Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Complaint filed against judge who allowed same sex marriage

Whatever.

RedEquality

The judge that allowed Texas’ first gay marriage to go forward is the target of a judicial conduct complaint, the latest volley in the state’s attempts to call the historic union into question.

“This judge deliberately violated statutory law and this is unacceptable,” Rep. Tony Tinderholt, R-Arglington, said after confirming he had filed a complaint against state District Judge David Wahlberg with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

“This complaint and any action, which the legislature decides to take, is about ensuring that our judicial system respects the laws of our state and respects the separation of powers. Judge Wahlberg allowed his personal views to dictate his action and ignored state law to accomplish his desired outcome.”

[…]

Immediately after Judge Wahlberg issued the order, Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir signed the couple’s marriage license and they were wed outside of the clerk’s offices by their rabbi. The next day, Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the state Supreme Court to declare the license null and void.

Reached for comment Wednesday, DeBeauvoir stood by the license’s legality and was not surprised by the complaint.

“I do believe the judge acted in good faith and in a fully legal way, and I believe the court order that I followed was a legal court order,” said DeBeauvoir.

Tinderholt’s complaint was filed Feb. 19. In it, he cites a Texas law that requires the attorney general to be notified when anyone “files a petition, motion, or other pleading challenging the constitutionality of a statute of this state.”

See here for the background. Tinderholt, who has his own issues, wasted no time filing that complaint, as Judge Wahlberg issued his ruling on the 19th. Seems like a stretch to me, but as always I Am Not A Lawyer. What do the real lawyers think about this?

Related Posts:

2 Comments

  1. Joe says:

    The statute he claims the judge violated was declared unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers (the judicial branch should not have to work with the executive branch before issuing a ruling).