By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Judge Dianne Hensley of Waco, Texas, is challenging the constitutionality of marriage equality in a federal lawsuit, claiming the Supreme Court’s decision “subordinated” state law. Hensley, who has refused to perform same-sex marriages citing religious beliefs, argues this position should be protected despite violating state judicial ethics rules. This legal battle follows years of proceedings, including a warning from the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct and support from the Texas Attorney General. Hensley’s current lawsuit seeks to prevent the commission from investigating or disciplining her for her discriminatory practices, claiming her rights as a Christian are being violated.
Read the original article here
Texas judge asks federal court to end marriage equality nationwide. She has been arguing that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state rules about judicial impartiality, and this situation, frankly, raises a lot of eyebrows. It’s hard to wrap your head around the idea that someone in a position of power, entrusted with upholding the law, would actively seek to undermine the very principles of fairness and equality that the law is supposed to protect.
The core of the issue boils down to this: Judge Dianne Hensley believes her religious beliefs should exempt her from the rules of judicial impartiality. She wants the freedom to refuse performing marriages for same-sex couples while still performing them for heterosexual couples. The implications here are staggering, because it essentially suggests that her personal faith trumps her professional obligations. This immediately brings up the fundamental separation of church and state, a cornerstone of American law. It’s a foundational principle: judges are meant to interpret and apply the law fairly, without allowing their personal religious convictions to influence their decisions. The moment a judge allows personal faith to dictate how the law is applied, the system of justice itself is jeopardized.
The Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct recognized this and, back in 2018, investigated Judge Hensley’s actions. They found she violated state rules requiring judges to be impartial. The ensuing warning was a clear indicator that her actions were deemed unacceptable, professionally speaking. The fact that the Judge then sued, with support from an anti-LGBTQ+ legal organization, underscores a disturbing willingness to challenge the very foundations of the justice system. The statement that she doesn’t want to offend God, while understandable from a personal standpoint, is a poor excuse for a judge who should be concerned with equality under the law.
The problem with this entire scenario is that it sets a dangerous precedent. If judges are allowed to pick and choose which laws they will uphold based on personal religious beliefs, the entire system collapses. It creates a hierarchy of rights, where some people are afforded more protection than others based on the judge’s personal biases. It opens the door for other judges to use religion as a shield to discriminate against other minority groups. It creates a system that isn’t really based on laws but on how the Judge feels. And this is not just an issue for LGBTQ+ individuals; it is a threat to everyone who relies on the fair application of law, regardless of their background or beliefs.
It is really important to understand that in a civil context, the judge is not performing a religious ceremony, but a civil duty under the law. Many different religious groups embrace people of all sexual orientations, therefore, it is about performing the duties of the job and the laws that the job requires the person to uphold. The very essence of the role is to treat all citizens equally under the law. Judge Hensley’s actions, and the broader push for religious exemptions, undermine this very ideal. It’s the idea of forcing religious beliefs on everyone else, and the refusal to respect the rights of others.
The argument that she is entitled to accommodations based on her religion just doesn’t hold water. No one is forcing her to be a judge, and nobody is forcing her to perform a religious ceremony. The job has clear requirements. The laws are meant to be applied equally, regardless of an individual’s personal beliefs. The moment she took on the role of judge, she willingly accepted the responsibility to uphold these laws, regardless of whether she personally agrees with them.
The whole situation also highlights a broader trend of Christian nationalism, where certain groups seek to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. This is a very real threat to the Constitution and American values. This belief system is being pushed by people who want to override the laws of man with their version of God’s laws, and it is a really dangerous thing. It goes against the very core values of this country – equality, freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state.
In the end, this case is not just about one judge’s personal beliefs. It is about whether our legal system will remain a system of laws applied equally to everyone, or will become a system where personal biases and religious beliefs dictate who is treated fairly and who is not. If she cannot understand that simple concept, she should not be a judge. And if she refuses to uphold the basic principle of judicial impartiality, then she shouldn’t be in a position of authority.