Texas Judge Awarded $640,000 Over Same-Sex Wedding Case

A Texas judge, Dianne Hensley, has been awarded more than $640,000 after facing disciplinary action for her decision to not officiate same-sex weddings due to her religious beliefs. This decision was made by a court, which found a violation of her religious freedom rights under Texas law.

According to Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty Institute, this case represents a significant victory for individuals of faith who wish to abstain from participating in activities conflicting with their religious convictions. Sasser emphasized the importance of being able to decline such participation.

First Liberty Institute revealed that Judge Hensley will receive $10,000 in damages. Additionally, the District Court of Travis County ordered the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to cover approximately $630,000 in attorneys’ fees incurred by Hensley. The judge was represented by First Liberty Institute and attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell.

Hensley had chosen not to officiate same-sex weddings while maintaining the ability to perform other marriages. She utilized a referral system, ensuring that couples could access wedding services from another officiant without any extra cost or delay.

In 2018, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct warned Hensley that continuing her practice of marrying some couples but not same-sex couples could lead to disciplinary actions. Despite these warnings, Hensley remained committed to offering what she described as a ‘good public service.’

The Texas Supreme Court has since amended its rules to accommodate religious beliefs. Further legislative reforms aim to address the commission’s membership and composition to prevent similar issues in the future.

In a statement, Judge Hensley expressed satisfaction, highlighting her desire to both serve her community and maintain her religious commitments. She conveyed gratitude for the legal outcome after eight years, citing a restoration of religious liberty.

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct chose not to comment on the matter.