ROWAN COUNTY, Kentucky — Kentucky clerk Kim Davis is taking her fight to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a 126-page appeal, Davis and her attorneys with Liberty Counsel asked the Circuit Court to overturn four lower-court decisions. Specifically, they are asking the Court to reverse two injunctions against Davis, as well as grant her an injunction from having to follow the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling, and overturn the contempt of court decision that placed her in jail.
Davis became a national figure for religious liberty after refusing to sign same-sex “marriage” certificates. One of her attorneys told LifeSiteNews that they effectively won the legal fight, but that the fight continues because LGBT activists won’t stop pressing Davis to put her name on “marriage” certificates for same-sex couples.
Davis’ arguments have relied heavily on the U.S. Constitution, the Kentucky Constitution, and the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. These documents were heavily cited in the appeal.
“Plaintiffs suffered no direct and substantial burden on their right to marry under the Fourteenth Amendment,” says the appeal, “since they are physically and financially able to obtain Kentucky marriage licenses from more than 130 locations throughout the state, and Davis’ religious freedom is substantially burdened and irreparably harmed by the forced authorization and approval of SSM licenses in derogation of her undisputed sincerely-held religious beliefs protected by the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the United States and Kentucky Constitutions, while many less restrictive alternatives to the SSM Mandate are available.”
The appeal asks the Court to consider “whether the district court erred in practically denying Davis’ request for injunctive relief…in which she sought a reasonable religious accommodation from the SSM Mandate.” It also akss “whether the district court erred in expanding the Injunction while it was on appeal to this Court,” along with several other components of the injunction’s expansion.
Perhaps most importantly, the Circuit Court is asked to consider if “the district court erred in finding Davis in contempt and ordering her to be incarcerated without affording her appropriate due process, violating her rights under the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and discarding fundamental principles of federalism and comity by commandeering a state office run by a publicly elected official.”
———
Reprinted with permission from LifeSiteNews.