By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Texas Supreme Court has added a comment to the state’s judicial conduct code, clarifying that judges can decline to perform wedding ceremonies based on sincerely held religious beliefs without violating rules on judicial impartiality. This change, effective immediately, may have implications for gay marriage and a pending federal lawsuit. The modification amends Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which addresses impartiality, in response to a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals inquiry spurred by a case involving a judge’s refusal to marry same-sex couples. The court’s clarification seemingly addresses concerns raised in the lawsuit, offering protection for judges with religious objections.
Read the original article here
Texas judges who don’t perform gay weddings for faith reasons won’t face sanctions, high court says. This is the crux of the matter, and it sparks a lot of strong feelings.
Judges, in their role, are expected to uphold the law impartially. The idea that their personal beliefs, especially religious ones, should be able to influence their application of the law feels deeply wrong to many. It raises serious questions about fairness and equal treatment under the law. If judges can pick and choose which laws they enforce based on personal preference, it erodes the very foundation of the legal system. The expectation is that judges are supposed to set aside their personal feelings and apply the law as it is written. This decision creates a loophole, a chance for bias to seep into the courtroom, and many see this as a dangerous precedent.
The obvious problem is the idea that a judge can refuse to do something that is their job because of their personal beliefs. Imagine the chaos if other public servants followed suit. It opens the door to potential discrimination and unequal application of the law. Where does it end? The role of a judge is to be impartial and apply the law fairly. If they can’t do that, they shouldn’t be judges. The argument comes up often that if you hold a public office, you should be able to provide all services, and if you can’t, you shouldn’t be in that office.
The whole concept also smacks of hypocrisy. The discussion brings up the comparison to Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses. What if a judge refuses to preside over cases involving LGBTQ+ individuals? Can they really be trusted to be impartial? It’s a slippery slope. The key point is that performing the legal function of marriage, and even cases related to it, is a job duty. If one cannot, they should find another job.
The argument for this policy often seems to hinge on religious freedom. However, that freedom doesn’t give someone the right to discriminate or avoid their legal responsibilities. It’s a fundamental principle of government that it shouldn’t be in the business of endorsing or opposing religious viewpoints, but neither should religious beliefs be allowed to supersede legal obligations. One way to look at it is that the state should just make sure that there are people available who will perform legal marriages for everyone, regardless of personal beliefs.
There is a feeling that this decision isn’t about protecting religious freedom, but rather about allowing personal prejudice to shape the application of the law. There’s a concern that this ruling is just one step on a path towards further discrimination, potentially even the overturning of Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
It also highlights the deeply partisan nature of Texas’s judicial system. With judges elected as Republicans and a court system that aligns with their political ideologies, the outcome of this case comes as no surprise. The sentiment is that it’s another example of Texas living down to its reputation as a state that’s not particularly welcoming to LGBTQ+ people and is one of the least free states.
The discussion often drifts to potential analogies. Can a doctor refuse to treat a patient based on their religious beliefs? Can a driver refuse to stop for a pedestrian because of their personal convictions? It exposes the underlying problem: If judges can sidestep their duties based on personal beliefs, then where does it stop? If the law doesn’t apply to everyone equally, then it isn’t the law. It undermines the very foundations of fairness.
Ultimately, the issue comes down to what the purpose of the law is and whether there is a true commitment to impartiality. In an ideal society, everyone would be treated equally under the law, and government officials would not let their personal views influence their official actions. If the legal function of marriage is performed, then the personal beliefs of the judge should be irrelevant.