Latest news with #KimDavis
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legal Analyst: Supreme Court asked to review same-sex marriage ruling
(QUEEN CITY NEWS) — Khalif Rhodes joins us to discuss the legal stakes as the U.S. Supreme Court is formally asked—for the first time in a decade—to overturn its landmark 2015 ruling that guaranteed same-sex marriage nationwide, in a case involving former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis and questions over religious freedom and constitutional rights. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Fox News
4 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Fox News Politics Newsletter: Schumer feels 'safe' amid DC crime concerns
Welcome to the Fox News Politics newsletter, with the latest updates on the Trump administration, Capitol Hill and more Fox News politics content. Here's what's happening… -EXCLUSIVE: Trump-aligned legal group files FOIA request for DC crime data, citing alleged manipulation -Mamdani points to Bronx population loss as proof NYC's affordability crisis during his anti-Trump tour -Supreme Court has 'good chance' of hearing Kim Davis' case urging same-sex marriage be overturned: lawyer Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday that he feels "perfectly safe" in Washington, D.C., and that Republicans who say that D.C. is unsafe are "full of it." During an interview with lawyer Aaron Parnas on his podcast, "The Parnas Perspective," Schumer was asked about President Donald Trump's federalization of D.C.'s police force. "I want to get your reaction to everything that's happening in D.C.," Parnas said. "But, first, a lot of folks on the Republican side, your Republican colleagues, say that they are very scared to walk outside in D.C., that they think this is completely the right thing to do. Senator, are you scared walking around Washington, D.C., these days?"…READ MORE. PIVOTING: DC police announce major action on immigration enforcement after Trump's crime crackdown BOOTS ON THE GROUND: Trump's federal crime operation brings 100 arrests, 800 National Guard troops to Washington 'TIP OF THE SPEAR': Trump admin unveils groundbreaking tool 'supercharging' gov't efficiency to 'win the race' for AI dominance PREDATOR PURGE: ICE hauls in illegal immigrants convicted of child crimes in nationwide Wednesday sweep: 'clear message' GAMING THE FIELD: Newsom unveiling California redistricting effort to counter Trump-backed push in Texas POWER PLAY POLITICS: Armenian and Azerbaijan leaders seek to ease Russian and Iranian concerns after U.S.-brokered peace deal PEACE BREAKTHROUGH: Trump brings peace to the Caucasus: Inside the deal that will settle three decades of conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan NUCLEAR CHESS MATCH: Putin praises Trump's 'sincere' peace efforts, signals possible US-Russia nuclear deal 'TAKE A DRUG TEST': Trump says Elizabeth Warren has 'got to take a drug test' CRIME CITY: GOP Sen. Markwayne Mullin, former MMA fighter, skips seat belts in DC over carjacking fears VET ON A MISSION: 'Not a politician': Father of young cancer survivor DJ Daniel runs for Texas 18th district seat PLACING BLAME: Jussie Smollett calls Chicago Police and Rahm Emanuel 'villains' while denying hate crime hoax: Variety PRE-DAWN TAKEDOWN: Feds rescue 4 victims including minor in massive LA sex trafficking bust targeting gang KIDS AT RISK: Louisiana sues online gaming platform Roblox for allegedly enabling child predators POWER PLAY POLITICS: Mamdani rivals defiant against dropping out despite facing long odds in NYC mayor battle TROUBLING TIES: Meet the former Soros foundation exec connecting Obama world with Mamdani INTRAPARTY STRIFE: Cowboy State Republican who mounted gubernatorial bid 'isn't conservative enough' Freedom Caucus chair says STICKING TO IT: Beto O'Rourke says he does not regret saying he will take away AK-47s and AR-15s while running for president Get the latest updates on the Trump administration and Congress, exclusive interviews and more on
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Sudden Panic That SCOTUS Might Overturn Marriage Equality Misses the Real Threat
