LGBTQ+ rights are on the ballot in 6 states this year. Here’s what you need to know.

This November, voters in six states will decide on eight LGBTQ+-related ballot measures, including four anti-trans sports bans in Colorado, Arizona, Nebraska, and Washington; two measures restricting gender-affirming care for transgender youth in Colorado and Missouri; a measure that could out LGBTQ+ kids to their potentially unsupportive parents in Washington; and one pro-LGBTQ+ measure to remove a state same-sex marriage ban in Virginia.

“This isn’t actually about giving voters a say in democracy. It’s a political tactic by a small but vocal minority of extremists who want to turn out their base, driven by the fear and misunderstandings about people who are transgender,” said Adam Snipes, the director of strategic partnerships at the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, during a September 30 GLAAD media briefing attended by LGBTQ Nation.

Snipes is correct: anti-trans measures are being used as “ballot candy” to increase Republican turnout at the polls.

But statewide anti-trans proposals have dramatically increased since 2015, the year that the US Supreme Court legalized marriage equality. In 2016, North Carolina passed an anti-trans bathroom bill. Since then, similar anti-trans measures have expanded to sports, educational policies, healthcare, and other areas.

Approximately 91% of anti-trans bills fail in state legislatures, GLAAD’s senior director of news and campaigns Barbara Simon said. But such legislation and ballot measures give anti-LGBTQ+ politicians and activists “a permission slip” that emboldens them to use marginalizing and dehumanizing rhetoric that harms vulnerable youth, Simon said.

“This is really part of a national MAGA playbook, which is about distracting voters from real issues facing families — like high healthcare costs, gas costs, housing costs — and instead just flaming fears about a small, really already vulnerable group of people… in this case, LGBTQ+ kids,” Washington’s first out lesbian state House Speaker, Rep. Laurie Jinkins (D), told the press briefing.

Anti-trans sports bans in Colorado, Arizona, Nebraska, & Washington

Colorado, Arizona, Nebraska, and Washington are all considering ballot measures with nearly identical language that would ban students who are transgender from playing school sports on sex-segregated teams that differ from the sex they were assigned at birth. None of these measures take intersexuality into account, leaving intersex students unsure about their place on the sports field.

Generally speaking, these measures fall largely on young girls and women to “prove” their sex, often with invasive medical exams that aren’t usually part of standard athletic exams. (Athletic medical exams usually focus on athletes’ eyesight, bone health, as well as respiratory, cardiovascular, or other issues that could affect overexerted athletes.)

Medical examinations to verify athletes’ sex can violate the privacy of all young girls and women — causing a decrease in their sports participation overall. Furthermore, such exams may not be covered by patients’ health insurance plans, adding an extra financial burden for low-income families.

These measures undermine local control by overriding policies and recommendations already put in place by local school boards and associations that have articulated what’s best for their students’ needs. These ballot measures also do nothing to address the sexism, abuse, and poor funding that harm girls and women and discourage them from participating in sports to begin with.

Arizona’s Proposition 318

Based on a 2022 Arizona law that federal courts had blocked from enforcement (before the US Supreme Court ruled such bans as constitutional last June), the so-called “Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona Act” would require K-12 schools and private sports leagues to designate which sports are sex-segregated and then decide participation based on the sex listed upon each player’s birth certificate.

Additionally, schools and private leagues would have to ban trans athletes from restrooms, showers, and locker rooms that don’t match the sex they were assigned at birth. The measure would allow athletes to sue schools or leagues that violate its provisions.

Darrell Hill, the policy director for ACLU of Arizona, told KTAR that facilities and cities could interpret the law too broadly and restrict restroom and locker room access to trans kids and adults in various situations that have nothing to do with sports participation. “It can really act as a big barrier for trans people to participate in public life,” he said.

While the measure seems to “verify” athletes’ sex via birth certificates, state Sen. Mitzi Epstein (D) said it would “subject girls to invasive inspections and questions about their gender,” effectively harming all girls and women (and communicating that they are less valued than boys and men), “in an effort to score political points by discriminating against trans girls.”

