[Harry Rex Vonner]

It could be argued that, when Kim Davis took her oath of office, the law didn't permit issuing marriage licenses to homosexual pairs. Thus, she is being subjected to the effects of an ex post facto law. In light of that, it would seem logical that she cannot be forced to provide something that was illegal when she took her oath of office. It further seems logical that the SC ruling should not apply to her until she seeks reelection. If reelected, she would take her oath for her new term which would, unlike her prior oath, include the new "interpretation".

This argument won't win because it flies in the face of political correctness. Nonetheless, I believe it is, under normal circumstances and proper application of the law, a reasonable and correct argument. The legal history concerning ex post facto laws is clear. Kim Davis took no new oath after the SC made its dubious ruling.

Need an example? You are driving along a road clearly marked with a speed limit of 55 mph. You are driving 45 mph. Down the road, you are stopped and issued a speeding ticket. What is the justification? After you passed the 55 mph sign, the state came along and changed that particular sign to 35 mph. Thus, you are speeding. Silly example. Not really. It applies quite well.