Texas Judges May Refuse Same-Sex Weddings Under New Court Rule

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that state judges may refuse to perform weddings, including same-sex marriages, based on their religious beliefs. The change, which took effect immediately Friday, has raised concerns about judicial impartiality and the long-term strength of marriage equality in Texas.

The court amended the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, adding a new line to Canon 4 that states: “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 order, signed by all nine members of the all-Republican court, was published in the Texas Bar Journal and the Texas Register. It follows years of tension surrounding whether judges who decline to perform same-sex marriages could face disciplinary action for violating the state’s rules on impartiality.

A Ruling Years in the Making

The issue dates back to 2019, when Waco Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley was publicly admonished for refusing to marry same-sex couples while continuing to marry straight couples. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct said her refusal undermined public confidence in her impartiality. Hensley, citing her Christian faith, argued that her religious beliefs should have protected her under state law.

She sued the commission under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits government actions that substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion. Although Hensley’s reprimand was later withdrawn, her case prompted renewed legal scrutiny over how far judges’ religious protections extend.

A similar challenge followed from Jack County Judge Brian Umphress, who sued in 2020 claiming fear of punishment if he refused to perform same-sex weddings. His case is still winding through the courts, and the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asked the Texas Supreme Court to clarify state law. Legal experts say last week’s amendment likely answers that question in favor of judges like Umphress.

Broader Implications

According to Houston Public Media, the rule revision could also influence efforts by conservative groups to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Critics say the change undermines equal treatment under the law by allowing judges—who swear to uphold constitutional rights—to selectively refuse service based on personal faith. “The decision could erode public confidence in the impartiality of the courts,” The Advocate reported, noting fears that marriage equality’s “practical reach” in Texas may shrink if couples must search for officiants willing to perform their ceremonies.

Supporters of the amendment, however, describe it as a win for religious liberty. Hiram Sasser, of the First Liberty Institute, which represented Hensley, said in  a statement that “every judge in Texas will enjoy the freedom Judge Hensley has fought so hard for in her case.”

Tension Between Rights and Religion

Legal scholars say the Texas court’s move echoes national debates over the balance between marriage equality and religious freedom. Josh Rovenger, legal director at GLAD Law, told The Advocate that the Texas decision fits into a broader legal trend seen in cases such as Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative, where courts have sought to balance the rights of same-sex couples with the religious beliefs of those who object to marriage equality.

Still, critics argue that state judges occupy a unique role as public officials charged with upholding equal protection. Jason Mazzone, a law professor at the University of Illinois, told Houston Public Media that while couples may find other officiants, “that’s not how equal protection works, and it’s not how we expect government officials to operate.”

Political and Cultural Backdrop

The decision comes amid an ongoing political climate in Texas that has seen increasing challenges to LGBTQ rights. In September, Governor Greg Abbott signed a law restricting transgender people from using bathrooms in state facilities that align with their gender identity. That same month, a Texas A&M professor was fired, and the university’s president resigned amid backlash over curriculum materials that included LGBTQ topics.

Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, who once expressed sympathy for Hensley’s case, now leads the Texas Supreme Court. In a previous opinion, Blacklock wrote that Hensley “treated [same-sex couples] respectfully” and “went about her life with her Christian conscience clean,” framing her position as a “win-win.”

As the state continues to redefine the boundaries between religious freedom and civil rights, the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling adds new weight to a question that has shaped national debate for over a decade: How far can public officials go in exercising personal faith without undermining the equal rights they swear to uphold?