The Arizona Interscholastic Association says no trans student-athletes have tried to compete in the state since the 2022 law was signed. It’s unclear whether any tried to compete before the 2022 law was signed.

Colorado’s Proposition 134

Proposition 134 would then require K-12 schools, colleges, and athletic associations to designate sex-segregated and co-ed sports and then forbid boys from participating on girls’ teams and vice versa.

The measure would define girls as people with female reproductive organs and boys as those with male reproductive organs, but it’s unclear how sex would be determined. While some supporters say a doctor-signed form or a DNA cheek swab could suffice, opponents warn that it could subject girls to invasive genital inspections.

Z Williams, a school parent and director of Bread and Roses Legal Center, told The Colorado Sun, “Kids have been playing sports with trans kids for decades…. Playing sports is an important and healthy part of growing up: People building a sense of who they are, learning how to work with a team, learning to lose. To take that away from kids simply for who they are is absurd. It is socially and politically cruel.”

Chris Cook, the father of an 11-year-old transgender girl, told the aforementioned publication, “It would tell kids that simply participating in school sports could mean being questioned, scrutinized, or subject to invasive gender inspections to prove who they are. No child should have to live with that fear, and this doesn’t affect (just) transgender kids. When schools are asked to police students’ gender, any child who looks too tall, too strong, or doesn’t fit someone’s idea of what a girl should look like could be singled out.”

Nebraska’s Measure 442

Measure 442 would write into the state constitution a 2025 law, sponsored by state Sen. Kathleen Kauth (R), that already requires public K-12 and college athletes to play on teams matching their sex at birth. The measure defines one’s sex at birth as having a reproductive system that “does or at some point will produce, transport, and utilize” either eggs ( for a woman or girl) or sperm (for a man or boy).

The measure would apply to all athletic teams or sports sponsored by public schools, postsecondary educational institutions, private schools, or educational institutions that compete against public schools.

Interestingly, the state Supreme Court recently heard arguments challenging the measure’s legality. Opponents say that the ballot measure’s sponsors failed to “adequately inform the public of what they are trying to accomplish” when collecting signatures for the effort. The measure will appear on ballots regardless of the court’s decision; if the court rules against it, all votes upon it will simply be invalidated.

Washington’s Initiative IL26-638

IL26-638 would bar students who are “biologically male” from competing in K-12 schools and nonprofit sports teams designated for girls and women. The initiative would require every student who wants to compete in girls’ sports to obtain a signed statement from a health care provider verifying their sex. Students wanting to play on boys’ teams wouldn’t have to obtain any such statement.

The initiative permits three verification methods: genetic testing, testosterone measurement, or a visual examination of reproductive anatomy. Seeing as the first two methods are expensive and not covered by insurance, most parents will likely go for the third option, requiring kids to expose their genitals to adult medical professionals.

Over 100 doctors and other medical professionals recently released a statement against the initiative, with some saying they would refuse to conduct invasive exams to verify the sex of young girls and women.

“IL26-638 would make every girl in Washington who wants to compete in a female-only interscholastic sport prove her sex to a doctor, regularly, in order to play,” the Washington State PTA noted, calling the initiative “discriminatory,” “harmful,” and “disproportionate.”

Trans journalist Erin Reed noted that even if the measure passes, it could still face constitutional challenges under the longstanding legal precedent of Washington laws protecting trans students.

“Washington adopted an Equal Rights Amendment in 1972 declaring that ‘equality of rights and responsibility under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex,’” Reed wrote. “That provision triggers strict scrutiny for claims of sex discrimination, a standard that would likely render a categorical ban on transgender participation in sports unconstitutional — particularly given the state’s more liberal judiciary.”

Restricting gender-affirming healthcare in Colorado and Missouri

Two states, Colorado and Missouri, both have ballot measures to restrict gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth. However, they differ in significant ways.

Colorado’s Proposition 135

Colorado’s Proposition 135 is a vaguely written measure that would forbid doctors from performing surgeries on anyone under 18 “for the purpose of altering biological sex characteristics,” including changes to sexual organs, body shape, facial appearance, or voice (even though such surgeries on minors are rare to nonexistent).

