AUSTIN – Judges and magistrates in Texas who have the authority to officiate weddings will not face consequences for declining to perform them if it stems from “sincerely held religious beliefs,” according to a recent update to the Code of Judicial Conduct from the Texas Supreme Court.
On October 24, the state Supreme Court made comments clarifying that it is acceptable for a judge to refuse to officiate a wedding ceremony based on their religious beliefs without violating these ethical codes.
This clarification was included in the section of the Code related to extrajudicial activities and comes after a federal appeals court sought clarification about the state’s law earlier this year.
The case that prompted the court’s action involved a North Texas official who sued the state, fearing repercussions for officiating weddings for opposite-sex couples while refusing to do so for same-sex couples.
This official, Jack County Judge Brian Ampres, argued that performing weddings for same-sex couples was against his religious convictions and that mandating him to do so would infringe upon his First Amendment rights.
The case was eventually moved to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and referred to the Texas Supreme Court. Even though the state court didn’t provide a formal answer to the federal court’s inquiries, the rule change seems to have addressed Ampres’ concerns.
Nexstar reached out to Ampres for his thoughts on the Supreme Court’s decision, but he stated he couldn’t comment on ongoing legal matters.
Jason Mazzone, a constitutional law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, closely monitored the interim developments in the Ampres case. He pointed out that the broad wording by the Texas Supreme Court might open the door for judges to refuse not only same-sex marriages but also opposite-sex ones. When asked if this could extend to interracial marriages, Mazzone acknowledged that it was a possibility.
“The comments from the Texas Supreme Court could imply a judge might say, ‘I won’t perform interracial marriages for religious reasons,’ and that seems to fit within their guidelines without facing any disciplinary measures,” Mazzone noted.
While same-sex marriage is still legal in Texas, Mazzone mentioned that the state presents unique challenges for same-sex couples. He raised concerns that the court’s actions could prompt federal constitutional challenges in the future.
Mazzone argued that denying wedding services based on sexual orientation could contravene the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, which aims to protect individuals from government discrimination. Some have tried to justify the Texas Supreme Court’s decision by suggesting that couples could seek alternative judges, but Mazzone disagreed with that stance.
“Just because there are other options doesn’t erase the issue of equal protection,” he emphasized.
In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, LGBTQ advocates voiced their concerns.
“Religious freedom shouldn’t be a tool for harm against others,” said Brad Pritchett, interim CEO of Equality Texas. “This kind of ruling can empower individuals to discriminate.”
Pritchett characterized the measure as an added layer of discrimination toward the LGBTQ community in Texas, pointing out that their experiences of discrimination have been ongoing and have intensified over the years.
The ACLU of Texas is keeping an eye on the developments.
“It’s really disheartening,” noted Ash Hall, a policy and advocacy strategist for LGBTQAI+ rights at the ACLU of Texas. “Judges are meant to serve the public. It’s discriminatory to offer marriage services to the public while excluding LGBTQAI+ couples. That’s not serving the community.”
