Maureen Condic, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah where she is the Director for Human Embryology. She is an Associate Scholar at the Lozier Institute and a member of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.

Condic received her Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley and was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Minnesota. Besides teaching, she has lectured around the world and testified before congress—most recently on the Pain-capable Unborn Child Protection Act. In 2016 she was appointed to the Pontifical Academy for Life.

WPN Standing Together for Life conference Registration

Rev. William Weinrich, Th.D., has been a professor of Historical Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana since 1975, with a four-year deployment (2007-2010) as rector of the Luther Academy in Riga, Latvia.

He received his Doctorate from the University of Basil, Switzerland. Weinrich has authored Spirit and Martyrdom (1981), and “John 1:1—7:1” for the Concordia Commentary Series (2015), and edited The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke. He also served 30 years as a chaplain in the Air National Guard, retiring as Lieutenant Colonel in 2002, and was a founding member of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, contributing chapters for Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (1991).

WPN Standing Together for Life conference Registration

 Judge’s Case Raises Troubling Questions

…”Who will be left to sit on the bench?
Only those who have no moral compass beyond the letter of the law.”…
Pastor Jonathan Lange – MCLS, Evanston, WY

Next Wednesday (August 17) the Wyoming Supreme Court will be hearing a case which has huge implications for each and every one of us.

The case involves Judge Ruth Neely who has served with distinction for 21 years as the municipal judge in Pinedale, Wyoming. Since municipalities have no authority either to issue a license or solemnize a marriage, you would think that she’s unaffected by all the hoopla over same-sex marriage.

But you would be mistaken. In a chillingly reasoned opinion, the Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics (CJCE) wants to remove her from her job and disqualify her for service anywhere in the Wyoming judiciary.

The story began on a cold Saturday morning in December, 2014. Shortly after the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals declared Wyoming marriage statutes unconstitutional, a reporter from the Sublette Examiner called Mrs. Neely to ask if she was “excited” to perform same-sex marriage.

It was only because she had accepted a second, part-time job as Circuit Court Magistrate, that this question had any relevance at all. In that unpaid position, she was authorized, but not obligated, to solemnize marriages.

She gave a perfectly reasonable reply. She said that if she were ever asked (she never has been) she would help the couple find someone to do the job. However, she would “not be able to do” it herself.

Based on this solitary exchange, about a hypothetical question, the CJCE has been waging what they call a “holy war” against her for more than a year. They are not content to send her a letter clarifying what she should have done, nor even a letter of reprimand. Instead, they are leveling the greatest possible punishment allowable by law.

Many legal points have been made in her defense. The most thorough and factual would be the two briefs that her lawyers filed before the Supreme Court on April 29 and July 8, 2016. You can find them at www.courts.state.wy.us/ (case #J-16-0001). I’m not going to rehash them here. What I do want to explore here, are a few implications of the CJCE arguments.

One central allegation against Judge Neely is the charge of bias. The CJCE claims that merely by publicly affirming the Biblical teaching on homosexual acts, she immediately and irrevocably made it impossible to judge fairly or impartially in any matter whatsoever.

They make much of a private letter in which she discussed a number of Biblically named sins. The CJCE was so shocked that she would agree with the Bible that her religion (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) was called “repugnant” in open court.
Let’s think about this for a minute. Note, first, that the idea of “sin” is not a legal category. It is a theological category. Sins are against God. Crimes are against the government. For centuries America has known that something may be a sin without being illegal. Drunkenness, adultery, greed and blasphemy immediately come to mind. This is the very essence of the church/state distinction.

Every judge in America has been perfectly capable of applying the law equitably and fairly to people who engage in all kinds of sins without confusing sins with illegal activity. But now the CJCE wants Wyoming to believe that one sin, and one sin only, can no longer be called “sin” without threatening the entire judicial system.
If this reasoning is true, then it should apply to every judge who thinks something is a sin which the government has declared legal. Do you believe that drunkenness is a sin? Well, since there’s no law against it, you’re fired! You think that adultery is a sin? You cannot be a judge anywhere in Wyoming. Who will be left to sit on the bench? Only those who have no moral compass beyond the letter of the law.

A second major point that the CJCE makes is that Judge Neely, “by announcing her position against marriage equality,” openly spoke against the law of the land. Here is another curious position.

