Texas Judges Allowed to Refuse Same-Sex Marriages on Religious Grounds

Judges and justices of the peace in Texas, who are legally authorized to perform wedding ceremonies, will no longer face punishment if they refuse to do so on the basis of their “sincerely held religious beliefs.” The clarification was published by the Texas Supreme Court.

On October 24, the state’s highest court added a new comment to the Code of Judicial Conduct: “A judge’s decision to refrain from performing a wedding ceremony on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs does not constitute a violation of these canons.” The note was inserted into the section dealing with judges’ extrajudicial duties.

The decision came after a federal appeals court asked the Texas Supreme Court to clarify state law in connection with a lawsuit filed by a county judge from northern Texas who feared disciplinary action if he refused to officiate same-sex weddings while continuing to perform heterosexual ones.

Jack County Judge Bryan Amfress argued that performing same-sex ceremonies would violate his religious convictions and that being compelled to do so would infringe upon his rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. His case reached the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which referred the matter to the state Supreme Court. Although the court did not issue a formal ruling, the newly adopted clarification effectively resolves Amfress’s case. He declined to comment, citing the ongoing proceedings.

Jason Mazzone, a constitutional law professor at the University of Illinois who closely followed the case, noted that the broad wording of the comment allows judges to refuse not only same-sex but also opposite-sex couples. When asked whether this could extend to interracial marriages, he answered affirmatively: “Given the way the comment is written, if a judge were to say, ‘For religious reasons, I will not perform an interracial ceremony,’ that too would fall within the Texas Supreme Court’s clarification and would not trigger disciplinary action,” he explained.

Although same-sex marriage remains legal in Texas, Mazzone believes the state has effectively created a new barrier for such couples. In his view, the Supreme Court’s decision could spark a constitutional conflict and lead to future lawsuits. Refusing to perform a ceremony based on sexual orientation, he emphasized, violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

Some supporters of the ruling argue that same-sex couples can simply turn to another judge willing to perform their ceremony. Mazzone disagrees: “The existence of an alternative does not eliminate the problem of violating the principle of equal protection.”

LGBTQ rights advocates sharply condemned the court’s decision. “Religious freedom cannot be used as a weapon to harm others,” said Brad Pritchett, acting head of Equality Texas. He called it yet another example of the discrimination the community has faced in Texas for decades—one that continues to intensify.

The ACLU of Texas also said it is closely monitoring the situation. “This is deeply disappointing,” said Ash Hall, the organization’s policy and advocacy strategist on LGBTQ+ rights. “Being a judge means serving the public. If a judge offers wedding services but refuses couples solely because they are LGBTQ+, that’s discrimination. That’s not public service.”