9 November 6 - 12, 2025 dallasobserver.com DALLAS OBSERVER Classified | MusiC | dish | Culture | unfair Park | Contents lawsuit from a Central Texas judge who was issued a public warning after refusing to marry same-sex couples. The judge, Di- ane Hensley of Waco, chose to stop marry- ing couples entirely in 2015 when the United States Supreme Court declared that same-sex marriages were constitu- tionally protected in a landmark ruling, Obergefell v. Hodges. But in 2016, Hensley began officiating straight marriages once again while “politely refer[ing]” same-sex couples to another judge within the county. “For providing a solution to meet a need in my community while remaining faithful to my religious beliefs, I received a ‘Public Warning.’ No one should be pun- ished for that,” Hensley said in a state- ment in 2019. Hensley was not fined, and in 2024, the state Supreme Court ruled in her favor, re- sulting in the withdrawal of the sanction. But fearing the same fate, a North Texas judge, Brian Umphress, sued the State Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2020, arguing the commission’s interpretation of the Canon violates the First Amend- ment and is unconstitutionally vague. At the time, Umphress planned to run for re- election in the 2022 election in Jack County, with opposition to gay marriage being a pillar of his campaign. The courts dismissed the suit, but Um- phress appealed, ultimately reaching the Texas Supreme Court. “Now going forward, every judge in Texas will enjoy the freedom Judge Hens- ley has fought so hard for in her case,” Hi- ram Sasser of the First Liberty Institute, a religious freedom advocacy center that represented Hensley, said in a statement. “As for her case specifically, this amend- ment melts away the reasons the Commis- sion relied on to punish Judge Hensley.” However, some critics argue that the freedom of religion defense is unfounded and serves as a poor excuse. “This decision gives prejudice a plat- form and power it does not deserve,” said the Rev. Dr. Neil G. Thomas, senior pastor of Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, in a state- ment. “To deny couples the right to marry because of who they love is an affront to both our Constitution and the Gospel of Je- sus Christ. Let us be clear: This is not about religious freedom; it is about institutional- izing bias.” Thomas worries about the greater impli- cations for LGBTQ+ couples. “This ruling sends a chilling message,” Thomas said. “It tells LGBTQ+ couples that their love is conditional, that their dignity is negotiable and that their humanity de- pends on the comfort of others. That is morally indefensible. Similar Fight at the National Level T he ruling now sets a precedent for all judges in the state and is a preview for a larger, more significant case that will be heard at the highest court next month, challenging the initial 2015 decision that protected same-sex marriage. On Nov. 7, the United States Supreme Court will de- cide whether or not to hear the case of a Kentucky county clerk, Kim Davis, who re- fused to issue marriage licenses to a gay cou- ple in 2015. Davis is now requesting that the Supreme Court reconsider its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. “Obergefell could not override the First Amendment, nor could it grant Respondents the right to obtain a marriage license with Davis’s name on it,” reads the brief sent to the Supreme Court by Davis this week. “... Surely, Obergefell did not mean what Re- spondents seek as the basis for their emo- tional distress claim. Overturning Obergefell would entitle Davis to the relief she de- serves.” After failing to issue the licenses as or- dered by U.S. District Judge David Bunning, Davis was held in contempt of court and jailed for five days in September 2015. Bun- ning released Davis on the condition that she no longer interfere in the issuance of marriage licenses for gay couples in her county. The legal battle continued until a federal jury ruled in favor of the couple, or- dering Davis to pay $100,000 in damages and $260,000 in legal fees. “If ever there was a case of exceptional importance,” she asserted, “the first individ- ual in the Republic’s history who was jailed for following her religious convictions re- garding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it.” Davis has appealed the jury’s decision, ar- guing her religious beliefs should immunize her from legal liability. The Supreme Court will hold a private conference next Friday to determine whether it will formally review Davis’ case and the Obergefell decision. By standard practice, there are several confer- ences, and at least four of the nine justices must vote to accept the case in order for it to be heard. If accepted, the hearing would bring about one of the largest challenges to gay marriage rights in United States history at a time when the court is a 6-3 conservative su- permajority, with three justices controver- sially appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term. ▼ MEDIA FAR-RIGHT REVENGE CONVICTED NORTH TEXAS OATH KEEPER LEADER SUES USA TODAY, EX-WIFE FOR $25M. BY KELLY DEARMORE S tewart Rhodes, founder of the far- right militia-style group Oath Keepers, who was convicted as a key figure in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol, has sued USA Today and others for $25 million in damages for defa- mation. In a civil complaint filed last week with the U.S. District Court in Dallas, former Granbury resident Rhodes alleges that Gan- nett, which owns the paper, journalist Will Carless, and Rhodes’ ex-wife, Tasha Adams, conspired to defame him. He also claims they intentionally caused him emotional distress through the publication of an Oct. 28, 2024, article titled “Why a potential Trump win, Jan. 6 pardons have one family fearing for their lives.” In the article, Rhodes’ ex-wife and the mother of their children alleges she was subjected to years of various forms of abuse and mistreatment by him during the time before and after he rose to prominence as head of the Oath Keepers following former President Barack Obama’s 2008 election. It was written by Carless, who has reported on stories related to the Jan. 6 Capitol breach that authorities at the time said was an attempt to prevent Congress from certi- fying the 2020 presidential election results. The article also includes quotes from Rhodes’ oldest son, who alleged that his fa- ther would have a “kill list” following his release from prison. Also in the USA Today article, attorneys for Rhodes categorically denied all accusa- tions made by Adams and their son against him. We reached out to Rhodes via email with questions about the lawsuit but did not receive a reply prior to publication. In the filing, which lists Rhodes as his own legal representation with a North Texas address, Rhodes writes that he “is convinced that Will Carless, USA Today, and other me- dia sought out Tasha Adams to bash Rhodes and thereby discredit conservatives and es- pecially Donald Trump,” by using “over-the- top hostile and disparaging allegations” stemming from his divorce with Adams. A representative from Gannett provided a statement to the Observer, saying, “We are aware of the lawsuit and plan to vigorously defend ourselves against the unsubstanti- ated claims made by the plaintiff.” In the lawsuit, Rhodes describes the Oath Keepers as “an organization of military vet- erans, former police and former firefighters determined to continue to serve their com- munities by helping protect and aid civilians in natural disasters, such as hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes or the like.” The Southern Poverty Law Center has a different definition of the group, noting on its website: “As part of the group’s mission, Oath Keepers have directed their recruiting effort toward members of the military, law enforcement and other public-safety posi- tions. They are often confrontational and have participated in multiple armed stand- offs against the government. The most re- cent is the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when members of the group, in- cluding its leader, Stewart Rhodes, Benson Kua Gay marriage will be debated in the courts. Jacob Vaughn Stewart Rhodes from Granbury had one of the longest sentences given to any Jan. 6 participant. >> p10
