Must a judge perform same-sex marriages?

      In most states, officiating a wedding is an optional side job that judges may chose to do, or not do.  It's not part of their "official" duties, although doing so can bring in some extra bucks.  Given these circumstances, does the judge have the prerogative to choose WHICH weddings he/she officiates?

      Well, according to the Texas Commission of Judicial Conduct, the answer is apparently:  No.  

      Diane Hensley, a Justice of the Peace in Waco, has stated publicly that she will not perform same-sex marriages.  Now the Commission has issued to her a warning, claiming that her actions violate the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.  As of this writing, the final verdict on her case is pending.

      When the Supreme Court ruled, in 2015, that same-sex marriages were legal, many judges across the land decided to avoid the potential legal hassles and simply stopped performing ALL weddings.  But Hensley stuck in there, and chose to only perform male-female weddings.  If a same-sex couple requests her services, she provides a document that includes a list other local people who would gladly officiate their wedding.

      Weighing in the case is Tara Pohlmeyer, spokeswoman for Progress Texas, a liberal advocacy group.  She said:  "LGBTQIA individuals deserve and have now protected rights.  They are allowed to marry whomever they love, and any judge that is not following the law should not be a judge."

      Well, here we go again:  liberals, especially LGBTQ muckrakers bound and determined to stir up trouble and use the power of government to sue, harass, and intimidate anyone who does not whole-heartedly embrace their lifestyle.  (I see that they've also affixed some more letters to their moniker - I cannot keep up with them all.) 

      In my article "The right to say No", I addressed this whole issue, stating that anyone, for any reason whatsoever, should be able to say "No" anytime anyone asks them to do something that they just do not want to do.  If you're going to deny that right, then you're looking at requiring that a lawyer and a bureaucrat be present every single time someone makes a decision, with the power to override said decision. 

      This issue clearly has nothing to do with whether or not the same-sex couple can find someone to marry them.  Judge Hensley gives them a list of ready, willing, and able providers!  Would it have been better if Hensley had simply joined the "no weddings for ANYBODY" crowd?  For Tara Pohlmeyer and her fellow rabble-rousers, whose sole purpose in life is to make trouble, that would probably have been a major disappointment! 

      Note that nothing that I, nor Judge Hensley, have said implies that we "hate" gays and other sexual non-conformists.  As I have stated repeatedly:  what mutually-consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is not my concern.  Love whomever you want.  I really don't care.  And most likely, Judge Hensley would agree.

      But if we choose to NOT embrace your lifestyle, well, that's our prerogative, not yours, not the Texas Commission of Judicial Conduct, and not Progress Texas.  Everyone has the right to say "No".  If you want us to respect your lifestyle, then remember that respect must go both ways.

      Before closing out this article, it behooves me to say a few words about this whole same-sex wedding thing.  One side screams that the government must endorse it; the other side screams that it should not. 

      Marriage, when it comes right down to it, is really all about love, sex, and romance.  So the question arises:  how on earth did we end up with the government being the arbiter of love, sex, and romance? 

      Now, there is one aspect of marriage which can be argued IS a governmental responsibility, and that is the contractual side of it.  Typical marriage contracts cover things like survivor benefits, inheritance, property dissolution, medical decisions, and so on.  There is absolutely no problem with two, or more, mutually-consenting adults signing a contract specifying terms regarding these things.  The parties to the contract could have ANY type of relationship:  friends, lovers, neighbors, enemies, parent-child (or any family kinship), business associates, whatever.  And yes, the government (specifically: the courts) do have a role enforcing this type of contract, no different from any other type of contract. 

      But other than the above-mentioned contract, the government should have no involvement here.  Just get the government OUT of the marriage business - completely.  In fact, don't even call the above-mentioned document a "marriage" contract at all; call it a "civil union agreement" or something else that has nothing to do with love, sex, or romance.  And then the controversy goes away.