Louisiana Legal Ethics
A legal ethics blog of Prof. Dane S. Ciolino
LASC Rule XIX
MPRE Review
Model Lawyer-Client Agreements
Prof. Dane S. Ciolino
Judge Sanctioned for Refusing to Perform Same-Sex Marriage Ceremonies
Posted on March 29, 2018 March 29, 2018 by Dane S. Ciolino
The Supreme Court of Oregon has sanctioned a judge who "inappropriately screened . . . wedding applicants to ensure that they were not same-sex applicants, because [respondent] refused to marry same-sex partners even though they could lawfully marry under Oregon law." Said the court:
Once a judge chooses to make himself or herself available to the public to perform marriages as part of his or her judicial duties, Rule 3.3(B) prohibits the judge from "manifest[ing] ** * prejudice * ** against *** others," based on attributes including sexual orientation, or permitting staff to do so.
See Inquiry Concerning a Judge re The Hon. Vance D. Day, CJFD No. 12139, 1486; SC S063844 (Or. Mar. 15, 2018).1
At least one advisory opinion is consistent with this Oregon decision. The Supreme Court of Ohio Board of Professional Conduct noted in 2015 that "a judge who exercises the authority to perform civil marriages may not refuse to perform same-sex marriages while continuing to perform opposite-sex marriages." Further, "a judge may not decline to perform all marriages in order to avoid marrying same-sex couples based on his or her personal, moral, or religious beliefs." See Oh. Sup. Ct. Bd. of Prof. Cond. Op. 2015-1 (Aug. 7, 2015). To do otherwise in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges, 35 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), opined the committee, would violate the judicial oath of office and standards of conduct that require a judge, among other things, to comply with the law, and to "apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question." Id.
Fairly obvious. The supreme law of the land as interpreted by the nation's highest court in Obergefell requires states to recgonize same-sex marriages. A judge must support and defend the constitution and faithfully apply the law irrespective of the judge's view of the law's wisdom or morality. Pretty simple logic.
As to whether performing marriages was a "judicial duty," the court held as follows: "We have little difficulty concluding that the act of solemnizing marriages, once a judge has chosen to do so, qualifies as a "judicial duty" under Rule 3.3(B). ↵
Posted in Recent CasesTagged judicial ethics
Our 2020 Book
Our Free Newsletter
Follow, Like, and Share
Sloppy Arbitration Clauses are Unenforceable https://t.co/nzcElDrpdo, Dec 21
ABA Issues Opinion on Conflicts Arising Out of Personal Relationship with Opposing Counsel https://t.co/ErTvtA8t5s, Oct 16
Are Unusual Contingency Fee Agreements Lawyer-Client Business Transactions? https://t.co/rN1tZ5fMeK, Oct 14
September 2020 Discipline These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations published during the month of September 2020. https://t.co/6Eb0eDegTm, Oct 14
RT @TAPressly: Did you know that the Louisiana Bar Association is lobbying against tort reform? I'm a dues paying member to the bar and ADAMANTLY OPPOSE the organization lobbying for or against any bill. To oppose a bill that will make Louisiana competitive is unconscionable. https://t.co/2KSRrEFGsH, May 13
Follow @lalegalethics
Our Meta
Copyright © 2021 Louisiana Legal Ethics	– OnePress theme by FameThemes