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Over the past few days, a long-shot request for the Supreme Court to overturn marriage equality has snowballed into a major news story. Influential media outlets have covered it closely, and prominent politicians have seized upon it to warn that same-sex marriage is still under attack. It is certainly true that no one should take this hard-won right for granted. But any panic about this particular challenge—brought by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis—is unwarranted. There is essentially no chance that the court will entertain Davis' plea to abolish gay people's constitutional right to marry; the odds round down to zero. And although apprehension about the justices' hostility toward LGBTQ+ equality is justified, marriage does not yet appear to be in their crosshairs. The most important thing to understand about Davis' appeal is that it has a small likelihood of being taken up in the first place. Her lawyers have merely asked the court to consider it, filing what's known as a petition for certiorari. (They did so in July, and it's unclear why the request is garnering so much attention now.) SCOTUS receives about 8,000 of these petitions every year and grants just a tiny number of them—in recent years, fewer than 70. Anyone can ask the court to hear their appeal. And while it is technically accurate to say that the justices will consider her request, that does not mean they will resolve it on the merits. It simply indicates that they will have the opportunity to take it up, an opportunity that they are unlikely to accept. Why? Most obviously, Davis' petition does not center on the question of marriage equality. It stems from a long-running battle over her refusal to grant a marriage license to a same-sex couple shortly after the Supreme Court affirmed their right to wed in 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges. Davis, then a county clerk in Kentucky, claimed that her antigay religious beliefs did not allow her to provide the license. A federal judge briefly jailed her for contempt of court, and the couple later sued her for violating their rights. The two men prevailed at trial, and a jury awarded them $100,000 in damages. It is this judgment that Davis now asks the high court to overturn: She argues that she should've been allowed to raise the First Amendment's free exercise clause as a defense against the couple's lawsuit. Davis' lawyers devote almost all of their petition to this topic. Only at the end do they tack on a request—almost an afterthought—for the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell altogether. But, again, the actual legal question in the case is not whether Obergefell was rightly decided; it is whether state officials can wield religious liberty as a shield when they engage in unlawful discrimination. The answer to this question is plainly no. Two conservative judges appointed by Donald Trump have already explained that a state official cannot hide behind the First Amendment to justify discrimination when acting as an agent of the government. It is highly doubtful that the court will reconsider that conclusion, which rests on the fundamental principle that the government has no right to infringe on people's rights. SCOTUS can take up Davis' appeal only if four of the justices vote to hear it. And it's difficult to envision four members of the current court agreeing to do so given the open-and-shut failure of Davis' main argument. But even if they did, the court would still have no grounds to consider her shoehorned assault on Obergefell itself. Reevaluating that precedent is entirely unnecessary to resolve the real dispute. And as the appeals court pointed out, Davis' lawyers actually forfeited their argument against Obergefell by declining to raise it in the district court. Their failure to preserve this issue gives SCOTUS one more reason to ignore it. So even if this Supreme Court were eager to put marriage equality in its crosshairs, Davis' appeal would be a terrible vehicle for it. But the court doesn't seem to have much of an appetite to kill off Obergefell right now. That assurance may ring hollow in light of Roe v. Wade's demise just three years ago. A handful of clues from the conservative supermajority, however, indicate that there are not currently five votes to end marriage equality. Or, perhaps more accurately, there are not five justices who want to eradicate same-sex couples' fundamental right to wed. At least three members of this supermajority have dropped hints that they do not wish to revisit Obergefell. Just two years after the decision, Chief Justice John Roberts seems to have quietly joined a follow-up ruling affirming its protections for same-sex parents, suggesting that he had made his peace with marriage equality. