There’s no “win” for her if she (or her lawyer) takes the route P-Marlowe is describing I agree. This is because exactly as you said the writing is on the wall. Eventually KY will have to re-write the law anyway to comply with the SC ruling. At best, this legal argument only buys her a few months and then she’s really in a bind when the new law comes out authorizing “gay marriage”. It’s winless for her.
We shouldn’t be allowing ourselves to think there’s a “legal” solution to this. The solution is already written into the first amendment. I do not see why it’s such a big deal to allow her to remove her name from certificates of her choosing.
What she should not be required to do, and I believe this is what her lawyer is arguing now, is put her name on the marriage certificates for any “gay marriage”. She should have the option not to do that if she chooses. Those who say “it’s her job” to do so are part of the problem quite frankly. There is a demonstrable, objective difference between signing off on a marriage between a man and woman of different races or creeds and two men or women.
Those who wish to lump this kind of circumstance in with objectively immoral objections such as objections to mixed marriages are part of the problem here. They are literally enabling the destruction of the institution of marriage by refusing to see the clear difference. The persecution of Christians (and Jews) is starting here, with this woman. People need to wake up to this fact before we become a nation of literal Neo-Nazis, just “following the law”.
But it is her job. She runs the office. Whether her signature is on it or not, she is responsible for what comes out of her office.
SCOTUS has ruled that all couples are the same. That is the law of the land right now. She has to abide by it, or honorably resign because she can't.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate on this issue. Personally, I view gay marriage as an abomination to God - and feel sad that our country is going to reap the judgment for the SC ruling on this issue. Having said that - I also wonder if issuing a marriage license to those who have been married 3 or 4 times isn’t also against the laws of God? The Bible has much to say on this subject as well. So, if one is to object to issuing a license to homosexuals, then one must also object to issuing a license to those who are contemplating another marriage - possibly the spouse leaving one person for another. In the Old Testament - homosexuals as well as adulterers were to be put to death. We are now living under an era of grace where all can come to the foot of the cross for repentance. So, in fairness, if I objected to issuing a marriage license to a gay couple, then I would also have to object to issuing one to those who have had multiple marriages. I’m sure there are those who will disagree with this, but, it’s just my thoughts on the subject.
AMP 1 Corinthians 6:9:
Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,