Culture Texas Supreme Court Rules Judges Can Refuse Same-Sex Marriages

By Giulia Carbonaro
US News Reporter
Published Oct 30, 2025 at 07:22 AM EDT Updated Oct 30, 2025 at 09:27 AM EDT

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.

Why It Matters​

The court's decision, which was added to the state's judicial conduct code on October 24 effective immediately, follows years of debate in Texas after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages in the country in 2015.

In 2019, Waco Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley was accused of violating the canon for refusing to marry a same-sex couple, citing her Christian beliefs. At the time, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning against Hensley, rejecting the idea that she should be entitled to "religious exemption," as she claimed.


A pride flag crosswalk in Austin, Texas, in 2021. (Mario Cantu/CSM/ZUMA Wire/Cal Sport Media/AP)

What To Know​

The Supreme Court's decision amended Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judges from letting any activities outside of their official judicial role cast doubt on their impartiality or interfere with their duties.

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."

The ruling does not include reasoning for the change. "The order speaks for itself, and the Court cannot comment on its connection to pending litigation," Texas Supreme Court clerk Blake Hawthorne said in an email to KERA News.

The amendment was signed by all nine justices of the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court.

What People Are Saying​

Chair of the Texas House LGBTQ Caucus Jessica González said in a statement issued after the court's ruling: "The Texas House LGBTQ Caucus is disappointed, but not surprised, to learn that the Texas Supreme Court is not willing to stand up for the rights of LGBTQIA+ Texans. Our right to marriage should never depend on someone else's religious beliefs."

She added: "This change in the Judicial Conduct Code will only further erode civil rights in Texas."

Democrat activist and political scientist Joel Montfort wrote on X, commenting on the court's ruling: "Texas Judges are now legally permitted to deny performing gay marriages as we continue to roll back rights in this country."

What Happens Next​

The Texas Supreme Court's decision is in line with Governor Greg Abbott push to undermine LGBTQ+ rights in the Lone Star State. The Republican governor signed a law in September which barred transgender individuals from using bathrooms in certain public spaces that are in line with their gender identity, making Texas the 20th state in the union to pass similar laws.

In January, Abbott sent a letter to Texas state agency heads urging them "to reject woke gender ideologies" and "comply with the law and the biological reality that there are only two sexes—male and female," in line with directions given by the Trump administration.

LGBTQ+ advocates fear that the Supreme Court's decision on judicial conduct could represent a setback for same-sex couples' rights.

Source (Archive)

 

[Jace on ice]

It's been an extremely long time coming but I think normiecons have finally realized that "we just want to love and live like everyone else bro!" Was a fucking lie and it was always about pedophiles and other freaks getting access to kids.

 

[X Prime]

Clearly unconstitutional.

How can you refuse something which doesn't exist? "Same-sex marriage" is like saying a man is a woman. It's simply against reality, it is not possible.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

Is this the first step towards undoing that June 26, 2015 ruling?

 

[CharlesBarkley]

"I will grant you marriage, lesbian dyke couple, if the butch one can do five NORMAL push-ups" - Challenge forever undefeated.

 

[FlappyBat]

I think we're getting to the point where people are going to start supporting stuff they otherwise wouldn't have just to drive off the Californians back to the mess they created and then fled.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

Liberals having a trully spooky scary Halloween I see

 

[Mr. Racewar1488]

"I will grant you marriage, lesbian dyke couple, if the butch one can do five NORMAL push-ups" - Challenge forever undefeated.

"You have to live together for three months and not commit domestic violence." Lesbian marriage would never happen.

"You can only have sex with your husband for a year." Fag marriage would be over.

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

Separation of church and state.

A judge in the government, according to separation of church and state mandate, is not allowed to acknowledge this religions "marriage".

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

It's been an extremely long time coming but I think normiecons have finally realized that "we just want to love and live like everyone else bro!" Was a fucking lie and it was always about pedophiles and other freaks getting access to kids.

Pedophilia is just a small part of the bigger whole

Its about Satanism and making the US from a christian nation to a satanic parody. Fucking kids is part of that, but so is men mocking women and mocking marriage as a whole, as is replacing governmental institutions with this cults proactices

 

[World Famous Quasi Payer]

I think we're getting to the point where people are going to start supporting stuff they otherwise wouldn't have just to drive off the Californians back to the mess they created and then fled.

