It doesn't exclude marriage to dogs or horses either, if you want to be a lying f***ing @$$ about it.
Reading something into the law that it wasn't deliberately intended to address is just as much a bastardization of it as is taking something out of it.
How about this? All laws that have never been comprehended to apply to deviation from the norm, will not apply to deviations from the norm.
The underlying fallacy is “if the law doesn’t exclude it, then it must support it.”
As Diamond posted well before: there is no legal authority based on current Kentucky law for this lady to issue the license.
Also, as a side note, if the misnamed “couple” are male - then the precise wording of the law, using the word “where she resides” would explicitly exclude two males pretending holy matrimony.
But, where there is no basis of authority and also no explicit law such as from the Kentucky legislature, there is no authorization to issue a license. There is merely *opinion* that homosexuals ought to be issued a license: this is not law.