Texas SC rules state does NOT have to give benefits to homosexual "couples"

[jknowgood]

You choose to sin. Homosexuality if lived the way it's wrote out. It is population control. Two of the same sex cannot have children withowithout outside help.

Yes, I choose to act upon my attractions. Are you saying "the devil" makes all people attracted to members of the same gender, but only 6-10% act on it? Are you choosing not to act on same gender attractions?

Okay, homosexuality is population control... therefore having a place in the natural order.

Someone has to take care of the children you hets don't want.

Homosexuality is a sin, not created by God. Just like bestiality liberals are now working on normalizing.

You keep parroting the same line but not actually answering the questions I posed. No independent thought, just "gay = sin"?

Why was I given attractions for members of my same gender? We're you given them too and you choose not to "sin"?

Yes homosexuality is a sin, but I was taught to hate the sin and not the dinner.

There you go again,parroting the same line. Can't think independently enough to answer some pretty simple questions?

Why was I given attractions for members of my same gender? We're you given them too and you choose not to "sin"?

I sin everyday, you chose to do it. Not my fault.

 

[jknowgood]

You choose to sin. Homosexuality if lived the way it's wrote out. It is population control. Two of the same sex cannot have children withowithout outside help.

Yes, I choose to act upon my attractions. Are you saying "the devil" makes all people attracted to members of the same gender, but only 6-10% act on it? Are you choosing not to act on same gender attractions?

Okay, homosexuality is population control... therefore having a place in the natural order.

Someone has to take care of the children you hets don't want.

Homosexuality is a sin, not created by God. Just like bestiality liberals are now working on normalizing.

You keep parroting the same line but not actually answering the questions I posed. No independent thought, just "gay = sin"?

Why was I given attractions for members of my same gender? We're you given them too and you choose not to "sin"?

Yes homosexuality is a sin, but I was taught to hate the sin and not the dinner.

And you should never hate the dinner unless you paid for it or cooked it yourself.

Oops spell check, I mean the sinner.

 

[jknowgood]

You choose to sin. Homosexuality if lived the way it's wrote out. It is population control. Two of the same sex cannot have children withowithout outside help.

Yes, I choose to act upon my attractions. Are you saying "the devil" makes all people attracted to members of the same gender, but only 6-10% act on it? Are you choosing not to act on same gender attractions?

Okay, homosexuality is population control... therefore having a place in the natural order.

Someone has to take care of the children you hets don't want.

Homosexuality is a sin, not created by God. Just like bestiality liberals are now working on normalizing.

You're wrong on both points. God created mankind and the free will endowed therein. And no one is advocating legalization of bestiality. That's a ham handed propagandistic Hyper Conservative creation.

You support men in girls locker rooms?

A non sequitor. Do you regularly move the goalposts?

No, I'm asking the question, to prove a point. I think you answered it for me.

 

[Preacher]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

Hopefully, it goes to the SCOTUS just in time for the midterms so voters can be reminded of what Republicans see as priorities

Will only got to SCOTUS if the whiners keep appealing it instead of leaving things be. Plus I would be fine with GOP losing majorities because we know SC will uphold this ruling thanks to our new SC justice. Its a 100% certainty if we can get Kennedy to retire or Ginsberg to croak.

 

[bodecea]

Drop the pretense. Call them infidels.

No, just live under God's will and you will be fine. God's will doesn't include the perversion of homosexuality.

The Taliban tells people to live under God's laws too.

You're Christian Sharia.

But I don't say death to homosexuals.

...out loud

I've never done anything against a homosexual, other than disagree.

...while anyone's watching.....

 

[bodecea]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

Hopefully, it goes to the SCOTUS just in time for the midterms so voters can be reminded of what Republicans see as priorities

Will only got to SCOTUS if the whiners keep appealing it instead of leaving things be. Plus I would be fine with GOP losing majorities because we know SC will uphold this ruling thanks to our new SC justice. Its a 100% certainty if we can get Kennedy to retire or Ginsberg to croak.

You mean like the whiners who went to the Tex-ass Supreme court?

 

[bodecea]

... It is not reasonable to deny gay couples the same benefits as straight couples.

Yes it is. Animals dont have the same rights or privileges as human beings.

We find that Con-servatives have a hard time distinguishing the difference between people and animals.

 

[bodecea]

Heteros marry to have kids. Homos marry to get benefits.

Our kids were 9 and 7 by the time my wife and I were legally able to marry.

So you didn't need to get married to have the kids. You had to get married to get benefits.

