This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A court case that already has been in the system for years is being pushed up to the level of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and it is expected ultimately to be before the Supreme Court, where it could be a vehicle to overturn that institution's creation of same-sex marriage for the nation.

That 2015 ruling, the Obergefell case, has been described by no less than the chief justice of the high court as unrelated to the U.S. Constitution and exploded limits on same-sex marriage in dozens of states.

But the U.S. Constitution doesn't mention marriage and does provide that issues not specifically reserved for the federal government are under the control of the states.

That, in essence, was one significant factor in the high court's precedent recently that overturned the faulty Roe v. Wade creation of a "right" to abortion, with the decision concluding the Constitution contains no such right, so the issue is left to the states.

The case at hand is the attack on former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis. She was in office at the time the Obergefell decision exploded on the American public and was caught in a dilemma: Her faith would not allow her to issue certificates to same-sex duos, nor did her state law at the time allow it. Yet the court ruling demanded it.

She ended up being sued by some duos who bypassed other jurisdictions where marriage licenses were available to seek her out and target her. When she declined to issue the documents, a leftist federal judge, David Bunning, put her in jail and the duos sued her.

At separate trials, one jury decided there was no evidence the same-sex duo had been injured, so there were no damages due. The other jury decided on $100,000, and to that punishment Bunning added a quarter of a million dollars in additional penalties.

But the foundational problem, according to Liberty Counsel, representing Davis, is that she was due a religious accommodation from the Supreme Court's ruling that violated her Christian faith.

"Liberty Counsel will now appeal this case and argue that Kim Davis was entitled to religious accommodation and that 5-4 opinion in Obergefell should be overruled," the team said.

The legal team pointed out that several of the justices who voted for mandating same-sex marriage in the 5-4 ruling, Kennedy, Breyer, and Ginsburg, no longer are on the court. Since then, three appointees from the desk of President Donald Trump have been added.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, "Kim Davis deserves justice in this case since she was entitled to a religious accommodation from issuing marriage licenses under her name and authority. This case has the potential to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and extend the same religious freedom protections beyond Kentucky to the entire nation."

The appeal plans were confirmed after Bunning refused to reverse the punitive jury verdict that was based on no evidence of emotional damages, or other damages.

And, the team has argued, Davis has protection under the First Amendment's Free Exercise of Religion clause.

The attack on Davis came during the short period between the court's ruling, and the decision by then-Gov. Matt Bevin to grant all clerks, by executive order, a religious accommodation. State lawmakers later confirmed that.

WND previously reported on Liberty Counsel's analysis of the issue when Congress adopted the Respect for Marriage Act, which it described as "a strategic blunder by advocates of same-sex marriage."

"Until the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, the biggest hurdle to overturning Obergefell was not on the law but on policy. Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, has no support in the Constitution. Like Roe, Obergefell was 'egregiously wrong from the start.' As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, 'The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent,'" the Liberty Counsel analysis said at the time.

It predicted the Supreme Court eventually will return "the matter of marriage" to the states to decide state-by-state, just as abortion now is supervised by state legislatures, not the Supreme Court.

"States will then be free to return to their laws prior to 2015 that marriage is the union of one man and one woman," it said.

Several justices on the high court already have suggested that Obergefell be reviewed in light of the Roe precedent.

And they had warned that the Obergefell's decision created a collision with religious liberty. It has multiple times already, with repeated rulings from the Supreme Court that states cannot impose their religious ideology on those in their community who hold other beliefs.

Colorado, for example, has been stung twice by Supreme Court opinions slapping down its "non-discrimination" ideology that discriminates against Christians.

Justice Clarence Thomas has noted, "In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text. Several members of the court noted that the court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. If the states had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs."

He continued, "Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other anti-discrimination laws. It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law. But it is quite another when the court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch."

Thomas said the Supreme Court "has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"

And Roberts said, "The court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every state to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none of their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their views. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."

He said the ruling was "an act of will, not legal judgment" and it has "no basis in the Constitution."

In the case at hand, Bunning not only jailed Davis over her faith but repeatedly has taken the side of leftists above all. He repeatedly refused to recognize Davis' religious rights.

Bunning, the son of Jim Bunning, the famed major league pitcher who once threw a perfect game and later served in Congress, in fact for the Davis trials allowed lawyers to sort out jurors and throw out the ones with religious beliefs.