On Oct. 24, all nine justices of the Republican-led Texas Supreme Court voted to amend the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct to allow judges in Texas to refuse to perform a marriage if it violates their sincerely held religious beliefs.
The amendment added a single line to Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct: “It is not a violation of these canons for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief.”
The court’s ruling takes effect immediately, and no explanation for the decision was given. The ruling does not specifically mention same-sex marriages, but it comes after years of debate about whether Texas judges are required to adhere to federal court decisions regarding same-sex marriage.
The debate came to a head when Waco Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley was publicly chastised by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2019 for refusing to perform same-sex marriages. Hensley subsequently sued. In 2020, Jack County Judge Brian Umphress also sued the Commission, claiming the admonishment they issued against Hensley violated judges’ civil rights.
The Texas Supreme Court was eventually asked to weigh in on both cases, and the amendment they added on Oct. 24 appears to be their response.
On Oct. 29, the Texas House LGBTQ Caucus released the following statement on their Facebook page:
“The Texas House LGBTQ Caucus is disappointed, but not surprised, to learn that the Texas Supreme Court is not willing to stand up for the rights of LGBTQIA+ Texans. Our right to marriage should never depend on someone else’s religious beliefs.
“This change in the Judicial Conduct Code will only further erode civil rights in Texas. [The] decision will keep 2 million Texans who identify as queer from accessing the same rights and privileges as their cisgender counterparts. Without marriage, so many LGBTQIA+ Texans will not be allowed to make lifesaving medical decisions for their partner, raise children with them, or be afforded numerous other rights that they would have if they were married. Restricting access to these rights is blatant discrimination, and we cannot stand idly by while our Supreme Court subjects us to second-class citizenship.”
The decision from the Texas Supreme Court seems certain to invite future lawsuits. In an interview with The Hill, Jason Mazzone, a constitutional law professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, said the court’s broad language could allow judges to deny not only same-sex marriages but opposite-sex weddings as well. He added that interracial marriages could also be affected.
“Denying a wedding because of sexual orientation would violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and its Equal Protection Clause,” Mazzone added.