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has called same-sex marriage a 'very important right' and declared that gay Americans 'cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.' In his most important opinion about precedent, Justice Neil Gorsuch went out of his way to signal that Americans have 'reliance interests' on their ability to marry. Roberts and Gorsuch, of course, also voted to protect gay employees from workplace discrimination in 2020's Bostock v. Clayton County. And while Kavanaugh dissented from that decision, he did so apologetically, offering a sentimental tribute to gay Americans' 'extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit.' The justice also took pains to note that the death of Roe v. Wade 'does not threaten or cast doubt on' marriage equality. The point here is not that these three justices think Obergefell was correct; they almost certainly don't. But it seems safe to conclude that they are not preoccupied by an unrelenting desire to harm gay people—or that they, at a minimum, understand that overturning Obergefell would be massively unpopular. Like every justice, this trio has an agenda. They know that their court has limited time, resources, and political capital to effectuate it. So they have to prioritize. And overturning marriage equality does not appear to be anywhere close to a top priority. Savvier anti-LGBTQ+ groups, like Alliance Defending Freedom, recognize this fact. It's presumably why these organizations have not directly asked SCOTUS to reverse Obergefell. (Davis is represented by the far smaller and less prestigious Liberty Counsel.) That's not to say that gay rights are safe at this Supreme Court. Far from it: They are under active attack, albeit in a subtler way. In the past several years, the conservative supermajority has weaponized the First Amendment to legalize discrimination against same-sex couples in the marketplace. It has forced public schools to censor LGBTQ+ books and compelled states to fund private schools that discriminate against LGBTQ+ students. Next year, it will probably strike down state bans on LGBTQ+ 'conversion therapy' for minors. Rather than take aim at Obergefell itself, the Republican-appointed justices have settled on curtailing gay rights in the name of religious liberty and free speech. They have also blessed overt discrimination against transgender people, cruelly denying them equal protection under the law. These rulings merit far more attention and scorn than a long-shot bid to take down marriage equality. Obergefell is not Roe v. Wade. It did not unite the Republican Party in a tireless crusade to change the law. Indeed, Trump has expressed no interest in ending marriage equality, even as his administration has enacted other anti-LGBTQ+ policies. A couple of sitting justices would likely leap at the opportunity to cast Obergefell into the dustbin of history. But it is pretty clear that they haven't yet secured a majority for their mission. And in the unlikely event that they do, Kim Davis' case will not be the vehicle they use to eradicate the equal dignity of same-sex couples. Solve the daily Crossword
Buzz Feed
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Buzz Feed
Kim Davis End Of Same-Sex Marriage Jokes
The internet is collectively roasting Kim Davis. A little context: Kim was the Kentucky county clerk who made headlines for refusing to give marriage licenses to LGBTQ+ couples after same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015. The courts ordered her to cut the crap, but she refused, citing her Christian faith, and was thrown in jail. Memes and jokes abounded, and it become a whole thing. She was even mocked by SNL in a parody film trailer called God Is a Boob Man. So, why is Kim trending again? Well, a decade after making a fool of herself in front of the whole country, she's back for more. According to ABC News, she's appealing the jury verdict that ordered her to pay $100,000 for emotional damages and $260,000 for attorneys' fees. Additionally, Kim argues that the First Amendment — which protects the right to practice your religion — means she shouldn't face any consequences for denying those marriage licenses back in 2015. Furthermore, she wants the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision overturned and called it "egregiously wrong." In the fall, the Supreme Court justices will privately choose which cases to take on, and they'll review Kim's case at that time, per ABC News. That's already a lot, but the internet is really coming so hard for Kim because of her personal marital history. Naturally, people had a lot to say about all this: Note: The photo of Kim in the original tweet was replaced here due to photo rights. And finally: Note: The photo of Kim in the original tweet was replaced here due to photo rights. What do you think about all this? LMK in the comments below!