The measure would also ban state or federal funds, Medicaid, and private insurance from paying for these surgeries. Though the measure’s language doesn’t specifically mention transgender youth, its restrictions would apply to any young person. However, the law wouldn’t place any restrictions on prescribing hormone therapy, puberty blockers, counseling, or support for social transition.

The measure includes exceptions for male circumcision, people born with a “medically verifiable disorder of sex development,” and “acquired physical or chemical abnormalities,” meaning that intersex individuals could still be eligible for augmenting surgeries.

Nevertheless, the Colorado Medical Society opposes the measure (along with dozens of other LGBTQ+ and allied organizations statewide), saying it would interfere with doctors’ medical judgment. The measure is backed by Protect Kids Colorado, an organization led by anti-LGBTQ+ activist Erin Lee.

Jax Gonzalez, political director at One Colorado, said the measure’s vague language around a minor’s “perception of sex or gender” leaves both patients and providers unclear about what procedures would be prohibited.

“All of us have gender and have lots of ideas about that, and so, does that mean that if a patient brings up a conversation about their own gender, regardless of their general identity, does that mean that that provider can’t treat them anymore?” Gonzalez, who is trans, told News From the States.

Missouri’s Amendment 3

Missouri’s Amendment 3 main purpose is to repeal the abortion-rights amendment that voters approved in 2024 and to make most abortions illegal in the state, except for ones that are conducted in cases of medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, and within the first 12 weeks of pregnancies caused by rape or incest.

The final clause in the measure would “prohibit gender transition procedures for minors,” which is curious, seeing as the state has banned gender-transition surgeries for minors since August 2023. The measure would also ban puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy for minors.

Currently, state law forbids any new prescriptions of the aforementioned medications for trans youth until 2027; the measure would write this ban into the state constitution, meaning it would continue indefinitely.

Forcibly outing trans students to their parents in Washington

Washington voters will consider IL26-001, a measure that would repeal the state’s current parents’ rights laws and replace them with language taken verbatim from Louisiana. The measure would give parents unrestricted access to school, medical, and mental health counseling records without requiring student consent, including information on confidential conversations about a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

“When a student … is dealing with anxiety, they need trusted adults and mental health resources they can turn to that help them make sense of their world,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington wrote in opposition to the measure. “[Allowing parents to view sensitive counseling records is a] violation of privacy [that] can undermine the relationships that students may have with counselors and other trusted adults in schools.”

“The sad truth is not all students have a supportive adult they can turn to and talk about their sexuality, gender identity, or mental health without fear. Allowing schools to disclose private health information — as IL26-001 proposes — would severely impact a student’s stability at home, at a time when they need love and support, not punishment and rejection,” the ACLU of Washington added.

Indeed, statistics show that 40% of homeless queer youth say they were kicked out of their homes when their families learn of their identities, meaning that the measure could worsen at-home conflicts for LGBTQ+ students with unsupportive or abusive parents.

This initiative and the state’s ballot measure banning trans athletes are opposed by state Gov. Bob Ferguson (D), the state’s US Sen. Patty Murray (D), the Washington State Parent-Teachers Association (PTA), by the Washington State Nurses Association, the League of Women Voters, and domestic violence prevention groups, because they put kids at greater risk of violence and harm.

Defending marriage equality in Virginia

A bright spot on the somewhat gloomy horizon, Virginia’s Question 2 asks voters to remove the state’s 2006 constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and to add a right to marry regardless of a partner’s sex, gender, or race.

The state’s current ban, rendered inactive by the US Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalizing marriage equality, defines marriage as “only a union between one man and one woman” and bans any union, partnership, or legal status for unmarried couples that carries the rights and benefits of marriage. Question 2 would remove all of this language and acknowledge that “Marriage is one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.”

Virginians approved their state’s same-sex marriage ban in 2006, with 57% voting yes. A federal judge struck it down in 2014, but it stayed in the state constitution. State election officials say the ban would become enforceable again if the US Supreme Court ever overturned Obergefell v. Hodges, as some of the court’s conservative justices have threatened.

