LF: Court Decides to Censure, Not Remove Anti-Gay Marriage Judge

FILE - In this Oct. 21, 2014, file photo, Marvin Witt, left, and Mike Romero are married by nondenominational chaplain Pamela RW Kandt in downtown Casper, Wyo. The Wyoming Supreme Court has decided to censure but not remove a Pinedale judge who says her religious beliefs prevent her from presiding over same-sex marriages. The court split 3-2 on its decision Tuesday, March 7, 2017 in the case of Judge Ruth Neely. The majority says Neely violated judicial conduct code, but her misconduct doesn't warrant removing her from the bench.(Alan Rogers/The Casper Star-Tribune via AP, File) The Associated Press

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — A small-town judge who says her religious beliefs prevent her from presiding over same-sex marriages was publicly censured by the Wyoming Supreme Court on Tuesday.

But while the court said her conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial system, it does not warrant removal from the bench. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Kate Fox wrote that Judge Ruth Neely violated judicial conduct code but removing Neely would "unnecessarily circumscribe protected expression."

"Judge Neely shall either perform no marriage ceremonies or she shall perform marriage ceremonies regardless of the couple's sexual orientation," Fox wrote.

Neely has never been asked to perform a same-sex marriage, and Fox said that the case was not about same-sex marriage or the reasonableness of religious beliefs.

"This case is also not about imposing a religious test on judges," wrote Fox, who was joined in her opinion by Justices E. James Burke and William Hill. "Rather, it is about maintaining the public's faith in an independent and impartial judiciary that conducts its judicial functions according to the rule of law, independent of outside influences, including religion, and without regard to whether a law is popular or unpopular."

Neely's case has similarities to legal action against a Kentucky clerk of court jailed briefly in 2015 after refusing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. The case against clerk Kim Davis, a conservative Christian, sparked a national debate over the religious freedom of civil servants versus the civil rights of same-sex couples. Davis ultimately agreed to alter the licenses to remove her name and title.

In Neely's case, the dissenting justices argued that Neely didn't violate any judicial conduct code. "Wyoming law does not require any judge or magistrate to perform any particular marriage, and couples seeking to be married have no right to insist on a particular official as the officiant of their wedding," Justice Keith Kautz wrote in the dissent that was joined by Justice Michael K. Davis.

I still have never seen the law requiring the States to change the eligibility requirements for marriage?