Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Monday, October 12, 2015

ACLU Unleashes Another Blast At Kim Davis

'Plaintiffs looking to stir up controversy, perhaps to drive-up their own attorneys' fees'

A legal team defending Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis’ refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of her faith is countering another offensive against her by the ACLU.

The ACLU now wants to make the case a class-action suit, a move that would be appropriate in cases in which the plaintiffs’ needs were met, but the needs of others, similarly situated but not party to the case, had not be met.

But that’s not the situation in the Davis case, according to a new court filing by Liberty Counsel, which has been working with the clerk.

“From the outset of this case, Davis has consistently argued that there were multiple alternatives by which her sincerely held religious beliefs could be accommodated, without being burdened, while simultaneously allowing individuals to obtain valid marriage licenses in Rowan County. One of those proposed solutions is now in place, with the approval and authorization of the Kentucky governor, and this current status quo also embodies the reasonable steps and good faith efforts taken by Davis to comply with this court’s orders without violating her conscience,” Liberty Counsel said.

“But, unsatisfied with the status quo, plaintiffs are apparently looking to stir up controversy where it does not exist, perhaps to drive-up their own attorneys’ fees in this litigation,” Liberty Counsel wrote.

More here

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Her best alternative is to resign.

Anonymous said...

No 2:10 there are 117 other counties the gays can get their license.

Anonymous said...

How is this person still in this position?

Anonymous said...

She is still there because she is an elected official, and she isn't going to resign just because 5 people in black robes think they can make laws and conjure up 'constitutional rights.'