A letter to Kim Davis, and all the other clerks and judges fighting the same fight. Your cause would be noble if you actually had a moral conflict rather than just a grammatical misunderstanding.
Dear Ms. Davis:
Let me first say that I respect your willingness to stand up against what you consider an unjust law, even when it comes from the Supreme Court -- Supreme Courts have been wrong before. That integrity is presumably part of what got you elected to your office in the first place. It would be a noble act if you were actually standing up for a moral position. But going to jail for misunderstanding a homonym is just silly.
Let me explain. A homonym is a set of two or more words with different meanings that share the same spelling and/or pronunciation. For example, "dog"[1] is a noun meaning a four-legged domestic animal, while "dog"[2] is a verb meaning to bother or pester. As County Clerk, you're probably called upon to issue dog licenses; when you do so, are you authorizing the licensee to pester and bother people, or to own and keep a four-legged animal?
Here's another homonym: "marriage"[1] is a relationship recognized in the eyes of God, while "marriage"[2] is a relationship recognized in the eyes of the State. These two words overlap just enough to be confusing, but they're not and never have been identical. A couple married by a priest/minister/rabbi/imam who hasn't been empowered by the State to conduct marriages are married[1] but not married[2]. A couple married by a justice of the peace are married[2] but perhaps not married[1].
Members of minority religions have known this for centuries. The Catholic Church doesn't (didn't?) recognize the marriage of somebody who's been married and divorced before; the U.S. and all its States do. Both Islam and the Church of Latter-Day Saints, from their respective beginnings, not only allowed but encouraged polygamy; the U.S. and all its States forbid it. You've been fortunate, most of your life, that as a member of the local-majority religion, you've had a religious notion of marriage that matched the legal one pretty closely. Now that they don't match, you perceive a conflict between your job and your faith.
Fortunately, nobody is asking you to state that a same-sex couple can be married[1] in the eyes of God, which is a matter of faith. You're being asked, as part of your job as a public official, to certify that they can be married[2] in the eyes of the State, which is a simple, objective, legal question to which your faith is completely irrelevant, so there's no conflict. Going to jail for your principles when your principles aren't actually under attack is just a waste.
I hope I'm not bothering you with this missive. But if I am, it's OK -- I have a dog license.