The Texas Supreme Court on Friday gave judges in the state a pass if they dont want to marry same-sex couples, unilaterally granting public officials the right to discriminate against queer couples.In an end run around equal protection concerns, the high court amended the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct to read, 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. Related Texas judge says Supreme Court ruling means she doesnt have to officiate same-sex weddings The change follows years of litigation that inspired a lawsuit by a county judge in Texas asking federal courts to declare that Texas law does not and cannot punish him for his practice of officiating opposite-sex, but not same-sex, marriages in the state.Jack County Judge Brian Umphress, who sued in 2020 because he only wanted to perform weddings for opposite-sex couples, argued that his conduct would run afoul of the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, despite protections he believed he enjoyed consistent with his religious freedom rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Houston Public Media reports. Never Miss a Beat Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights. Subscribe to our Newsletter today In response, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit put the lower federal-court proceedings on hold and asked the Texas Supreme Court to answer the question, Does Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct prohibit judges from publicly refusing, for moral or religious reasons, to perform same-sex weddings while continuing to perform opposite-sex weddings? That part of the code requires judges to refrain from behavior that would cast reasonable doubt on the judges capacity to act impartially as a judge.The high courts answer came with the amended code of conduct, bypassing public argument. Judge Umphress fear of sanction for his discriminatory conduct was based on the case of McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley in Waco, who spent years in court arguing she had a right to refuse to marry gay couples.Hensley replied to requests from gay couples with a statement that read, Im sorry, but Judge Hensley has a sincerely held religious belief as a Christian, and will not be able to perform any same-sex weddings.That conduct earned a public warning from the Judicial Conduct Commission, which said Hensley was violating a requirement that justices of the peace be impartial, even in extrajudicial duties like officiating weddings. Her refusal to treat LGBTQ+ people equally cast doubt on her capacity to act impartially to persons appearing before her as a judge due to the persons sexual orientation,the commission wrote.Hensley claimed that no ones rights were denied since a same-sex couple could have found another judge to marry them, despite the fact that she was the only justice of the peace performing marriages in Waco at the time.Hensley filed a lawsuit against the commission with help from the First Liberty Institute, a Texas-based anti-LGBTQ+ legal organization, arguing for protections under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The commission eventuallydismissedits sanction a few months after the Texas Supreme Court allowed Hensleys case to proceed. That decision from the Texas high court earned Hensley a supportive concurring opinion from the chief justice, who publicly supported the Waco judge before his appointment.Judge Hensley treated them respectfully, Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock wrote of the couples she refused to marry. They got married nearby. They went about their lives. Judge Hensley went back to work, her Christian conscience clean, her knees bent only to her God. Sounds like a win-win.Jason Mazzone, a law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign whos familiar with both cases, said the Texas Supreme Courts code of conduct workaround still leaves open the possibility for a gay couple with standing to challenge a judges decision not to marry them on constitutional equal protection grounds.One of the claims that I think will be made in response to litigation that is likely is that, Well, there are other people who can perform the wedding ceremony, so you cant insist that a particular judge do it, Mazzone said. But that, of course, is not how equal protection works, and its not how we expect government officials to operate.Subscribe to theLGBTQ Nation newsletterand be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.