And protections...the same as heteros...that's what bothers you...

 

[bodecea]

The feds need to fuck off and stop trying to shove their perverted agenda down the throats of hard working actual Americans.

Because...people like you believe that gay Americans are not hard working or even real Americans....right?

 

[bodecea]

That's discrimination at the govt level. I ain't down for that shit.
Same certificate but don't get Same employment benefits? Nice. How leftist of you guys.

It is resistance against tyranny, so I'm down for it.

Trampling on rights for agenda. As I said, how leftist of you

There is no "right" for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman, anymore than there is a "right" for a woman to abort her child. The liberals have invented these "rights" but they aren't from the Constitution, they are from the imagination of people who have declared enmity against God and nature.

Which god?

Or Goddess?

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, I choose to act upon my attractions. Are you saying "the devil" makes all people attracted to members of the same gender, but only 6-10% act on it? Are you choosing not to act on same gender attractions?

Okay, homosexuality is population control... therefore having a place in the natural order.

Someone has to take care of the children you hets don't want.

Homosexuality is a sin, not created by God. Just like bestiality liberals are now working on normalizing.

You keep parroting the same line but not actually answering the questions I posed. No independent thought, just "gay = sin"?

Why was I given attractions for members of my same gender? We're you given them too and you choose not to "sin"?

Yes homosexuality is a sin, but I was taught to hate the sin and not the dinner.

There you go again,parroting the same line. Can't think independently enough to answer some pretty simple questions?

Why was I given attractions for members of my same gender? We're you given them too and you choose not to "sin"?

I sin everyday, you chose to do it. Not my fault.

You're still not answering the question.

Why was I given attractions for members of my same gender? Were you given them too and you choose not to act upon your same gender attractions?

 

[danielpalos]

So God didn't create gays? Who did?

Scene: The Heavenly Real Estate Office)

The Landlord is cheerily rounding up a covey of blazing comets that have skittered under Queen Cassiopeia’s chair. His business agent, Mr. Gabriel, enters, his Golden Trumpet in one hand and more reports from the tiny planet Earth in the other.

The Landlord: (to the comets) Come out from under there, you little scamps, before you set that whole galaxy on fire.

Gabriel: Excuse me, Sir, another batch of Prayergrams from your most devout Christians.

The Landlord: (waving a hand) Whatever they want, Gabriel. Now where did those frisky little devils get to?

Gabriel: Yes, sir, they want you to evict 10 percent of your tenants down there. (raising the Golden Trumpet) I’ve never attempted a partial eviction. Shall I try?

Landlord: (looking up) What 10 percent, Gabriel?

Gabriel: The Gays, sir. Your devout Christians say they’ve done their utmost to keep them out of their schools, their offices, their churches and their lives, but without success. So their Prayergrams ask you to remove them from the face of the Earth.

The Landlord: By Me, Gabriel? That doesn’t sound very Christian. I thought they were supposed to love their neighbors.

Gabriel: Oh, they do, sir, if their neighbors are of the same color, economic bracket and sexual orientation.

The Landlord: But what harm do these gay people do?

Gabriel: I’m afraid you’re not seeing the big picture, sir. Gays simply don’t fit into your grand design. You know, two by two, male and female? Generation after generation? The fact of the matter is that gays simply don’t procreate.

The Landlord: I thought there was enough procreation down there already.

Gabriel: And they commit unspeakable acts.

The Landlord: Murder? Torture? Paving over my mountain meadows?

Gabriel: Unspeakable sexual acts, sir.

The Landlord: Ah, you mean they express their love for each other in different ways.

Gabriel: (annoyed) Really, sir, if these people were automobiles, they’d be recalled in a nonce. They’re clearly defective.

The Landlord: (frowning) Defective, Gabriel?

Gabriel: Exactly, sir. Some essential part is missing, some vital drive is malfunctioning. Bungled wiring, a loose screw… Who knows?

The Landlord: But clearly they are examples of shoddy workmanship?

Gabriel: Oh definitely, sir. And they certainly don’t deserve to clutter up your little blue-green jewel of a planet a minute longer. (raising his trumpet again) Shall I evict them now?

The Landlord: (slowly) And who made these imperfect products, Gabriel?

Gabriel: Why, You did, of course – but… (he lowers the trumpet in sudden consternation) Good You, sir, I didn’t mean to blaspheme. You will forgive them then?

The Landlord: (smiling) A wise philosopher said long ago, Gabriel, that if I made these sinners, it is not I who should forgive them… but they who should forgive me.

