danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #81
all bones an no flesh? Flesh it out.
Texas SC rules state does NOT have to give benefits to homosexual "couples"
- Thread starter Preacher
- Start date
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #82
Reasonable is "drafting gun lovers first", for our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Our kids were 9 and 7 by the time my wife and I were legally able to marry.
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,370
- 1,130
that is for their courts to decide not me dumb shit
have you even bothered to read the opinion of the court
unlikely
Austin American-Statesman Document Viewer
the plaintiffs claimed that Houston benefits policy goes further than the Obergefell (federal) decision required
the state agreed
using your lame examples why should a republican couple get more benefits then a demtard couple
you fuckers always claim to be the champions of fair play
would that be fair
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #85
Only infidels, protestants, and renegades have a problem with it; not true believers.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Name the benefits gays received that straights did not.
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,370
- 1,130
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Texas law prohibits same-sex couples from receiving such benefits. After the Supreme Court struck down the federal same-sex marriage ban in 2013, the Houston city attorney advised then-Mayor Annise Parker that this prohibition ran afoul of the Constitution. While the Texas law remains on the books, Parker mandated that it no longer be enforced in Houston, ordering the city to “extend benefits” to government employees’ same-sex spouses who’d been legally married elsewhere. (At this point, Texas’ same-sex marriage ban had not yet been struck down.) Two taxpayers, Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks, challenged Parker’s directive shortly thereafter, arguing that by granting benefits to same-sex couples, Houston was “expending significant public funds on an illegal activity.” (When Parker left office, current Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner stepped in as the defendant.)
A state trial court agreed and blocked the new policy. While the city appealed that decision, the Supreme Court issued Obergefell in June 2015, invalidating state-level same-sex marriage bans. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applied Obergefell to Texas several days later in a case called De Leon v. Abbott, striking down the state’s bar on same-sex marriage. In light of these decisions, a state appeals court reversed the block on same-sex benefits in Houston and sent the case back down to the trial court “for proceedings consistent with Obergefell and De Leon.” Pidgeon and Hicks appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court, which initially refused to take the case. After a group of high-profile Republicans urged the justices to reconsider, however, the court reversed course and heard arguments in March. (The justices on the Texas Supreme Court are elected and occasionally face primary challenges from the right.)
Now the justices have ruled, and their decision is a blow to the constitutional equality of same-sex couples. According to the court, Obergefell “did not address and resolve” the “specific issue” of state spousal benefits. Therefore, the state appeals court erred in ordering the trial court to resolve the case “consistent with Obergefell and De Leon.” Instead, the Texas Supreme Court insisted, the trial court must settle the issue itself—keeping in mind that Obergefell “did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.”
Texas Supreme Court Defies Obergefell, Refuses to Extend Spousal Benefits to Same-Sex Couples
So "reasonably" when this gets to the SCOTUS, how do you think they're going to rule? Will they rule that all must be treated equally or that local governments can decide which married couples are deserving of benefits?
A state trial court agreed and blocked the new policy. While the city appealed that decision, the Supreme Court issued Obergefell in June 2015, invalidating state-level same-sex marriage bans. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applied Obergefell to Texas several days later in a case called De Leon v. Abbott, striking down the state’s bar on same-sex marriage. In light of these decisions, a state appeals court reversed the block on same-sex benefits in Houston and sent the case back down to the trial court “for proceedings consistent with Obergefell and De Leon.” Pidgeon and Hicks appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court, which initially refused to take the case. After a group of high-profile Republicans urged the justices to reconsider, however, the court reversed course and heard arguments in March. (The justices on the Texas Supreme Court are elected and occasionally face primary challenges from the right.)
Now the justices have ruled, and their decision is a blow to the constitutional equality of same-sex couples. According to the court, Obergefell “did not address and resolve” the “specific issue” of state spousal benefits. Therefore, the state appeals court erred in ordering the trial court to resolve the case “consistent with Obergefell and De Leon.” Instead, the Texas Supreme Court insisted, the trial court must settle the issue itself—keeping in mind that Obergefell “did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.”
Texas Supreme Court Defies Obergefell, Refuses to Extend Spousal Benefits to Same-Sex Couples
So "reasonably" when this gets to the SCOTUS, how do you think they're going to rule? Will they rule that all must be treated equally or that local governments can decide which married couples are deserving of benefits?
- Mar 31, 2009
- 106,236
- 89,388
- 3,605
Did your "wife" and you create them together?
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
I did. I read the entire thing...and I know the history behind it too. Gays did not receive any benefits in addition to what straight married couples received. They received the exact same benefits.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Yes we did...with a little help from a friend. He didn't put the sperm in, she did
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #92
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,370
- 1,130
no you didnt
or you would not be asking so many ignorant questions
you do not even understand what happened
--LOL
(the SC didnt give an opinion one way or the other )
other then neither the plaintiffs or the city had a chance
to argue their side
so it was remanded
(remanded) sent back to the lower courts
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,370
- 1,130
go read the opinion
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,370
- 1,130
- Mar 31, 2009
- 106,236
- 89,388
- 3,605
Or more religious freedom
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
I just posted the timeline of the ruling. This is headed to the SCOTUS.
Again, there are no benefits gays got in addition to benefits straights received. This case was about timing, but bass ackward Texas Republicans want to make it bigger.
Instead, the Texas Supreme Court insisted, the trial court must settle the issue itself—keeping in mind that Obergefell “did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.”
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
How is it "religious freedom" to deny gay married city employees the same benefits given straight married city employees?
This isn't about some baker refusing to bake a fucking wedding cake. This is the government, as an employer, being able to arbitrarily deny benefits to some legally married couples.
Preacher
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #100
REALLY! It bans males from marrying?! WOW! Better tell all those straight guys marrying women in Texas! Oh and no the Constitution was NOT race neutral it specifically says
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
OURSELVES (WHITE MEN) and OUR POSTERITY (Their children and children's children etc etc etc)
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Feds should penalize companies that move production outside of Canada: Unifor- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 1
-
Oh No....April Shows Federal Budget Surplus....What Will Democrats Do Now?- Started by mudwhistle
- Replies: 10
-
Latest Discussions
-
Oh No....April Shows Federal Budget Surplus....What Will Democrats Do Now?
- Latest: Paradoxical#1
-
-