Does the CJCE really mean to say that any public opposition to any law should immediately disqualify a judge from office? The Commission might want to think that one through a bit more.

The fact of the matter is that prior to October 6, 2014, same-sex marriage was against the law of the land. If the Commission is right, any and every judge who spoke in favor of same-sex marriage prior to then, should have been immediately removed from the bench.
This would be rather awkward since Wendy Soto, even as the Executive Director of the CJCE, was on the board of Wyoming Equality and agitating for same-sex marriage long before it was legal. More than awkward, the implications of this would be staggering.

Should we drive all pro-life judges from the bench because of Roe v. Wade? Should we remove all judges who speak in favor of gun control because of the 2nd Amendment? While NARAL might favor the first, and the NRA, the second, nobody who understands the importance of free speech could seriously want either.

And this brings up a third point that we should consider carefully. The CJCE goes to great lengths to argue that Judge Neely’s remarks to Ned Donavan were a “public statement.” Presumably, she would not be in trouble if she had said the exact same words in private.

But what exactly constitutes “public speech?” Certainly a judge’s remarks from the bench are official and public. Is a personal conversation with a reporter also public? If he had been seeking to protect his sources, nobody would ever know her name. But Ned Donovan was not looking for a story. He was looking to sack a judge.

The CJCE argues that since he identified himself as a reporter and was writing a story, Judge Neely should have known that this was public speech. What does this position do to the news industry’s right to protect its sources? If the media value their ability to get honest answers, they might want to speak out on this point.

Is the CJCE arguing that Judge Neely has the right to free speech, only as long as not too many people hear it. Does she have freedom of speech but not freedom of the press? This got me thinking. If she had said these things in a Sunday School classroom, would she still be charged with judicial misconduct? What about if she had said them in a restaurant while Ned Donavan was sitting in an adjacent booth?

What about if she had written these remarks down before same-sex marriage became legal and Mr. Donavan published them afterwards? Should she then be hauled before the Commission and asked to publicly recant? The Spanish Inquisition was a really bad idea. Let’s not try it again.

This may all seem far-fetched, but it is not. In Atlanta Chief Kelvin Cochrane was fired for a self-published booklet that he wrote for his men’s Bible Study. Is Wyoming going to adopt Atlanta’s values?

If all of this sounds like the abridgement of Judge Neely’s free speech, it is. But never fear. The CJCE confidently asserts that this is permissible under the United States Constitution because it applies only to judges. Judges are prohibited from speaking publicly about their deepest held convictions, but no one else. How comforting!

This raises two more questions: First, if judges are not permitted to speak publicly about marriage (unless they are parroting the orthodoxy of the CJCE) what other topics will become taboo in the months and years to come? Nobody is saying yet. But I am sure we will be told when they are good and ready.

Second, while this draconian abridgment of free speech is limited to judges today, by what legal theory does the CJCE exempt county clerks, teachers, public health workers or any other employee of the State of Wyoming?

Their absolute silence on this point speaks volumes.

On August 17 the Wyoming Supreme Court is going to decide whether to keep Judge Neely on the bench or remove her — and everyone who shares her convictions — from our state’s judiciary. Let’s hope that they protect our freedoms to think, speak and act. If they don’t, it will not be the end of the matter. It will only open the flood gates to a million more questions — and a lot less freedom.

Neely News Coverage

May 4, 2016

Star Valley Independent Editorial

May 5, 2016

Pinedale Roundup

May 6, 2016

Billings Gazette

May 9, 2016

Yahoo
Bigstory

May 10, 2016

The American Conservative

May 11, 2016

Star Valley Independent
Christian Post
Mic
National Review
First Things

May 13, 2016

Torrington Telegram
Daily Signal
Casper Star Editorial
Pinedale Roundup

May 14, 2016

Casper Star Tribune

May 16, 2016

“Stand With Neely…” Pinedale Roundup
“Free Speech…” Pinedale Roundup

May 17, 2016

Uinta County Herald

May 18, 2016

Star Valley Independent Guest Editorial
Jackson Hole News & Guide

May 19, 2016

“Sutherland joins amicus…” Sutherland Institute

May 20, 2016

Uinta County Herald – Golden Days

May 26, 2016

“Synod joins court brief…” LCMS Reporter

June 3, 2016

“Defense of Freedom…” Pinedale Roundup

June 6, 2016

Cody Enterprise

June 15, 2016

“The Price of Citizenship…” The Public Discourse

June 20, 2016

“Wyoming judge can’t refuse to marry gay couples” Casper Star Tribune

June 22, 2016

Mere Comments

June 27, 2016

Wyoming Tribune Eagle

August 8, 2016

“American Judge on Trial for Being Lutheran” World Net Daily

August 10, 2016

American Thinker

August 17, 2016

“Wyoming Judge Faces Removal…” Pete Williams (NBC News)
“Stop persecuting religious…” Jackson Hole News
“Judge case raises questions…” Wyoming Tribune Eagle