Currently, 24 states have dormant bans against same-sex marriage in both their state constitution and their statutes, five have such a ban in their statutes only, and three have such a ban in their constitution only, according to the Movement Advancement Project.

Since 2020, voters in four states have voted to repeal previously approved same-sex marriage bans. Nevada did in 2020, and California, Colorado, and Hawaii all did the same in 2024.

These ballot measures are about LGBTQ+ involvement in civic life

“As somebody who grew up trans, sports and other activities represented more than just competition,” Adrianna Suluai, the Policy & Advocacy Director at UTOPIA Washington, an organization dedicated to uplifting queer and transgender Pacific Islanders, told the press briefing.

“They were opportunities for me to participate, build confidence, and be around other young people and feel like I was a part of something. And when you’re a young person who may already feel different, sometimes simply having a place where you can show up and belong means everything,” Suluai added.

Suluai’s comment applies not only to the sports field but also to LGBTQ+ youth in classrooms, doctors’ and counselors’ offices, and the general public.

Because these ballot measures are often sold as ways to “protect children’ and strengthen “parental rights,” it’s all the more imperative that LGBTQ+ voters and allies understand them and share their potentially harmful consequences with other sympathetic voters.

October 6, 2026 0

Slovakia defies EU & refuses to register gay couple’s marriage

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

The Central European nation of Slovakia rejected a gay couple’s attempt to have their marriage registered, possibly setting up a clash with the European Union (EU).

Ivan Novotný and Metod Špaček, who are both Slovak, got married in Austria in 2020. Both nations are EU member states.

This past December, they applied to have their marriage registered in their country, and they finally got a response this past Monday in the form of a rejection letter. IBTimes notes that the letter didn’t come from the registrar’s office like it normally would have, but directly from Slovak Minister of Interior Matúš Šutaj Eštok.

“We submitted our application to the registry office, and it was the registry office that should have made the decision,” Novotný said. “Instead, we learned of the rejection—which was based on weak legal arguments—only through a letter from the incompetent Šutaj Eštok.”

Novotný claims that Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico went to the registry office on June 12 to order them to refuse to register the marriage certificate, citing the country’s recently adopted constitutional ban on same-sex marriage rights.

The couple plans to sue to challenge the decision. “I reiterate that I have no doubt we will ultimately achieve equality for all in Slovakia as well,” Novotný said.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled last November that EU member states had to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other EU member states in a lawsuit involving a Polish couple that married in Germany. While a Polish court originally abided by the CJEU ruling, the country’s Constitutional Tribunal ultimately overturned that decision in July.

The European Commission denounced Slovakia’s rejection of the marriage as well as its defiance of the CJEU decision.

“One of the foundations of our Union is that EU law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EU, takes precedence over national law,” the European Commission said in a statement. “All Member States have the obligation to fully implement all judgments of the CJEU. We will continue to monitor the situation very closely and, if necessary, will not hesitate to use all the instruments at our disposal.”

Slovakia is a Christian-majority nation where same-sex relationships have been legal since 1962, when it was part of Czechoslovakia. Sexual orientation and gender identity are protected categories under the nation’s anti-discrimination laws, and LGBTQ+ people can serve in the military.

August 14, 2026 0

Bolivia recognizes first same-sex marriage in historic step towards equality

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

After a nearly four-year legal battle, Fabiana Banzer and Scarlett Rocha became the first same-sex couple to be civilly married in the South American country of Bolivia. Despite these women’s recent wedding, the country’s constitution still forbids same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, their legal victory could open the door to other same-sex couples eventually marrying.

The couple applied for a civil marriage certificate on October 12, 2022, with the legal support of the non-governmental LGBTQ+ rights organization IGUAL Bolivia. The organization noted that, on January 9, 2018, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), which oversees 21 Caribbean, Central, and South American countries issued an advisory opinion stating that countries that had signed onto the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights should grant same-sex couples “accession to all existing domestic legal systems of family registration, including marriage, along with all rights that derive from marriage.”