Newsweek
4 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Are Gay Dating Apps Threatening To Expose Republicans? What We Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A social media post has gone viral after claiming that gay dating apps are threatening to out closeted Republican officials and members of Congress who have accounts on their platforms if the Supreme Court overturns its same-sex marriage ruling. Why It Matters The U.S. Supreme Court is facing a choice about whether to take a case filed by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis that urges the court to overturn its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage nationwide. Members of the court, including Justice Clarence Thomas, have signaled an openness to revisiting the case as the court has shifted to the right—a change defined by its 2022 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, which for decades guaranteed abortion rights. If the court overturns same-sex marriage nationwide, the issue would likely return to the states. A composite image shows same-sex marriage supporter Vin Testa waving an LGBTQIA pride flag in front of the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., on June 26, 2023, and the Grindr app in Apple's... A composite image shows same-sex marriage supporter Vin Testa waving an LGBTQIA pride flag in front of the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., on June 26, 2023, and the Grindr app in Apple's App Store on an iPhone 12 Pro Max in Berlin on January 26, 2021. More/Christoph Dernbach/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images What To Know On X, the account @HalfwayPost wrote earlier this week, "BREAKING: Several gay dating apps are reportedly threatening that, if the Supreme Court bans gay marriage, they'll reveal all the closeted Republican officials and members of Congress who have accounts on their platforms." The post has been viewed more than 7 million times, with many social media users believing it to be a statement of fact. However, the account—run by comedian Dash MacIntyre and self-described as "comedy and satire"—says in its bio, "I don't report the facts, I improve them." This isn't the first time @HalfwayPost has gone viral over such a claim, and rumors about gay dating apps disclosing the identities of Republican officials on their platforms have circulated online for years—often in response to news that affects the LGBTQ+ community. In 2023, following Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' Parental Rights in Education Act, which critics dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" bill, the claim circulated widely online. The dating app space is highly saturated, with a number of apps available to users across the sexuality spectrum. Newsweek spoke with Grindr, Feeld and Hornet, three of the most popular LGBTQ+ apps in the U.S. All three apps denied any threats to expose Republican politicians. "This claim is false," a spokesperson for Grindr told Newsweek. "At Grindr, we take our role as a connector for the queer community very seriously and are committed to upholding high standards of trust and user safety, protecting the privacy of all of our users." Feeld's press office shared a statement with Newsweek, which said in part: "Feeld is built on a commitment to our members' privacy and safety. We would never release members' data or information publicly without the appropriate consent being given." Christof Wittig, the founder and CEO of the dating app Hornet, told Newsweek: "We have never threatened to expose users' identities or personal information at Hornet. Privacy and safety are core to our mission, and we remain committed to protecting the trust of our community." Newsweek also spoke with experts about why such claims continue to resonate widely online. "Rumors like this gain traction because the LGBTQ community is deeply aware that some of their most vitriolic opponents are hypocrites in high places," Brett Krutzsch, a scholar of religion at the Center for Religion and Media at New York University and the editor of the Revealer, told Newsweek via email. "The LGBTQ community has a long history of debating the merits of outing conservatives against their will," Krutzsch said. "When facing the possibility of the Supreme Court overturning Obergefell, the idea of outing closeted Republicans taps into a form of queer power, even if it isn't coordinated by a dating app or if it doesn't produce the desired political result." Shaka McGlotten, a professor of media studies and anthropology at Purchase College, told Newsweek, "On one level, these viral revenge fantasies function as pressure valves, redirecting energy that could go toward organizing into liking, sharing, and commenting." McGlotten added: "Personally, though, this is what I think is actually happening: Republicans have exposed themselves by helping to build a political culture that weaponizes sexual identity and that thrives on using anxieties about sex and gender against minorities. When you participate in creating that, you shouldn't be surprised when it turns on you." What People Are Saying Grindr said in a statement shared with Newsweek: "It is our mission to support a world in which the lives of our users are free, equal, and just, and we condemn any attempts to undermine the rights of LGBTQ people." Feeld's press office said in a statement shared with Newsweek: "Our goal has always been to create safer, more inclusive spaces and to protect our community with the highest standards of trust and care." Christof Wittig, the founder and CEO of the dating app Hornet, told Newsweek: "While we vehemently oppose any and all efforts to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges—especially in a political climate already marred by anti-LGBTQ legislation—we do not condone such behavior, even in the name of advocacy." Sasha Costanza-Chock, a faculty associate at the Berkman-Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, told Newsweek via email: "Satire has always been a valuable tool for oppressed communities to ridicule their oppressors. The widespread popularity of this satirical news headline reflects the massive disconnect between right-wing efforts to suppress the LGBTQI+ community and the reality that a wide majority of people now support LGBTQI+ rights. In particular, people are targeting the hypocrisy of closeted queer elected officials who do harm to their own communities." Shaka McGlotten, a professor of media studies and anthropology at Purchase College, told Newsweek via email: "The viral claim originated from a satirical account. It spreads because it offers the fantasy of revenge in a time when so many people feel powerless. Platforms like X amplify inflammatory content, and this story delivers a perfect mix of scandal and justice for engagement." What Happens Next Concerns about the Supreme Court overturning same-sex marriage are ongoing. It remains to be seen whether the court will decide to hear Davis' case.
