Texas Supreme Court Backs Judges Who Refuse Same-Sex Weddings

 

Two men marry, surrounded by wedding party, in New Orleans, United States

 

Texas judges and justices of the peace can now legally refuse to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds without facing disciplinary action, following a new ruling by the state’s highest court.

 

In an Oct. 24 revision to the Texas Judicial Code of Conduct, the Texas Supreme Court declared: “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 language, placed under a section governing extra-judicial activities, effectively shields judges who decline to officiate same-sex weddings — or potentially others — for faith-based reasons.

 

The move stems from a case involving Jack County Judge Brian Umphress, who sued the state after claiming he could face punishment for refusing to marry same-sex couples while continuing to perform opposite-sex ceremonies. His case reached the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which referred the matter to the Texas Supreme Court. Though the state court didn’t directly answer the federal query, its rule change appears to settle Umphress’s concerns.

 

Legal experts warn the new language could open the door to broader refusals. University of Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone noted that it could theoretically allow judges to deny interracial marriages as well. “Given the wording… a judge who says, ‘For religious reasons I’m not going to perform the interracial marriage,’ that too would fall within the scope,” he said, calling the decision a likely violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

 

LGBTQ advocates condemned the move. “No one’s religious freedom should be used as a weapon to harm other individuals,” said Brad Pritchett of Equality Texas. The ACLU of Texas echoed that sentiment, calling it “disappointing” and “discriminatory.”

 

Although same-sex marriage remains legal in Texas, the ruling places the state at odds with much of the nation and sets up a potential federal constitutional showdown.

 

Key Takeaways:

• Texas Supreme Court says judges can refuse weddings based on religious beliefs.

• Legal scholars warn it could justify discrimination against same-sex or interracial couples.

• LGBTQ and civil rights groups call the decision a step backward for equality.

 

Source: The Hill

 

 

 

 

 

Live and let live.

7 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

Live and let live.

They have come a long way in 22 years.

 

Sodomy was only legalised in Taxas in 2003

1 minute ago, MalcolmB said:

They have come a long way in 22 years.

 

Sodomy was only legalised in Taxas in 2003

 

Genuinely thought it was compulsory there.

35 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Live and let live.

 

If only the 'alternative' lifestyle folks extended that say courtesy to those that believe differently, instead of trying to force them to conform to their beliefs.

 

How is it even possible to sue someone, for not conforming to your beliefs or lifestyle.  They are the ones to live & let live.

 

Kudos for the judge to take the lead on that one 👍

Very bad ruling.

Judges are there to uphold the law.

Current law (although the maga fascists are actively working to overturn that now) says same sex marriage is legal.

Judges should have no leeway on the matter.

 

5 hours ago, KhunLA said:

 

If only the 'alternative' lifestyle folks extended that say courtesy to those that believe differently, instead of trying to force them to conform to their beliefs.

 

How is it even possible to sue someone, for not conforming to your beliefs or lifestyle.  They are the ones to live & let live.

 

Kudos for the judge to take the lead on that one 👍

 

How is it even possible to sue someone, for not conforming to your beliefs or lifestyle.

 

 

...indeed....or pass laws to prevent people being happy together because it doesn't conform to your beliefs or lifestyle

19 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

How is it even possible to sue someone, for not conforming to your beliefs or lifestyle.

 

 

...indeed....or pass laws to prevent people being happy together because it doesn't conform to your beliefs or lifestyle

 

agree, live & let live 👍

 

How many times alphabet folks sued a business because they didn't want to cater their wedding, whether a baker or florist.  Just find someone who will, instead of suing someone who thinks differently.

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

 

agree, live & let live 👍

 

How many times alphabet folks sued a business because they didn't want to cater their wedding, whether a baker or florist.  Just find someone who will, instead of suing someone who thinks differently.

Not many times.

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not many times.

Once is too many.   Would think those that did sue, also went and found someone to provide whatever the law suit was for.   So now suing for what ... to make people conform ???

 

Lawsuit takes on a whole new meaning, as no damages, no loss of anything, just conformity.

 

Yea  ...  live & let live, so start practicing what one preaches.  I'll live & let live, and expect the same. 

45 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

 

If only the 'alternative' lifestyle folks extended that say courtesy to those that believe differently, instead of trying to force them to conform to their beliefs.