However, Article 63 of Bolivia’s constitution limits marriage to heterosexual couples. The lengthy subsequent legal battle for Banzer and Rocha resulted in courts issuing two constitutional injunctions, an extraordinary judicial remedy used to protect citizens against actions that violate basic constitutional rights, Merco Press reported.

The couple eventually won their battle, but their court victory applies only to them, and no legislative or constitutional changes have occurred to allow same-sex marriages nationwide. Nevertheless, the victory could open the door to similar challenges that could accelerate the path towards marriage equality.

“Scar and I have been together for more than 4 years,” Banzer wrote in a public August 8 Facebook post. “It makes me very happy to announce to our family and friends that after a legal fight of 3 years and 10 months we have finally been able to access civil marriage as two women.”

Interestingly, Banzer and Rocha are the second same-sex couple to win legal recognition from their home country. In December 2020, David Aruquipa and Guido Montaño won their court battle to become the first same-sex couple to register their partnership as a civil union (a form of legal recognition that bestows many of the same legal privileges as marriage).

In Aruquipa and Montaño’s case, the Second Constitutional Chamber of the La Paz departmental court issued a ruling in the couple’s favor that was upheld by the Plurinational Constitutional Court. But similar to Banzer and Rocha’s case, the men’s legal victory didn’t immediately open the door to legalized same-sex unions across the country until further legal challenges resulted in spring 2023 court rulings requiring Bolivia’s Civil Registry Service to allow same-sex unions.

Aruquipa said on Sunday that he considers the women’s recent marriage to be a significant development in the country’s longer journey towards marriage equality. “Rather than speaking of a beginning, we should speak of a historical continuity: from the first recognized union to the first civil marriage,” he said.

While Bolivia doesn’t criminalize same-sex sexual encounters and has LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination protections, same-sex couples and partners aren’t legally allowed to adopt children, lesbian couples aren’t guaranteed access to in vitro fertilization (IVF), and conversion therapy remains legal.

August 12, 2026 0

Polish court rejects European court’s ruling in favor of marriage equality

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

Poland’s highest court rejected a ruling from a European court requiring the Catholic-majority nation to recognize same-sex marriages performed abroad.

The ruling from the Constitutional Tribunal comes after the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled last November that Poland, which is a European Union member state, has to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other countries, even if it doesn’t perform same-sex marriages itself.

But the Constitutional Tribunal on Tuesday rejected that, DW reports. While a full opinion is not yet available, the court said that the CJEU decision was “inconsistent with Article 92, Paragraph 1, in conjunction with Article 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.”

Article 18 says: “Marriage, being a union of a man and a woman, as well as the family, motherhood and parenthood, shall be placed under the protection and care of the Republic of Poland,” and Article 92, Paragraph 1 says that regulations are determined by “the organs specified in the Constitution.”

That is, the court found that Poland’s constitution claims sovereign authority to determine who has access to marriage, which creates a potential conflict with the European court.

The original case was filed by a German-Polish gay couple who got married in Berlin in 2018. When they returned to Poland, the government refused to recognize their marriage, so they sued.

They ultimately won their case in a ruling that said that EU member states are required to recognize marriages performed in other EU countries, citing the EU’s protection of “respect for private and family life.” Of the 27 EU member states, only 18 recognize marriage equality.

In March, Poland’s Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) ruled in favor of the couple as well, ordering that the men’s German same-sex marriage certificate be transcribed into the Polish system. The NSA said that the couple had a “right to lead a normal family life” while exercising their “freedom to move and reside within the territory of the member states” as EU citizens.

Earlier this year, Poland’s Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, promised to pass a law to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other EU countries in response to the CJEU and NSA rulings. Parliament passed a bill to create “cohabitation contracts” for same-sex couples, but President Karol Nawrocki, whose party is more conservative than Tusk’s, vetoed it last week, saying that the cohabitation contracts were too similar to marriage.

July 31, 2026 0

Polish president vetoes bills to recognize same-sex couples

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

The president of Poland, Karol Nawrocki, vetoed two bills last week that would have extended recognition to same-sex couples.

