Texas lawmakers sought to amend state law to protect judges opposed to homosexual “marriage” from officiating such “weddings.” Declining does not violate the judicial code of conduct, ruled the Texas Supreme Court.
Liberty Counsel (LC) reported that a justice of the peace was accused of violating impartiality after she recused herself from officiating at homosexual “weddings.” The Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a warning against her. She filed a lawsuit to protect her First Amendment rights.
A judge in a different county had a similar issue with officiating a ceremony the Bible condemns as sin. From LC:
In his opinion, [Texas Supreme Court] Chief Justice Blacklock concluded that the Obergefell opinion, which established a “new right” to “same-sex marriage,” does not supersede the “pre-existing” or “more deeply rooted” constitutional principles of religious liberty and free speech, or even the prohibition on religious tests for holding public office. He stated that Obergefell affected the legal landscape in many ways but that it does not compel the Texas judiciary to ignore or violate the religious beliefs of its judges.
Christians were concerned long before the Obergefell ruling. The court ruled marriage is a constitutional right that includes two people of the same sex. Any “rights” granted to homosexuals inevitably force Christians to take a stand.
“Politely declining to participate in a same-sex wedding for religious reasons does not demonstrate bias or prejudice against gay people,” Justice Blacklock wrote. “Nor does it demonstrate an inability to impartially judge their lawsuits.”
If Obergefell makes Christian judges unfit for the robe, then free speech, religious liberty and the bans on religious tests can all be “undermined by unduly aggressive interpretations” of “same-sex marriage rights” announced in that opinion, wrote Chief Justice Blacklock.
Kim Davis, a former clerk of court in Kentucky, was fired, sued, and fined for temporarily suspending the issuance of all marriage licenses after the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell. The government refused to grant her a religious accommodation. Davis asked the high court to protect her rights and consider overturning the decision.
“Obergefell v. Hodges cannot not override the free speech and religious exercise protections of the First Amendment,” said Mat Staver, LC founder and chairman. “Like the abortion decision in Roe v. Wade, Obergefell was egregiously wrong from the start.”
