God Doesn’t Care If You’re Gay, and Neither Should the Law
Graphic by Mia Stewart
On Oct. 24, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously voted to amend the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct to allow judges in the state to refuse same-sex marriage ceremonies, if doing so would be contrary to their “sincerely held religious beliefs.” To be clear, judges are not required to perform marriages, but are now legally allowed to refuse ceremonies for same-sex couples without facing any repercussions.
In Texas, judges are elected. As Ash Hal, policy and advocacy strategist on LGBTQ+ rights for the Texas ACLU, said in an interview with The Hill, “It’s really disappointing… To be a judge is to be a public servant. Offering to do marriages for the general public, but then turning around and saying, ‘Unless that couple is an LGBTQIA+ couple,’ that’s discrimination. That’s not serving the general public.”
Hal makes a compelling argument, one that legal scholars will likely consider when inevitable litigation surrounding the issue comes to fruition. This ruling sets a concerning precedent for public service. Through the codification of religious exemptions into the rules of judicial conduct, discrimination has effectively been authorized in the enactment of government duties.
Legality aside, what is particularly striking in this case is the excuse of “sincerely held religious beliefs” as a moral justification for discriminatory acts against the LGBTQ+ community. Many are calling this decision a win for religious freedom. This viewpoint misunderstands the role of public servants in a diverse and pluralistic society. Religious freedom is a protection for the individual from government interference, not a tool to be used by the government to discriminate against its own citizens.
In a state where the vast majority of people identify as Christian, it is worth asking whether these beliefs represent a distortion of the essential teachings of the Bible, being used as a tool for discrimination in ways that contravene the principles of the religion itself.
The central tenet of the faith is love. The two greatest commandments, identified by Jesus in Matthew 22: 36-40, are to “Love the Lord God with all your heart and with all your soul and mind” and to “Love thy neighbor as yourself.” Christians believe that Jesus spent his life among those whom others excluded: he broke bread with debt collectors and sinners alike, gave women a voice in a patriarchal society, and ministered to the sick, poor, and social outcasts, meeting them with kindness, compassion, and empathy. It would not shock anyone to learn that his greatest condemnation came not from the marginalized but from religious authorities, such as the Pharisees, who weaponized faith, choosing condemnation over compassion and exclusion over inclusion.
Jesus reached out to those whom society couldn’t bear to coexist with, those with leprosy, showing that love knows no social or moral boundary. Yet, for these judges, a gay person who loves and is loved, capable of commitment and devotion, represents a line they refuse to cross.
There is no uniform position on homosexuality across Christian denominations, nor is there agreement on what the Bible says about same-sex marriage. No matter one’s interpretation, does refusing marriage services circumvent Jesus’s teachings in Matthew 25:31-46, in the parable of the Sheep and Goats? I think not. In this parable, Jesus outlines the criteria for entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. Nowhere does he exclude people based on sexual orientation; rather, he condemns those who fail to show compassion or hospitality to those in need.
So, when Texas judges choose to bar same-sex couples, or LGBTQ+ couples more broadly, from being married in their courthouses, which part of their “sincerely held religious beliefs” justifies turning a stranger away from their door? Where is the compassion for marginalized communities, the faith in action for those cast out from their own homes?
In 2025, at least nine states have introduced legislation attempting to roll back marriage rights guaranteed to same-sex couples in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which declared the denial of same-sex couples the right to marry as unconstitutional. This, along with the Supreme Court’s potential review of the precedent set in Obergefell, a review which they have now rejected, highlights escalating threats to LGBTQ+ rights nationwide.
American Christianity has a history of weaponizing religion to exclude and discriminate, distorting scripture to serve morally corrupt motives. For instance, the “Curse of Ham” was often cited as a Biblical defense of slavery, despite the fact that race is not mentioned in the text. Similarly, select verses and archaic Christian doctrines were used to justify other atrocities in America’s past, such as Indigenous genocide and the historic subjugation of women.
When it came to interracial marriage, Judge Leon M. Bazile, who sentenced Mildred and Richard Loving for the crime of miscegenation, stated in his judicial opinion that: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents… The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” In each case, those wielding scripture were sincere in belief, citing chapter and verse. Legally and morally, they were wrong. Today, the same is happening to LGBTQ+ communities in Texas.
My religious beliefs are my own. Everyone is entitled to theirs, and disagreement is inevitable. What, in my view, is not acceptable is using faith to discriminate against and subjugate communities and identities, citing a religion that never condoned such acts. Religious freedom is a fundamental pillar upon which this nation was built, but so too was the idea of a separation of church and state, ensuring that no one religion’s views could be enforced through the law.
In a world filled with suffering, love should be our guiding principle. Love of neighbors, strangers, a love that transcends ignorance and hubris. As John 4:8 states, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.”
This passage does not differentiate between types of love or the identities of those giving and receiving it. God is love, and where genuine love exists between two consenting adults, who are we to deny a commitment that reflects that divine principle? Love is rare and fragile, and in a country where loving a person of the same sex is not a crime, why are judges empowered to turn away couples for the ‘crime’ of loving the “wrong” person based on their personal, arguably misguided, beliefs?
“Love” appears 22 times in this article. While this may seem excessive, prolific discourse reduces LGBTQ+ couples to sexual beings, ignoring what actually matters: commitment, devotion, and partnership. When heterosexual couples marry, we talk about love and dedication; when others marry, all of a sudden, the conversation often becomes hyper-focused on sexual acts. This reductionism is precisely what justifies discrimination.
Whoever you choose to dedicate your life to, privately or publicly, know that your love is no less holy, worthy, or real than anyone else’s. Love is a hard commodity to come by and an even harder one to preserve. Be proud of it, cherish it, and proclaim it. Let the judges in Texas hear that your love exists and that nothing can take it away.
Noah Basden ’29 (nhbasden@college.harvard.edu) should go to Church more often, according to his father.