What I see is total stupidity, especially from the lawyers. She was stupid for using religion as the reason.
She should have just used the law.
KRS 402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
Then tell everyone:
(3) Any authorized person who knowingly solemnizes a marriage prohibited by thischapter shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
According to the law, if she issues same sex marriage licenses, she is guilty of a misdemeaner, until the legislature changes the law.
Some will say "The SCOTUS said same sex couples have the right to marry based on the us constitution". Ok, they said that. But the SCOTUS does not define laws in states. If it is a penal code law, then their ruling would mean that a person can not be punished for violation, no matter what is on the books, but this is not a penal law. SCOTUS ruling nullified
402.020 Other prohibited marriages.
(1)Marriage is prohibited and void: (d)Between members of the same sex;
But that did not change the definition of marriage in the law. It just removed the prohibition of it. She would have been totally right in refusing to issue the licenses based on 402.005 and 402.990. But hey, people don't bother to read the laws including her.
And remember that there is no obligation for the county clerk to issue marriage licenses because if a person has a right to marry, a person does not need to ask permission from the government. Like the Stratton OH case. A person has the right to preach door to door without getting permission from the mayor so that person does not need to give a name or get a permit.