At the very least, Kim Davis lost

[Anonymous]

I’m from Rowan County. So happy to see her gone.

[Anonymous]

She lost to a gay man whom she refused to marry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now gays from Massachusetts and California don't have to travel a thousand miles or more to an obscure county in Kentucky they'd never otherwise go to to get denied a marriage license.

It's truly a victory for civil rights.

Aren't you clever? (Aren't is actually the answer.)

Yes, I'm in fact extremely clever.

Thank you for pointing that out to the .... less appreciative people here.

Wow, Sweetie, that went right over your head. You poor old soul... Tough night for you, huh?

Pot, meet kettle

[Anonymous]

6th Circuit unanimously rules that the couples to whom Davis denied marriage licenses can sue her personally.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-kentucky-weddings/kentucky-clerk-who-refused-same-sex-marriage-licenses-can-be-sued-idUSKCN1VD284

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:6th Circuit unanimously rules that the couples to whom Davis denied marriage licenses can sue her personally.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-kentucky-weddings/kentucky-clerk-who-refused-same-sex-marriage-licenses-can-be-sued-idUSKCN1VD284

Oh this is good news. Thank you for posting, I needed a little pick up!

[Anonymous]

They should be able to sue mike huckabee also. Or she should. He encouraged the hell out of her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now gays from Massachusetts and California don't have to travel a thousand miles or more to an obscure county in Kentucky they'd never otherwise go to to get denied a marriage license.

It's truly a victory for civil rights.

Come out already!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now gays from Massachusetts and California don't have to travel a thousand miles or more to an obscure county in Kentucky they'd never otherwise go to to get denied a marriage license.

It's truly a victory for civil rights.

Aren't you clever? (Aren't is actually the answer.)

Yes, I'm in fact extremely clever.

Thank you for pointing that out to the .... less appreciative people here.

Wow, Sweetie, that went right over your head. You poor old soul... Tough night for you, huh?

Pot, meet kettle

You don't understand what "pot, meet kettle" means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now gays from Massachusetts and California don't have to travel a thousand miles or more to an obscure county in Kentucky they'd never otherwise go to to get denied a marriage license.

It's truly a victory for civil rights.

Post of the week!
Well said!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6th Circuit unanimously rules that the couples to whom Davis denied marriage licenses can sue her personally.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-kentucky-weddings/kentucky-clerk-who-refused-same-sex-marriage-licenses-can-be-sued-idUSKCN1VD284

Oh this is good news. Thank you for posting, I needed a little pick up!

This gets overturned on appeal—plus her legal costs will be covered.

Enjoy your victory


While it lasts....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6th Circuit unanimously rules that the couples to whom Davis denied marriage licenses can sue her personally.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-kentucky-weddings/kentucky-clerk-who-refused-same-sex-marriage-licenses-can-be-sued-idUSKCN1VD284

Oh this is good news. Thank you for posting, I needed a little pick up!

This gets overturned on appeal—plus her legal costs will be covered.

Enjoy your victory


While it lasts....

Did you not read or just not understand the article? This was the appeal.

[Anonymous]

Bigots just don’t understand the absurdity of having a woman who has been married four times and had two children out of wedlock as the protector of “the sanctity of marriage.”

“‘Til death is do part,” Kim.

[Anonymous]

Page 1 of this thread is full of posts saying she is a loser, with no skills, and no money. Page 2 is celebrating the fact she can be held personally responsible. Ok, what are you going to get from her? Suing someone with no assets is pointless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Page 1 of this thread is full of posts saying she is a loser, with no skills, and no money. Page 2 is celebrating the fact she can be held personally responsible. Ok, what are you going to get from her? Suing someone with no assets is pointless.

Having her turned out homeless from her used double wide will be worth it. Mobile homes are personal property and not protected by Homestead Act protections.

[Anonymous]

She just lost again.