In a bold stand for state sovereignty, a Waco justice of the peace has launched a federal lawsuit to dismantle the 2015 Supreme Court decision that forced same-sex marriage on the nation.
On Dec. 19, Judge Dianne Hensley filed a legal challenge against the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, aiming to overturn the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that mandated nationwide recognition of same-sex unions, as the Texas Tribune reports.
Back in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision declared same-sex marriage a constitutional right, overriding state laws. Hensley, guided by her faith, ceased performing all marriages that year in protest. Her stance reflects a deep concern for religious liberty over judicial overreach.
By 2016, Hensley returned to officiating weddings, but only for opposite-sex pairs, directing same-sex couples elsewhere. This principled choice aimed to honor her beliefs while ensuring others could still marry. It’s a compromise many traditionalists might see as fair.
Her actions didn’t go unnoticed. In 2018, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct launched an inquiry into her selective officiating. A year later, in 2019, they issued a public warning, claiming she violated judicial impartiality standards.
Hensley fought back in state court, refusing to bend. After the Texas Supreme Court permitted her case to advance, the commission retreated, withdrawing the warning in 2024. This small victory hinted at growing support for religious exemptions.
Yet, the fight was far from over. Hensley, represented by conservative legal mind Jonathan Mitchell -- known for crafting Texas’ 2021 abortion law -- filed her federal lawsuit this month. Mitchell’s track record suggests a strategic push against progressive mandates.
The lawsuit contends that Obergefell was unconstitutional, trampling state authority under the whims of unelected judges. It seeks to shield Hensley from further discipline and ultimately return marriage policy to state control. Isn’t it ironic that federal overreach is called “equality?”
Mitchell himself noted the uphill battle in court filings. “The federal judiciary has no authority to recognize or invent ‘fundamental’ constitutional rights,” he argued. But if unelected judges can rewrite marriage, why can’t states reclaim their rightful domain?
Meanwhile, another Texas judge pursued a similar lawsuit this year, seeking protection from discipline for refusing same-sex weddings. Earlier this year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived that case, sending it to the Texas Supreme Court for clarity on state law.
In response, the Texas Supreme Court amended a judicial canon, clarifying that judges could opt out of weddings entirely based on sincere religious beliefs. However, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct insisted in December filings that selective officiating by sexual orientation remains impermissible.
Hensley’s case isn’t alone in challenging federal overreach. In November, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a related case involving Kim Davis, a Kentucky clerk who resisted issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The high court’s silence speaks volumes about the battle ahead.
Mitchell admits lower courts can’t overturn Supreme Court precedent but hopes Hensley’s case reaches the justices. “There is nothing in the language of the Constitution that even remotely suggests that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right,” he stated. Where, indeed, is this “right” written?
The lawsuit parallels the Dobbs decision, which returned abortion regulation to states, and seeks a similar rollback for marriage laws. Under President Donald Trump, there’s renewed hope for restoring state powers. Could this be the next frontier for federalism?
Hensley’s stand is more than personal -- it’s a clarion call for religious freedom and state autonomy. As progressive agendas push boundaries, her case asks a vital question: Should unelected judges dictate sacred institutions, or should states and citizens decide?