 

How is it even possible to sue someone, for not conforming to your beliefs or lifestyle.  They are the ones to live & let live.

 

Kudos for the judge to take the lead on that one 👍

One needs to leave their believes out of the job. If you don't want to do your job, quit. 

17 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

One needs to leave their believes out of the job. If you don't want to do your job, quit. 

I agree, alphabet folks need to leave their beliefs out of the workplace and not force theirs on others.

 

For the others ... How do you quit when you are self employed.  As the famous lawsuits were self employed folks.   Let alone all the people suing to get their jobs back, for not conforming to silliness, such as 'improper' pronoun use.

 

How do you quit a job supporting your family, maybe a teaching job for instance, when you won't use incorrect English, you've been taught, or worse, teaching.  Forced to use pronouns, for instance, that are confusing as all hell, to please a mentally disturbed person IMHO

 

Because after you were hired, some nut job decided if you don't, it's hate speech, and creates a hostile work environment.   Oh contraire, quite the opposite, as it was fine, until someone forced their ideas on others.

 

Or any job, that requires you to accept something you don't believe in.   Fine if self employed, but you get sued anyway.  So you're suppose to stop providing for your family, to conform to the different of someone, something you don't believe in.

 

 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Very bad ruling.

Judges are there to uphold the law.

Current law (although the maga fascists are actively working to overturn that now) says same sex marriage is legal.

Judges should have no leeway on the matter.

 

Never to disappoint, the "maga fascists" mantra continues.  I do believe the liberal MSM has moved on from that oft repeated distortion.  Seek counseling

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Very bad ruling.

Judges are there to uphold the law.

Current law (although the maga fascists are actively working to overturn that now) says same sex marriage is legal.

Judges should have no leeway on the matter.

 

Fascism would be compelling someone to do something that goes against their personal values and beliefs, you do know this, correct?

24 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I agree, alphabet folks need to leave their beliefs out of the workplace and not force theirs on others.

 

For the others ... How do you quit when you are self employed.  As the famous lawsuits were self employed folks.   Let alone all the people suing to get their jobs back, for not conforming to silliness, such as 'improper' pronoun use.

 

How do you quit a job supporting your family, maybe a teaching job for instance, when you won't use incorrect English, you've been taught, or worse, teaching.  Forced to use pronouns, for instance, that are confusing as all hell, to please a mentally disturbed person IMHO

 

Because after you were hired, some nut job decided if you don't, it's hate speech, and creates a hostile work environment.   Oh contraire, quite the opposite, as it was fine, until someone forced their ideas on others.

 

Or any job, that requires you to accept something you don't believe in.   Fine if self employed, but you get sued anyway.  So you're suppose to stop providing for your family, to conform to the different of someone, something you don't believe in.

 

 

A judge has to act according to the law, if he can't do that because of his believes he needs to quit.

Providing for the family has nothing to do with it.

I have no problem if gays want to marry if a civil union is legal.  However, like filing lawsuits to force bakers to bake a gay wedding cake, if a judge refuses to conduct the ceremony due to their own religious background, no one should be forced to do so.  The next step would be to force priest and ministers to conduct the ceremonies if it is against their own morals. 
There are plenty of liberal bakers and judges and priests who would be fine with doing so.  Using the law to force them to do so is just wrong, and now the judges a legally within their rights to refuse.  Good.

5 minutes ago, novacova said:

Fascism would be compelling someone to do something that goes against their personal values and beliefs, you do know this, correct?

So, if someone's beliefs and values compel them to disregard all laws (like e.g. the sovereign citizen morons) is it fascism to punish them when they break the law?

8 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

A judge has to act according to the law

And now the judge is acting according to the law - he's legally allowed to refuse to conduct the ceremony.  There you have it! 

1 hour ago, Will B Good said:

 

Genuinely thought it was compulsory there.

Only with steers. 

Good.

 

You wouldn't force a Muslim to eat bacon just because it's legal.

 

So why force someone to marry two gays just because gay marriage is legal.

 

Live and let live. They can find someone else to do it. 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Judges are there to uphold the law.

Current law (although the maga fascists are actively working to overturn that now) says same sex marriage is legal.

