A Texas justice of the peace who refused to officiate same-sex wedding ceremonies won $640,000 in a religious freedom lawsuit this week, with a Travis County judge ruling that state regulators violated her constitutional rights by attempting to discipline her.
Court Rules in Favor of Religious Liberty
Travis County Judge Maya Guerra Gamble, a Democrat, awarded McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley $10,000 in damages and $630,000 in attorney’s fees. Gamble ruled that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct overstepped its authority by investigating and attempting to sanction Hensley for declining to perform same-sex marriages based on her Christian beliefs. The ruling explicitly bars the commission from disciplining Hensley for her decision.
Hensley defended her position by noting that justices of the peace in Texas are not required to officiate weddings at all. She argued that same-sex couples in her area still had access to marriage services through other judges willing to perform the ceremonies. Hensley stated she was simply accommodating people who requested low-cost weddings, not providing a mandatory government service.
Background of the Controversy
The case traces back to the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Following that landmark ruling, Hensley initially stopped officiating all weddings. However, she resumed performing wedding ceremonies in 2016, but only for opposite-sex couples. Court documents show that Hensley referred same-sex couples to other judges who would perform their marriages.
Hensley expressed satisfaction with the outcome, stating that the commission demonstrated bias rather than following the law. She noted that demand for her wedding services has decreased over time, and she may discontinue officiating ceremonies altogether unless requests increase substantially in the future.
Constitutional Questions at Stake
The ruling raises significant questions about the balance between religious liberty protections and anti-discrimination principles in government services. The case centered on whether public officials can decline to perform certain duties based on religious objections when alternative service providers are available. Gamble’s decision suggests that state agencies cannot compel government officials to act against their religious convictions when doing so does not prevent citizens from accessing services.
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct has not publicly commented on whether it will appeal the decision. The case represents one of several ongoing legal battles nationwide examining the intersection of religious freedom rights and marriage equality laws established since 2015.