The bills would have created “cohabitation contracts,” according to Reuters, which would have given some legal recognition to same-sex couples when it comes to medical information, property rights, and funeral arrangements.

The bills were part of reforms promised when Prime Minister Donald Tusk took office in 2023, which included measures regarding LGBTQ+ people’s rights and abortion. The current ruling coalition in parliament is considered liberal and pro-European.

Nawrocki, though, ran as an independent in 2025 after having been chosen as the candidate for the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) party, moving the country to the right. He said that the cohabitation contracts were too similar to marriage.

“These proposals create a new, formalized institution of family law, equipped with a broad catalog of rights similar to those of marriage,” he said in a statement. He said that the bills would lead to “the loss of the special status of marriage,” defined as “a union of a man and a woman under the protection and care of the Republic of Poland.”

LGBTQ+ rights advocates denounced the vetoes. The organization Campaign Against Homophobia said that the bills were “merely a fragment” of what they wanted to get when it comes to domestic partnership rights in the country.

“Today’s veto of the bill, however, shows that even the absolute minimum of rights the bill was intended to provide is too much for the president,” the group said.

Former Equality Minister and New Left Member of Parliament Katarzyna Kotula said Nawroicki “turned his back on 2 million people living today in informal relationships.”

Earlier this year, a gay couple who traveled to Berlin to get married won the right in court to have their marriage recognized in Poland.

July 23, 2026 0

Senegal amends its Constitution to ban same-sex marriage

Delaware approves amendment protecting same-sex marriage

Delaware fails to pass amendment protecting marriage equality in “egregious vote”

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

A proposed amendment to enshrine same-sex and interracial marriage protections into the Delaware Constitution failed in the state House on Tuesday.

The amendment had passed the state Senate earlier this month, but lost by four votes in the House, where a 2/3 majority of 28 votes was needed. Two Democrats did not vote in favor of the bill. State Rep. Josue Ortega (D) voted no, while state Rep. Madinah Wilson-Anton (D) did not vote.

Gay state Rep. Eric Morrison (D) told the Washington Blade that an anonymous Republican had agreed to vote yes, which would have secured the 28 votes needed if all 27 Democrats also voted yes, but the GOP lawmaker did not keep his word.

Ortega, the Democrat who voted no, told WHYY it was his “duty as an elected representative… to listen to the concerns of the people I serve.”

“After carefully considering the feedback I received,” he continued, “I concluded that I will be voting no, because it was the best decision that best represented the majority of my constituents.”

Rep. Claire Snyder-Hall (D), who sponsored the measure, also ended up voting no, but she explained she did so as a strategic decision once she realized the amendment did not have enough votes to pass.

“That’s a maneuver that allows me to bring this bill back up,” she explained in a video, “because I’m still hopeful that we’re going to be able to get the votes we need to pass this basic bill.”

“Today, the General Assembly turned its back on the people of this state,” Snyder-Hall wrote in the caption of her post. “Every Delawarean deserves the right to marry the person they love, regardless of race or gender. But today, when we had the chance to add an extra layer of protection from attempts to turn back the clock and strip our constituents of the rights that Democrats fought for decades to secure, we failed.”

She emphasized that she will keep fighting. “The groups most affected by this egregious vote are no strangers to setbacks,” she said. “There are still three legislative days left in the 153rd General Assembly and I am hopeful that we will be able to get the votes required to pass this incredibly basic – but important – bill.”

The Blade explained that the bill must pass before July 1, when the two-year-long session ends, or else another attempt to pass it will take at least three years.

State Rep. Mike Smith (R) defended his no vote and the lack of support from his party in a statement to WHYY: “This is just restating rights that have already been protected under Delaware law. It’s important for constituents to know that.”

State Rep. Kamela Smith (D), on the other hand, said she voted yes despite her own religious beliefs due to her “responsibility here as a legislator, and that responsibility is to uphold the constitution.”

“My job is to make sure that the law works fairly for everyone,” she continued, “even when people don’t all believe the same things I do.”

Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings (D) called the assembly’s failure to pass the amendment “shocking and upsetting” and a failure “to advance a basic, core tenant of equality.”

“Failing to permanently enshrine those protections in our state’s Constitution is an appalling abdication of the state government’s duty to guarantee the rights of every Delawarean,” she added. “It adds insult to injury that this vote was cast in the closing days of Pride Month.”

June 25, 2026 0

Christian judges in Texas are demanding the right not to marry same-sex couples. They’re winning.

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct in Texas was overruled last week after it disciplined a justice of the peace in Waco for refusing to marry same-sex couples on religious grounds.

A Texas county judge ruled the commission cannot investigate, sanction, or discipline McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley for refusing to officiate same-sex weddings because of her Christian beliefs. Hensley was awarded $10,000 in compensatory damages and $630,000 in attorney’s fees after years of litigation.

“I think the agency overstepped itself, and what we saw was their bias on the issue and not the law,” Hensley told KERA News in North Texas.

The origin of Hensley’s suit dates back to Obergefell v Hodges, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision granting nationwide marriage equality.

Judges and justices of the peace are allowed, but not required, to officiate weddings in Texas. After previously declining to marry any couples following the decision, Hensley changed her mind in 2016 and said she would marry straight couples only.

She advertised that stance in a 2017 interview with the Waco Tribune-Herald, adding that she referred same-sex couples to a different judge and other nearby officiants.

The judicial conduct commission launched an investigation soon after and, in 2019, issued a public warning to Hensley that she was in violation of commission rules.

With the support of First Liberty Institute, the right-wing Christian nationalist legal organization shepherding other anti-LGBTQ+ cases around the country, Hensley sued. First Liberty argued her decision was protected by the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed into law by then-Gov. George W. Bush (R) in 1999. That law prohibits the government from making restrictions that “substantially burden” an individual’s freedom of religion.

“People cannot be made — cannot be forced into participating in things that they have a religious disagreement with,” First Liberty attorney Hiram Sasser said following last week’s verdict.

The suit prompted action from the Texas Supreme Court, as well. After agreeing that Hensley’s suit could continue, but not ruling on her religious freedom claims, the court said that judges who decline to perform a wedding ceremony based on a “sincerely held religious belief” won’t violate the state’s rules on judicial impartiality.

The court found a grey area where the absence of a requirement to perform wedding ceremonies grants officiants the right to marry whom they choose.

That support from the highest levels of the Texas judiciary appears to have emboldened Hensley’s claim that officiants should be allowed to marry whom they choose.

In December, Hensley asked a federal court to overturn marriage equality in the U.S. entirely, arguing that marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional because it was legalized in a decision that “subordinat[ed] state law to the policy preferences of unelected judges.”

Hensley is one among several Christian officiants claiming “religious freedom” in their opposition to marrying same-sex couples in Texas.

Jack County Judge Brian Umphress also sued the commission, alleging he was afraid he could face the same punishment as Hensley. The Texas Supreme Court ruled in January that he wouldn’t face discipline for his choice not to marry gay couples, KERA reported.

A class-action lawsuit in Tarrant County has been filed on behalf of justices of the peace who are unwilling to perform same-sex marriages. They’re looking to recover damages from the Judicial Conduct Commission because they say they were forced to stop performing weddings altogether in fear of disciplinary action.

Like Hensley, Kim Davis, the infamous Kentucky county clerk who refused to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples immediately following the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, asked the Supreme Court to overturn its marriage equality ruling. The Court declined to hear her appeal in November.

Despite her lawsuit aiming to wipe out marriage equality, Hensley continues to maintain that her right to religious freedom isn’t impacting gay couples in Texas because others are available to marry them.

Now, though, she says there isn’t a big demand for her services, and she may stop officiating weddings altogether.

“I was just accommodating people who called needing a low-cost wedding, and it’s been long enough now we don’t get many calls anymore,” Hensley said. “So, unless we start getting a lot of demand, I may not.”

June 24, 2026 0

Nepal Supreme Court rules in favour of equal marriage in huge win for LGBTQ+ rights