August 18, 2016

“My Neighbor…” Pinedale Roundup
“Appeal Draws Supporters…” Pinedale Roundup

August 18, 2016

“Court Hears Gay Marriage Arguments” Pinedale Roundup

August 19, 2016

“Justices Hear Neely’s Rights…” Pinedale Roundup
“Keep Our Good Judges…” Pinedale Roundup

August 20, 2016

“Christian judge fights to keep job…” World

August 24, 2016

“Letters to the Editor…” Jackson Hole News

August 25, 2016

“Left Aims To Ban Religious People…” TheFederalist.com
“Accusers should be the ones on trial…” WyomingTribuneEagle
“Religion can’t disqualify…” WyomingTribuneEagle

August 30, 2016

“Dissent Will Not Be Tolerated…” The Public Discourse

March 7, 2017

“Court Decides to Censure, Not Remove Anti-Gay Marriage Judge” U.S. News

March 8, 2017

“Wyoming judge censured for refusing to preside over same-sex marriages” Fox News

March 9, 2017

“The danger of creating a religious test for judges” Deseret News
“Wyoming Supreme Court Disciplines Judge Who Refused to Perform Same-Sex Marriages” Slate

March 10, 2017

“Christian judge censured by Wyoming Supreme Court for her opposition to gay marriage” The Blaze

March 13, 2017

“Judge Neely will remain on bench despite censure” LCMS Blogs

March 20, 2017

“Wyoming Judge Censured for Beliefs about Marriage That Have Nothing to Do with Her Job” The Federalist

March 31, 2017

“Wyoming Censured Judge for Marriage Beliefs Even Though No Law Requires Her to Perform Marriages” The Federalist

August 8, 2017

“Judge Neely asks U.S. Supreme Court to reverse Wyoming court censure” LCMS Blogs

August 15, 2017

“Wyoming Judge Appeals to Nation’s Highest Court After Losing Job for Being A Christian” The Federalist

November 6, 2017

“Truth Stumbles in the Public Square… The Saga of Judge Ruth Neely” The Wonderer

What You Can Do to Protect Religious Liberty and Free Speech for All!

Send a Message to Our Courts.
Protection for Religious Liberty and Free Speech for All!

Judge Ruth Neely is a faithful and active member of Our Savior Lutheran Church in Pinedale, Wyoming. She has served as the municipal judge there for more than 21 years. In that position, she hears all cases arising under the ordinances of Pinedale, which generally involve traffic and parking violations, animal control, public intoxication, underage drinking, shoplifting, breach of the peace, and similar matters. Judge Neely has also served as a part-time circuit court magistrate for approximately 14 years. In that capacity, she has the authority to, among other things, administer oaths, issue subpoenas, issue search and arrest warrants, conduct bond hearings, and solemnize marriages.

In late 2014, Judge Neely was contacted by a reporter from the Sublette Examiner. The reporter asked Judge Neely whether she was “excited” to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies now that they had become legal. Judge Neely replied that because of her religious beliefs, she would “not be able to do” same-sex marriages and that she had not “been asked to perform” one. In December 2014, an article appeared in the Sublette Examiner quoting these statements by Judge Neely.

In March 2015, the Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics filed a complaint against her, alleging judicial misconduct under the Wyoming Code of Judicial Conduct and seeking her removal from both judicial positions (even though she is not permitted to perform marriages in her position as a municipal judge). More specifically, the commission alleged that by merely communicating her religious beliefs about marriage and her inability to solemnize same-sex marriages, Judge Neely failed to follow the law and manifested bias or prejudice based on sexual orientation.

On December 31, 2015, the commission issued a recommendation to the Wyoming Supreme Court seeking Judge Neely’s removal from her positions as municipal judge and part-time circuit court magistrate.

WHAT YOU CAN DO – – continue reading – –