Religious beliefs do not make you exempt from the law

The U. S. Supreme Court — the law of the land — ruled that same-sex couples nationwide can marry last June. The law states that state-level bans on same-sex marriages are unconstitutional.

However, Pinedale municipal Judge Ruth Neely has been suspended from her position as a circuit court magistrate in Sublette County.

In an interview, she stated that she could not marry same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs, meaning that she would be breaking a national law by not complying.

The Wyoming Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this month, but have yet to make a decision on Neely’s case.

Her lawyers argued that removing her from the bench would violate her constitutional rights. A lawyer for the Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics argued that Neely violated the state code of judicial conduct by saying that she would not marry same-sex couples.

While Neely does have the right to her private religious beliefs, she cannot violate the code of conduct, prohibiting all state judges as well as magistrates through Supreme Court Justices from displaying actions or words that present a bias against people on the basis of any factors including sexual orientation.

Remember Thomas Jefferson and that old adage ‘separation of church and state.’ Well, that still applies. Neely represents the state while her religious beliefs represent the church. They should be separate — not one and the same.

There is no doubt that Neely’s refusal to marry same-sex couples is a bias. In the world that I live in, I believe judges should not have any bias. Let’s say Neely is presiding over a criminal case involving a homosexual individual charged with possession of illegal drugs. Would she give that individual the same sentence as someone else who was not homosexual? I’m leaning towards no.

And this goes beyond same-sex couples seeking marriage and criminal charges brought against homosexuals.

Neely is biased, who knows in what other ways. Judges should be fair and objective — and most importantly they should respect and abide by every law in the book, regardless of their personal feelings on the matter.

When Neely refuses to marry same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs, there is no getting around the fact that she is breaking a law set forth by the highest court in the land.

Normal citizens also must abide by the laws — all of them. If we believe that possessing illegal drugs or drunk driving is not wrong, does that mean we can get away with it and blame it on our beliefs? The simple answer is no. We would be held accountable for our actions, for breaking the law.

What makes a judge any different? Chew on that for a bit and see how it tastes.