The Texas Supreme Court, in a significant ruling on Friday, stated that judges in the state are not compelled to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies if such actions conflict with their deeply rooted religious convictions. This decision amends the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct to protect judges from punitive measures should they choose to abstain from officiating over these ceremonies.
This ruling originated from inquiries posed by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which sought direction amid lawsuits involving judges who refused same-sex weddings on the basis of their Christian faith. Central to these cases was Waco Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley, who, after the seminal 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationally, ceased conducting all marriage ceremonies to maintain her religious beliefs. She later returned to officiating only heterosexual unions, redirecting same-sex couples to other judges. Her actions led to a public warning by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2019, which prompted her to file suit, claiming protections under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The Texas Supreme Court's clarification specifically modifies Canon 4 of the judicial conduct code, which previously barred judges from actions that might undermine their impartiality. Now, the amendment asserts that judges adhering to their sincere religious beliefs cannot be penalized for refusing certain weddings, effectively insulating Texas judges from related sanctions.
Legal advocates have lauded the ruling as a robust affirmation of religious freedom. Hiram Sasser of the First Liberty Institute, representing Hensley, declared it a "landmark victory" for all Texas judges. Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, in his supporting opinion, noted Hensley's respectful treatment of same-sex couples and deemed prior warnings by the commission as unwarranted.
The decision arrives as Texas voters contemplate adjustments to the composition of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct in the upcoming Nov. 4 constitutional amendment election. Proposition 12 would grant the governor authority to appoint seven of the commission's public members with Senate approval, an alteration advocates claim will enhance accountability amid criticisms of judicial disciplinary actions.
Observers suggest that the impact of this ruling may extend beyond Texas, buttressing protections for judicial officials under state religious freedom statutes and potentially affecting broader federal debates regarding obligatory participation in same-sex marriages. Legal experts anticipate potential future disputes concerning constitutional equal protection arguments; however, the current guidance from the Supreme Court provides clear conduct parameters for judicial officers.
By revising Canon 4 and elucidating judges' entitlements, the Texas Supreme Court has ensured that judicial officers can honor their personal religious convictions without professional consequences while respecting the rights of same-sex couples to seek alternate officiants. Conservative legal groups perceive the decision as a vital triumph for religious liberties and a precedent-setting resolution for the state judiciary.
