Texas judges can now legally refuse to perform wedding ceremonies if the marriage conflicts with their “sincerely held religious belief.” On Oct. 24, the Texas Supreme Court amended Canon 4 of the Texas Judicial Code of Conduct with a set of ethical codes that judges must follow, each canon representing a key principle of the code. Canon 4 pertains to minimizing risks of conflict associated with judicial obligations. The addition 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.”

The Texas Supreme Court did not explain the amendment, but Chair of the Texas House LGBTQ Caucus Jessica González wrote on X that the change would “only further erode civil rights in Texas.” Members of the Trinity community expressed their thoughts on the possible effects of the decision.

The Trinitonian obtained an issuance that judges received from the Texas Judicial Court Training Center (TJCTC) on Nov. 10 from Sylvia M. Ruiz, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1.

The issuance states that while judges will not be sanctioned for refusing to marry a couple, they are still at risk of being sued if the couple believes they are being discriminated against. It also urges judges to either marry all couples or none at all.

The issuance clarifies that same-sex marriage is still in “good law,” referencing the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) case of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which legalized gay marriage.

Kim Davis, former Kentucky clerk, was arrested for violating this case when she wouldn’t issue marriage licenses to LBGTQ+ couples in 2015. After a loss in the lower courts, Davis petitioned SCOTUS on Oct. 22, 2025 to overturn Obergefell.

The court ultimately decided not to relitigate the issue on Monday.

County Court 13 Honorable Judge Rosie Speedlin Gonzalez spoke with the Trinitonian on Nov. 7 regarding the addition to the Texas State’s Judicial Code of Conduct.

Speedlin Gonzalez took issue with the amendment’s broad verbiage, questioning how one could define a “sincerely held religious belief.” She said she worried that this could negatively affect LGBTQ+, interfaith and interracial couples.

“At what point are you gonna stop them from saying, ‘Well, I’m not gonna marry biracial couples, interracial couples,’” Speedlin Gonzalez said. “I think it’s a slippery slope.”

David Crockett, professor of political science and adviser for Trinity’s Young Conservatives of Texas chapter, said that he doesn’t imagine that LGBTQ+ couples looking to be married in Texas’ metropolitan areas are likely to feel the effects of the ruling. However, he acknowledged the possibility of rural citizens being more adversely affected.

Speedlin Gonzalez said she has seen an uptick in LGBTQ+ couples coming in from other counties in the state to get married. While gay marriage is not illegal in the state of Texas, Speedlin Gonzalez said that LGBTQ+ couples in areas such as Harris County have faced challenges in scheduling their ceremonies.

John Hermann, professor of political science, said that as long as these couples have a way to get married, whether that be through the church or another judge, then the court is acting within the precedent of past Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decisions.

“I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. I see it as a free exercise of religion,” Hermann said. “If the United States were not to perform any same-sex marriages, then that would be a violation of the Equal Protection clause.”

The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment guaranteed same-sex couples the right to get married based on the Obergefell ruling.

Erin Pake, senior music and Spanish double-major and president of PRIDE, said that LGBTQ+ community members have an overall fear surrounding their civil rights. The new anti-LGBTQ+ legislation passed this year has left the LGBTQ+ community feeling disheartened, according to Pake. She said that if history teaches us anything, it’s a common tactic to overwhelm the public with legislation that distracts them from the fact that their rights are slowly eroding away.

“I think that’s the general trend we’re already seeing,” Pake said. “There’s been a dramatic increase in anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in the last several years, and that has only increased further from the beginning of the current administration.”

While acknowledging the possibility of further restrictive legislation, Crockett said he doubts any fringe political group could gain the traction necessary to significantly alter legal protections. He said the proposed policies of radical groups or religious organizations would get laughed off the floor of Congress.

“There are a lot of those weird people out there,” Crockett said. “No single one of them is going to somehow capture a majority of the population and actually make tyrannical change that targets people’s rights and liberties.”

Crockett said that SCOTUS received blowback after overturning Roe v. Wade (1973) in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) ruling, and the current court most likely would not want to invite more controversy into their decisions. Upon considering whether this amendment would be appealed to SCOTUS, Speedlin Gonzalez told the Trinitonian before SCOTUS’s decision on Nov. 10 that we live in unprecedented times.

“I think the times will dictate how a court looks at what society needs, but the court now is telling us society needs divisiveness as opposed to unity,” Speedlin Gonzalez said.

Pake and Speedlin Gonzalez both expressed that through unity, groups have made progress in the past for these rights, and that they can make them again. They both spoke to the importance of organizing and coming together to protest against this divisiveness, and not losing hope for the future.

John de Hoyos, sophomore sociology and economics double-major, is an openly gay student who shared a more optimistic view of the climate for the LGBTQ+ community. However, he remained skeptical about the question of church and state separation.

“It’s definitely concerning when you think about it, just because there should be a separation of church and state,” de Hoyos said. “I think a lot of people would agree on that.”

But de Hoyos said that actions from the Texas Supreme Court could never take away the true meaning of marriage for him.

“When it comes to marriages specifically, I try to keep in mind that it’s a legal thing, but it’s also a spiritual one,” de Hoyos said. “It’s a spiritual thing they can’t take away from us.”

While academics, judges and students contest the possible impacts of this amendment, gay marriage is still protected by federal law, and SCOTUS decided on Nov. 10 to not revisit the decision. According to Hermann, SCOTUS is unlikely to reverse the Texas Supreme Court’s amendment, aligning with its past rulings on the free exercise of religion. But, as of last week, PRIDE still remains fearful of the precedent that this amendment sets and government bodies will interpret it in the future.

*Ariel Ramirez was a contributing reporter for this piece.