2,000 years of “tradition” (and there are all kinds of traditions, eg religious pluralism vs burning heretics) don’t determine US law. What’s legally determinative is the text of laws, not some intentions that you self-servingly purport to divine. And you’re wrong that “the Founders” intended the US to be a Christian state. Various Founders had various views. For example, Jefferson and Madison both denied Jesus’ divinity, disparaged Christianity, and detested the intertwining of religion and state.
“And you’re wrong that “the Founders” intended the US to be a Christian state. “
Really?
George Washington prayed with his troops.
He even had a church built at the New Windsor contonement called the Temple of Light.
Hmm....
"You err."
"The US is a secular republic,..."
"However, the Declaration, unlike the Constitution, is not a part of US law. It’s purely an inspirational document."
"And you’re wrong that “the Founders” intended the US to be a Christian state."
And there's a lot more, but we won't belabor the point.
The Declaration of Independence set forth the principles on which the founding of the nation and subsequent actions and laws were based which is, unequivocally Natural Law. And Natural Law as you should know has its basis in the notion of law being inherent in the nature of man as an expression of his relationship to (and worshipful emulation of) his Creator. Hence Jefferson's pointed reference to that Creator in the Preamble.
The Jefferson authored Declaration sets the moral and legal basis for the establishment of US Laws to follow. He further states that when governments become destructive of those ends the people have the right to alter and abolish those governments. (And that's exactly what we have here - a government that has taken a form destructive to securing the pre-existing rights of the Christian majority.)
The judge in this case even acknowledged this fact and gave tacit admission to the Clerk's claim of religious protection founded in Natural Law when he issued a statement in which he asserted his court to be above the Natural Law, thus demonstrating his incompetence and unfitness for the bench.
The Establishment Clause presupposes a nation of churchgoers and merely protects each of them from having the right to choose the church of their choice from being abridged. It exists not to establish secularism, but rather to eliminate the dominance of Calvinist over Baptist or Anglican over Lutheran or Catholic or Puritan.
The tolerance for secularism in our society is the same tolerance shown toward other non-Christian faiths such as Hindus, Sikhs and that special religion from whence Christianity emanated, Judaism. All of these are tolerated in our society in as much as they can coexist without being destructive to the essentially Christian fabric of the nation. In the case of Judaism, being the progenitor of Christianity, it even serves to enhance that fabric.
To support your tenuous position you have alluded to (nay, tried to channel) Madison and Jefferson, but you fail to make mention of John Adams who famously said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
And there's one other issue here. This Clerk is an elected official of Kentucky. Kentucky law defines marriage as one man and one woman. In addition, in 2013 Kentucky passed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, based on the model suggested in the Supreme Court decision that declared the Federal RFRA unconstitutional. (The SCOTUS opinion said that such acts would be perfectly legal if enacted by the several states.) And that is exactly what Kentucky has done.
Nice try, Troll.