A judge in Jack County, Texas recently declined to marry same-sex couples as a result of the judge’s Christian beliefs. A state commission has since decided that the judge has standing to challenge a regulation that chills his religious rights. The judge has commented that he faced serious potential penalties based on the view that refusing to officiate same-sex marriages violates the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct because this refusal draws into question the judge’s ability to treat LGBTQ+ individuals impatially. The threat of penalties is a serious one given that the state Commission on Judicial Conduct recently warned a Texas justice of the peace who refused to preside over same-sex weddings due to religious beliefs.
The Influence of the Obergefell Case
The United States Supreme Court in Obergefell held that the right to marry is a fundamental one inherent to a person's liberty and that under both the due process and equal protection clauses, same-sex couples cannot be deprived of this right and liberty. The case at hand, Umphress v. Hall, has the potential to change this holding.
The Judge’s Situation
The judge at the heart of this case belongs to the Christian Missions Church in Jacksboro, Texas, and follows a version of a Christian teaching that emphasizes marriage only exists between one man and one woman and that same-sex conduct is immoral. The judge has also stated that he plans to pursue re-election in 2022 and that his campaign will position him as an opponent of same-sex marriage and the perspective that led to the 2015 Supreme Court Obergefell decision. The judge intends to participate in conduct that has already been deemed by the commission to violate judicial ethics.
The Commission’s Argument
The Commission argues that the judge’s argument regarding the potential chilling of his religious rights is subjective and that because standing to bring legal action under the Constitution cannot be based on speculation, the judge does not have standing to bring his argument. The commission also argues that the judge oversimplifies previous sanctions brought against judges in cases involving these situations. The commission argues that another judge was sanctioned because she made concerning statements in an interview with a local newspaper and also utilized state-employed court workers to interact with same-sex couples. The commission argues that this is a different situation than the case currently involving the judge. As a result, the commission argues that the judge’s lawsuit isn no actually about same-sex marriage or his refusal to hear a same-sex wedding ceremony, but is instead about the judge’s desire to be a litigant who persuades the Supreme Court to overrule Obergefell.
Continue Reading the Universal Life Church’s Blog
Each week, the Universal Life Church’s blog details the most recent cases involving the development of LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. Even though these cases are often complex, our blog strives to explain these issues in a way that can be easily understood by all. We also focus on describing both sides of each discussion in an unbiased manner.