It is upsurged to try to morally equivocate sodomy (which the bible says is a sin) and divorce which is allowed.
“Divorce is allowed even thou the Lord hates divorce. So no a religious person has no religious reason to not issue the license.”
Divorce is allowed in cases of adultery. It is not allowed for any reason.
3 Then the Pharisees arrived with a test-question. “Is it right,” they asked, “for a man to divorce his wife on any grounds whatever?”
4-6 “Haven’t you read,” he answered, “that the one who created them from the beginning ‘made them male and female’ and said: ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two separate people but one. No man therefore must separate what God has joined together.”
7 “Then why,” they retorted, “did Moses command us to give a written divorce-notice and dismiss the woman?”
8-9 “It was because you knew so little of the meaning of love that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives! But that was not the original principle. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife on any grounds except her unfaithfulness and marries some other woman commits adultery.”
So...if a man has been divorced for a reason other than adultery, and wishes to remarry - Jesus calls it “adultery”.
Last time I checked, adultery is a sin, as is homosexual marriage. So if a clerk can deny a license based on religious objection to one, she must also have the right to deny licenses based on religious objection to the other.
But of course, a county clerk is not, in any way, approving of homosexuals OR divorcees getting “married” by issuing a marriage license. She is merely saying that under the law, X & X have met the legal qualifications. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with her views, and she is not in any way endorsing it.
There are many ways to fight the pushing of homosexuality. This is not one of them. Many states make sexual perversion a protected category via their state EO laws. That is why people have been sued in Oregon and Colorado and New Mexico - those states have laws on the book making homosexuals a protected category. Fighting to overturn those laws would be much more effective, protecting private citizens from being forced to participate in perverted ceremonies.
Some states are looking at strengthening the wording of religious freedom laws. ALL states ought to, and the Congress should pass one - even if Obama vetoes it!
But no - a county clerk has no right to impose her religious views on a marriage license.
When I was in the military, I didn’t get to pick and choose what wars I thought were just. I could either be willing to fight, or resign. Period. I fail to see how her situation is different.