First thing that popped into my head when I read the headline. If this drives the faggots, and shitlibs out of Texas, good! Make your state as unappealing to liberals as possible.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Is this the first step towards undoing that June 26, 2015 ruling?

Looks like we'll soon find out. Meanwhile I can hear some lawyers crying because they will be less lawsuits against people who refuse to bake a cake for gay weddings.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

Oh no! Now a judge doesn't have to go against his beliefs! Fags most affected.

 

[oh no its pipkun]

I think we're getting to the point where people are going to start supporting stuff they otherwise wouldn't have just to drive off the Californians back to the mess they created and then fled.

what happens when you stand before of a muslim judge? texas was to be home to islamic mega city. it was rightfully denied for being discriminatory. but now? opens the door for sharia

 

[Absurdist Laughter]

That's great news, now let's make a replacement form it that allows people to treat a relationship between humans as a partnership in civil union. Not marriage, that is a ritual for the religions.

 

[Safir]

One advantage of America's stupid marriage licenses. You can have your sodomite/subhuman pact registered but you can't force someone to perform a ceremony.

"You have to live together for three months and not commit domestic violence." Lesbian marriage would never happen.

This is and has always been a lie.

Scrotes commit more domestic violence on women than dykes.

Dykes commit more domestic violence than fags, because dykes chastely cohabitate and fags eat da poo poo in restrooms. Per capita is per person, not per cohabitating couple. Very few fags are ever in a position to domestically violate anyone.

Women commit more domestic violence on kids than scrotes (51% to 49%), because they do overwhelmingly more parenting and childcare: to put it simply, a bottom 10% child's mother slaps him (which is bad!), but his cum donor is doing 15 years: this counts against the female sex as domestic violence stats go. Per custodial parent and especially per hour of childcare cum donors are vastly more dangerous to children.

 

[redlenses2112]

Is this a real impediment or just an inconvenience? Couldn't one activist judge in a Democrat city decide to register all the paperwork, so it just forced them to drive to Houston/Dallas/Austin instead of filing at the local office?

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Separation of church and state.

A judge in the government, according to separation of church and state mandate, is not allowed to acknowledge this religions "marriage".

I’m sympathetic to your position, but there are some wrinkles I see.

Marriage -from a secular historians perspective, which is the only one I care about or am going to debate from - is a cultural universal that predates any particular religion. Cultures figure out pretty quickly that there are practical reasons to fuse peoples legal identities, particularly where the raising of children is concerned. Moreover, in a society that already has legal cohabiting, legal fornication, legal this and that and the other, it is hard to say what a marriage (in the eyes of the state) is but a set of privileges.

But if marriage is a set of privileges, it is a set of privileges that can come with strings attached. And that goes behind banning poopdick. Why acknowledge the fruitless “marriage” of a childless couple that produces nothing for the state/society?

I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely but ban fags raising kids and create a narrow legal category that essentially recognizes joint child raising. And that can be flexible, too, like say a brother sharing guardianship with his sister over a nephew/niece. Purely a recognition that this is a child-raising household and if there isn’t a straight man and a straight woman in that household then there doesn’t need to be a child there either. Fags, childless cosmopolitans and others can go play “marriage” all they want on their own but they won’t get anything for it anymore than two roommates sharing an apartment would.

 

[Dafuqisdis?]

Is this the first step towards undoing that June 26, 2015 ruling?

No, this is merely a "conscientious objector" carveout for judges that don't want to participate in a fag marriage.

Nothing else.

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

Marriage -from a secular historians perspective

Let me just stop ya there. There is no such thing as a secular marriage. A "secular marriage" is a parody of actual marriage, just like premarital or gay sex is a parody of real sex, just like a faggot is a parody of a real woman

Why acknowledge the fruitless “marriage” of a childless couple that produces nothing for the state/society?

Because marriage first and foremost is an homage or emulation of God's love and commitment with humanity

Marriage is one man, one woman. Period.

Like most things, when the faggot and/or leftist cries about separation of church and state, they mean separation of Christianity and state. They have no problem blackmailing the government into recognizing their rituals, flying their symbols of government property or buildings or teaching your kids in public school about Greek, roman, Egyptian and American native demons and demon cults.