Kim Davis Wins Court Battle Against ACLU

The jack-booted storm troopers of the Anti-American Communist Lunkhead Union attempted to force Kim Davis to reissue marriage licenses in her name. Thankfully, they failed:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A federal judge ruled that Kentucky clerk Kim Davis has obeyed his orders in the months since she spent five nights in jail for refusing to license same-sex marriages.

United States District Judge David Bunning wrote Tuesday that Davis has allowed her deputies to issue marriage licenses and dismissed a request from the American Civil Liberties Union to consider ordering her to reissue licenses she altered to remove her name.

After the United States Supreme Court legalized gay marriage last summer, Davis refused to allow her office to issue marriage licenses. She relented during a turbulent court battle, but altered the licenses.

The ACLU asked the judge to make her reissue the marriage licenses.

Bunning on Tuesday found that request to be “moot;” he said the altered licenses are valid.

As previously observed, Davis remained true to her convictions and a compromise was worked out. The Left’s obsession with forcing compliance with their views was derailed. Regrettably, that won’t stop them. They care nothing for liberty.

Trump Takes New Hampshire
Hanoi Jane Advises Trump On Propaganda
  • Commander_Chico

    “Liberty” of government official to do whatever she likes, law be damned vs. freedom of contract for citizens. OK.

    • Scalia

      Wrong again, Chico. She doesn’t want her name on the licenses and she is allowing her clerks to issue them. Kentuckians are happy, except those in the ACLU and their sycophants.

    • Ha, ha!

    • LiberalNightmare

      Geez, next thing you know she’ll be issuing executive orders.

  • Hank_M

    “The Left’s obsession with forcing compliance with their views was derailed. ”

    Brilliantly stated.
    Hopefully this is the beginning of a trend.

  • JWH

    I can’t speak to the ACLU, but my objection was that she wouldn’t let deputies issue license in her stead. As long as the licenses are being issued and the state recognizes them as valid, I’m fine with it.

  • JWH

    I’m pretty firmly on the side of gay marriage, but it’s somewhat amusing to me that some folk don’t want to compromise. A few months ago, a gay acquaintance said he didn’t see any reason for Kim Davis to be able to deny licenses. I rattled off at least three or four compromises, ranging from letting a deputy issue licenses, to shuttering marriage licenses in favor of good ol’ common-law marriages. I’m not sure he was convinced.

    • Vagabond661

      The left does not want a comprise. If they did, civil unions would be the avenue. The Looney left wants to take down marriage.

      • JWH

        Take down marriage? Pshaw. The Left also wants to take down families, Mom, apple pie, and come to your house and confiscate all of your Monterey Jack cheese!!!

        • EricSteel

          I’ll give them my Monterey Jack when they pry it from my cold dead hands! But I will share my apple pie.

          • JWH

            YOU WILL YIELD YOUR CHEESE!!!! For the good of the people!!! And the Revolution!!! The Monterey Jack shall be distributed according to need!!!!

          • b l

            The liberals won’t want that. In the end, cheese will be seen as oppression of animals, and a contributor to global warming, so all cheese will be confiscated, and vegan imitation soy cheese will be issued as a replacement. Preference will go to previously marginalized people first (the vegan community, which suffered years of discrimination at the hands of American dairy farmers, and the hooves of American dairy cattle).
            Of course the Left will not speak of this, or Vermont would have tarred and feathered Bernie ages ago, but we know this is where they want to take us.

          • JWH

            FORWARD WITH THE CHEESE REVOLUTION!!!

  • 914

    Good for Her! Stand up to the pc dumasses! Just like Trump!

  • Brian Brandt

    As I understand it, the Kentucky legislature has not yet convened to write a new definition of who can and cannot get married to whom since the S.C. struck down the old ‘one man one woman’ law.

    I wonder what the judge would say if a man showed up with two women?