Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, August 11, 2025

Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees. In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses. More fundamentally, she claims the high court's decision in Obergefell v Hodges -- extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment's due process protections -- was "egregiously wrong."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Rotten little bitty. She's as worthless as they come.

#1 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-08-11 06:48 PM | Reply

Lol, the sanctity of marriage snatch is a pass around whore. Married four times to three different men. Two kids with husband #1. Twins with husband #3 while still married to #1. Then married #2, divorced him and married #3, divorced him and last I read is married again to #2. Who knew there were that many men with low self esteem and bad eyesight in her family. Gay couples should file a class action against her for cheapening the sanctity of their marriages.

#2 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2025-08-12 10:56 PM | Reply

Clarence Thomas's Most Terrifying Wish Is About to Come True
www.yahoo.com

... Staver's argument alluded to Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion in Dobbs, which overturned the nationwide right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade.

In his 2022 opinion, Thomas argued that the court "should reconsider" its substantive due process precedents, including contraception, same-sex marriage, and even same-sex relationships. ...


#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-08-12 11:07 PM | Reply

@#3 ... Thomas argued that the court "should reconsider" its substantive due process precedents, ...

OK, my first question ... is Justice's Thomas comment even something that a Supreme Court Justice should raise?


#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-08-12 11:09 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort