I know most of you reading this dream to get married or, at the very least, settle down with a long-term partner some day. Most of you dream of having beautiful, festive and romantic weddings when the time is right, to have a judge or religious figure declare your marriage official and to have your marriage legally recognized by the state you want to live in. Now imagine this dream suddenly changes. The licensed figure you went to refuses to legally declare you married to your partner. All because the Texas government deemed a judge’s religious beliefs a valid reason to prevent you from marrying the love of your life.
There is nothing you can do about it. With the Texas Supreme Court modification of Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct (TCJC), this nightmare is now reality. Canon 4 of TCJC originally stated that judges cannot let their religious beliefs stop them from acting impartially as a judge. With this modification, it now states that 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.”
Through this statement, the Texas Supreme Court effectively asserted that a judge can deny people the privilege of marriage. There are several issues with this new modification, but it is first important to address the group of people this new policy targets. It should come as no surprise that this will primarily decrease the plausibility of marriage within the LGBTQ+ community.
This modification needs to be revoked. Many at Trinity will likely face difficulty with marriage in Texas because of the new “streamlined” version of Canon 4. It deviates from constitutional law by bridging religion and legality. It negatively affects the well-being of LGBTQ+ Texans. It is unnecessary, because marrying a couple identifying as LGBTQ+ does not, in any way, negatively affect the judge performing the wedding.
Allowing judges to refuse to perform these officiations based on religion is advocating for bias in the courtroom.
— Gautam Iyer
Constitutional law requires a separation of church and state. By allowing judges to take their religious views into consideration when declaring marriage between two parties, we open up the possibility of a political institution being shaped by religion; this is a slippery slope.
The freedom to express religion is a fundamentally guaranteed right in the First Amendment. Proponents of this modification emphasize that it protects judges’ constitutional right to freely practice religion. But this is not the full story.
The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prevents government endorsement of any religion, so judges legally cannot act in accordance with a certain religion. While the right to refuse service in a private environment is legally acceptable, judges are state officials. They represent the government and provide public services, including when they perform marriages. Deciding not to perform a public service based on religious grounds constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause, making this modification a direct violation of the First Amendment.
Marriage can hold much more significance than just a legal proceeding to those getting married. Stepping away from the legal implications and constitutional violations that come from this modification, research published in JAMA Psychiatry shows that there are negative consequences on LGBTQ+ individuals’ mental and emotional health when they are unable to marry someone they love. Research published in Health Economics shows a positive correlation between mental health and same-sex marriage autonomy. Similarly, there is evidence from the American Journal of Public Health that supports that couples in the LGBTQ+ community are less distressed when in a legally recognized relationship than not.
On the other hand, there is no hard evidence that a judge’s mental health or job satisfaction is or has been impacted by requiring them to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. There is only anecdotal evidence that some judges have been caught between their sincerely-held religious beliefs and their duty to do their job. This worry is falsely placed, and effectively makes this modification unnecessary. There is no positive outcome from the change in Canon 4.
If anything, more worry should brew from the potential hypotheticals this Canon 4 modification brings. In a regular court case, even the appearance of bias from a judge is enough for the case to be thrown out of their court. So why should there be any difference with marriage officiations? Allowing judges to refuse to perform these officiations based on religion is advocating for bias in the courtroom.
What if this judge who has previously refused to officiate a same-sex marriage is thrown into a court case which involves someone who is gay? How can one trust that their “sincerely held religious beliefs” won’t prevent them from ruling accurately or fairly?
Lastly, I would ask, what is the point of this change? To me, it is just another display of performative politics. Legalized marriage proceedings, again, are a public service provided by the state. Judges that provide these services are free to practice their religion wherever and whenever — except in a way that refuses public service to an individual. An EMT can not stop providing medical attention because a couple is gay. A doctor can’t refuse service to a patient based on religious beliefs. So why should judges get a pass?
The Student News Site of Trinity University
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Religion shouldn’t hinder the right to marriage – Trinitonian
