TX SC Rules Judges Can Refuse Same Sex Marriages

Thursday, October 30, 2025

Texas judges who refuse to perform same-sex marriages based on "sincerely held religious beliefs" do not violate the state's rules on judicial impartiality and won't be sanctioned for it, the Texas Supreme Court ruled on Friday. The added line reads: "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."

Posted by truthhurts at 10:30 PM | 7 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

You thought you had rights?

The state is no longer obligated to recognize them if they run counter to the state official's "sincerely held religious beliefs"

Theists are vile scum.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Play this out.

A clerk can refuse a gun license if guns are against the person's ""sincerely held religious beliefs"

A public-school teacher can refuse to teach black children if teaching them runs counter to their "sincerely held religious beliefs"

A pharmacist can refuse to sell you condoms if selling them is against their "sincerely held religious beliefs"

A judge can refuse to marry interracial couples of doing so goes against their "sincerely held religious beliefs"

A police officer can ignore a domestic violence victim's claims if they happen to believe a man can physically abuse their spouse due to "sincerely held religious beliefs"

These are public officials who are permitted to refuse to enforce laws if those laws run counter to their beliefs.

This is outrageous.

#1 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-10-30 10:36 PM | Reply

fwiw, here in Connecticut, when you apply for a Justice of the Peace (JotP) position, you are asked if you will officiate gay weddings.

Not for any reason to disqualify you, but to put on the JotP website so that the gay couples have more information in their choice of JotP.

Here in CT, the JotP is a political position, a political appointee by the town's Republican or Democrat committee. (if you are "unaffiliated," the process differs, but not an issue for this conversation) So I would not be surprised about that action regarding the political appointment of a JotP.

However, when it comes to Judges, that is different, very different, to me.

iow, a Judge should be a Constitutional position, not a political position. An equal, but separate branch of government.

The Separation of Church and State.

So, my main question becomes ...

In Texas, does a Judge work for the State or a Church?

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-10-30 10:53 PM | Reply

Black Skin is the Mark of Cain.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-10-30 11:20 PM | Reply

I repeat my question ...

In Texas, does a Judge work for the State or a Church?

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-10-30 11:36 PM | Reply

We're a theocracy?

America is officially dead.

#5 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-10-31 12:26 AM | Reply

@#5 ... We're a theocracy? ...

That seems to be an end goal of Republicans.

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-10-31 01:10 AM | Reply

Black Skin is the Mark of Cain.
#3 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That was pretty much the standard Mormon perspective until a timely "divine revelation" in 1978 saved the church's bacon by finally permitting Blacks entry into the vaunted "priesthood".

#7 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2025-10-31 06:04 AM | Reply