Davis, said she will continue to argue she is not liable for any damages and that any finding of liability would violate her First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
“Kim Davis is entitled to protection to an accommodation based on her sincere religious belief,” Mat Staver, chairman of the organization, said in a release.
