Wyoming Judge Facing Removal for Refusing Gay Marriage

On Wedneday, as a last plea, a Wyoming judge is urging the state’s Supreme Court to let her remain on the bench despite her publicly stated refusal to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, citing religious objections. Though she is failing to see that her personal belief is not aligned with the law.

The judge has a real uphill battle ahead of her as the state’s judicial ethics commission has recommended that the judge Ruth Neely be relieved of her position as a magistrate in the small northwestern Wyoming town of Pinedale, after she told the local newspaper that she would “not be able to do” marriage ceremonies for gay couples.

“When law and religion conflict, choices have to be made,” she told the Pinedale Roundup. In her case, a choice is going to made, though it’s likely not to be in her favor. The movement toward equality under the law for gay people has gained too much momentum for this judge to gain favor in the eyes of the law.

The judge’s lawyer has told the court that she’s being unconstitutionally punished for her religious views. But the state judicial conduct board found that she violated ethics rules requiring judges to follow the law, avoid the appearance of impropriety, and perform duties fairly, without bias or prejudice. This means the judge is not following the law.

By urging the justices to allow Neely to remain on the bench, her lawyer said the commission “has adopted an extreme position. It claims that because Judge Neely’s religious beliefs prevent her from solemnizing same-sex marriage, she cannot be a judge in Wyoming, even in a position that does not have authority to perform marriage.” Basically saying she is the one being discriminated upon. But it’s her official position, not the people getting married that’s really at stake.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, most local officials, including judges, have complied. While some county clerks refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds — most visibly, Kim Davis in Kentucky — clerks and judges have generally treated gay and lesbian couples no differently.

In the end, states have complied as a whole because of the simple fact that besides that some of the justices may not agree with it personally know they have a lawful duty to follow the law. Maybe this fact is lost on this Wyoming justice.