 

Exactly.  Same sex married is legal.  However the judge is now LEGALLY under no obligation to conduct the marriage ceremony.  Isn't the law wonderful.  Personally I think a couple of guys swapping spit is disgusting, but I'll defend their right to do so.  And I'll defend the right of a judge to bow out of conducting a civil ceremony because there are plenty of other liberal judges and even conservative judges who can conduct the ceremony and sign the marriage cert. If I was a judge I'd have no problem conducting the ceremony and signing off on it.  However, I have major issued regarding forcing people to act in a politically correct manner against their will.  

 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Judges should have no leeway on the matter.

They do now.  Legally. 

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Good.

 

You wouldn't force a Muslim to eat bacon just because it's legal.

 

So why force someone to marry two gays just because gay marriage is legal.

 

Live and let live. They can find someone else to do it. 

Not necessarily.

A better analogy is would you "force" a Muslim judge to rule over a case involving pork products and expect him to be competent and objective. Yes, and if he refused he should lose his job.

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

 

If only the 'alternative' lifestyle folks extended that say courtesy to those that believe differently, instead of trying to force them to conform to their beliefs.

 

How is it even possible to sue someone, for not conforming to your beliefs or lifestyle.  They are the ones to live & let live.

 

Kudos for the judge to take the lead on that one 👍

What you describe is Systemic Progressivism,  gone viral. When those that  take a inch .they end up wanting more & more. Its a curse on humanity.

ai overview:

"Systemic progressivism" refers to a modern approach that seeks comprehensive, systemic reforms to address fundamental social, economic, and political issues by targeting underlying structures, not just individual problems. It builds on the historical Progressive Era (roughly 1890s-1920s) by using government and other institutions to regulate capitalism's excesses and promote social justice, but today also emphasizes addressing systemic inequities like climate change, racial inequality, and corporate power. 

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, connda said:

Exactly.  Same sex married is legal.  However the judge is now LEGALLY under no obligation to conduct the marriage ceremony.  Isn't the law wonderful.  Personally I think a couple of guys swapping spit is disgusting, but I'll defend their right to do so.  And I'll defend the right of a judge to bow out of conducting a civil ceremony because there are plenty of other liberal judges and even conservative judges who can conduct the ceremony and sign the marriage cert. If I was a judge I'd have no problem conducting the ceremony and signing off on it.  However, I have major issued regarding forcing people to act in a politically correct manner against their will.  

The change was in Texas and it's my opinion that the case should be taken to the supreme court as the Texas ruling is clearly unconconstitional. As marriage equality is FEDERAL. But with this current far right wing dominated supreme court that is now considering reversing marriage equality, not sure how it would go.

11 minutes ago, connda said:

And now the judge is acting according to the law - he's legally allowed to refuse to conduct the ceremony.  There you have it! 

For now, you're correct. It's clearly an unconstitional ruling though but it stands for now in Texas. Would you be so supportive of the bigoted Texas ruling if it also applied to not being required to do INTERRACIAL marriages?

44 minutes ago, howlee101 said:

Never to disappoint, the "maga fascists" mantra continues.  I do believe the liberal MSM has moved on from that oft repeated distortion.  Seek counseling

I post my own opinions and my news sources are not heavy on MSM.

Take your moronic personal insults elsewhere. 

2 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

Genuinely thought it was compulsory there.

Only with farm animals.

Might be legal and quite just, but who can honestly say that the sight of two blokes kissing is not stomach churning? unless you are gay of course.

44 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The change was in Texas and it's my opinion that the case should be taken to the supreme court as the Texas ruling is clearly unconconstitional. As marriage equality is FEDERAL. But with this current far right wing dominated supreme court that is now considering reversing marriage equality, not sure how it would go.

Careful what you wish for, as the decision could go against you, as hopefully it would.   Marrying who you want may be equality, as it should be, and I agree with that. 

 

But forcing others to participate, nah, can't agree to that, as has nothing to do with the safety and well being of the masses, just catering to a couple.

4 minutes ago, proton said:

Might be legal and quite just, but who can honestly say that the sight of two blokes kissing is not stomach churning? unless you are gay of course.

Really ... doesn't bother me any, let alone 'stmach churning'.  Not arousing like 2 chickies kissing.  Guess you've never been to an 'alternative' lifestyle club