The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that judges in the state can refuse to perform same-sex marriages if doing so would go against their deeply held religious beliefs. This decision changes how the state interprets its rules for judges and has started a new debate about religious freedom, individual rights, and the role of judges in public life.
At the center of the ruling is Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. This rule says that judges must act in a way that does not make people question their fairness. It also says that judges should not let personal actions outside the courtroom affect how they do their job. But with the new change, the court added a sentence that says it is not a violation of the rules if a judge refuses to perform a wedding due to religious beliefs.
This change came after years of legal and political fights over same-sex marriage in Texas. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal across the country. But not all local officials agreed with the ruling. Some judges and justices of the peace in Texas said their religious beliefs did not allow them to perform such marriages.
One case that helped lead to this ruling involved Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in Waco, Texas. In 2019, she was given a public warning by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The commission said she broke the rules by refusing to marry same-sex couples. Hensley said she was acting based on her Christian faith. She argued that she should not be forced to perform a ceremony that goes against her religion.
Now, with this new ruling, judges like Hensley will no longer face punishment for refusing to perform same-sex marriages, as long as they are acting based on sincere religious beliefs. The change went into effect on October 24, 2025, and applies to all judges in the state.
Supporters of the court’s decision say it protects religious freedom, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They argue that judges should not be forced to choose between their job and their faith. They also point out that judges who refuse to perform same-sex marriages are not stopping anyone from getting married. Other judges or officials can still perform the ceremony.
Opponents, however, say the ruling weakens the idea of equal treatment under the law. They are concerned that allowing judges to refuse same-sex marriages sends a message that some people’s rights depend on who is in charge. They worry this could open the door to other forms of discrimination if officials claim religious reasons.
The ruling also raises questions about the duties of public officials. Judges are public servants who are supposed to apply the law fairly to everyone. Critics say that if a judge cannot follow the law because of personal beliefs, they should not hold that position.
But others argue that the law should allow room for both religious freedom and civil rights. They believe the Texas Supreme Court’s decision strikes a balance by allowing judges to follow their faith without blocking access to marriage for others.
This issue may not stop at the state level. It is possible that future legal challenges could rise to the federal courts, especially if someone claims that their rights were denied because a judge refused to marry them. For now, the Texas ruling only applies within the state and affects how Texas judges carry out their duties.
As debates continue across the country over the limits of religious freedom and the meaning of equality under the law, Texas has taken a clear stand. The state’s highest court has said that judges can follow their religious beliefs, even when acting in their public role. The full impact of this decision remains to be seen, but it sets an important legal precedent for how states balance faith and public service.
