TOLEDO, Ohio, August 14, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Judge C. Allen McConnell is a Christian. As such, he said he could not officiate a homosexual “wedding,” because it would go against the teachings of his religion.
Now, the Ohio Supreme Court advisory board says McConnell's position violates judicial ethics and that all Ohio Christian judges must relinquish their religious freedom and perform same-sex “marriages”.
When he refused to marry two lesbians last month, the 71-year-old Toledo judge apologized to the women, and they were “married” a few minutes later by another judge. But McConnell also officially asked for the Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Professional Conduct to give guidance for cases when a judge's religion prohibits him or her from participating in what is now legal. McConnell then said he would follow the board's direction.
The Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Professional Conduct answered on Friday with a seven-page document that, in summary, commands all judges in Ohio to officiate at same-sex “marriages”, whether it is against their religion or not.
Even though it directly violates their religion, judges “may not refuse to perform same-sex marriages,” the Ohio Supreme Court's Board wrote, because such a refusal “acts contrary to the judicial oath of office.”
The Ohio Supreme Court Board reasoned that “personal, moral and religious beliefs” are subordinated to the law and to the public perception of impartiality.
Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
The board wrote that even if a Christian judge were to stop performing any marriages, so as to be fair, still, the “change from past conduct may be interpreted as bias and prejudice” and would negatively influence “the public's perception of the judiciary.”
The board did not specify how ceasing to perform any and all marriage ceremonies could be showing bias. They simply said that such action creates an “appearance of impropriety” and “ignores” and “undermines” the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to constitutionalize homosexual “marriage”. The board also opined that McConnell's position created doubt about his impartiality in other proceedings involving same-sex couples.
The board wrote that a judge must “accept the restrictions … that require a judge to set aside his or her own personal, moral, and religious beliefs.”
“A judge is free to hold his or her own personal beliefs, so long as those … beliefs are not translated into action” that violates their code of conduct, the board wrote.
The board did not elaborate as to how one's sincere beliefs and worldview cannot factor into his or her actions, decisions, and performance of duty.
Most significantly, the Ohio Supreme Court board stated that a judge's duty “is a reflection of the self-evident principle that the personal, moral, and religious beliefs of a judicial officer should never factor into the performance of any judicial duty.”
“When a judge performs a civil marriage ceremony,” the board concluded, “the judge is performing a judicial duty and thus is required to follow the Code of Judicial Conduct.” The board also noted that judges, when sworn into office, promise to “support the Constitution” and “impartially … perform all of the duties incumbent upon me as a judge.”
Judge McConnell responded to the board's ruling on Monday, in an interview with local TV station WNWO, saying, “I will abide by that opinion. In other words, I will perform same-sex marriages if requested.”
As expected, the high court board's opinion was hailed by gay activists. LGBTQ group Equality Toledo's Nick Komives, who had publicly called for McConnell's firing, said he was “thankful” that McConnell will “perform marriages for all couples that come before him.”
The board's decision was criticized by those supporting natural marriage. Caleb Dalton of the Alliance Defending Freedom, noted that “[j]udges in Ohio have always had discretion when deciding whether to perform marriage ceremonies.”
Dalton told The Daily Signal that “[t]he board's opinion departs from that long-established practice by requiring judges to preside over marriages that conflict with their religious beliefs.”
Dalton considers the Ohio Supreme Court board's opinion to be denying First Amendment religious freedom rights to judges, calling it unconstitutional intolerance. He challenged the opinion, pointing out that “the Constitution does not permit such intolerance against judges with sincere convictions about marriage.”
At the end of the seven-page ruling, the board noted that “[a]dvisory opinions of the Board of Professional Conduct are informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions.”