Gabriel: Well, I’m sure the gays will be glad to hear of your tolerance and generosity, sir.

The Landlord: The gays? I was talking about my most devout Christians.

The landlord and the gays - Angels on Your Shoulder

The devil brought the perversions of the earth. If the earth started with homosexuality we wouldn't be here today. Therefore it's against humanity, but if it floats your boat, none of my business. Seems today you want to make it my business.

Why is the devil singling out 6-10% of the population randomly?

Actually, population control is the opposite of against humanity...it ensures it's continuation.

You choose to sin. Homosexuality if lived the way it's wrote out. It is population control. Two of the same sex cannot have children withowithout outside help.

Proverbs 6:16-19

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Good Google search, please don't cherry pick the bible as a non believer.

Morals are morals. Only the right wing has, nothing but repeal.

 

[jon_berzerk]

This is headed to the SCOTUS.

this has already been to the federal supreme court stupid

what do you think the references to Obergefell v. Hodges is all about

--LOL

like i said earlier you dont have a clue as to what happened




as for obergefell there are more cases headed that way

one is there currently

The goal of this case is to challenge Obergefell. It failed before, they exerted pressure and now are getting it to move forward under the premise that states and localities should still be able to deny equal benefits to married gay couples.

It's not going to win. No "reasonable" judge is going to rule that only some married couples are deserving of benefits.

so you say

leftards and their magic crystal ball

It failed before

you really dont know what you are rambling about do ya

The court initially declined to hear Pidgeon. But after being lobbied by many of the state's most influential conservatives, the justices surprised everyone and reinstated the case. That decision brought back memories from 2000, when two Republican justices on the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston had the gall to find that the Texas sodomy statute violated the Texas Constitution, and a campaign was launched against them.

Can Texas conservatives put limits on gay marriage?

The court initially declined to hear Pidgeon. But after being lobbied by many of the state's most influential conservatives, the justices surprised everyone and reinstated the case. That decision brought back memories from 2000, when two Republican justices on the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston had the gall to find that the Texas sodomy statute violated the Texas Constitution, and a campaign was launched against them.

yeah so what

the mayor took it to federal court

and the court rejected it

sending it back to the state

thanks for demonstrating

that you do not know what you are rambling about

The State Supreme Court initially rejected it. Under political pressure they decided to hear it.

But after being lobbied by many of the state's most influential conservatives, the justices surprised everyone and reinstated the case.

Surprised everyone because it has no merit, no "reasonableness". It is not reasonable to deny gay couples the same benefits as straight couples.

they took it the federal supreme court and the federal supreme court sent it back to the state

again you do not have a clue as to the case

 

[jon_berzerk]

The goal of this case is to challenge Obergefell. It failed before, they exerted pressure and now are getting it to move forward under the premise that states and localities should still be able to deny equal benefits to married gay couples.

It's not going to win. No "reasonable" judge is going to rule that only some married couples are deserving of benefits.

so you say

leftards and their magic crystal ball

It failed before

you really dont know what you are rambling about do ya

The court initially declined to hear Pidgeon. But after being lobbied by many of the state's most influential conservatives, the justices surprised everyone and reinstated the case. That decision brought back memories from 2000, when two Republican justices on the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston had the gall to find that the Texas sodomy statute violated the Texas Constitution, and a campaign was launched against them.

Can Texas conservatives put limits on gay marriage?

The court initially declined to hear Pidgeon. But after being lobbied by many of the state's most influential conservatives, the justices surprised everyone and reinstated the case. That decision brought back memories from 2000, when two Republican justices on the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston had the gall to find that the Texas sodomy statute violated the Texas Constitution, and a campaign was launched against them.

yeah so what

the mayor took it to federal court

and the court rejected it

sending it back to the state

thanks for demonstrating

that you do not know what you are rambling about

The State Supreme Court initially rejected it. Under political pressure they decided to hear it.

But after being lobbied by many of the state's most influential conservatives, the justices surprised everyone and reinstated the case.

Surprised everyone because it has no merit, no "reasonableness". It is not reasonable to deny gay couples the same benefits as straight couples.

they took it the federal supreme court and the federal supreme court sent it back to the state

again you do not have a clue as to the case

oh btw all parties to the case agreed with the State Supreme Courts decision

to remand it back to the lower court

 

[jknowgood]

No, just live under God's will and you will be fine. God's will doesn't include the perversion of homosexuality.

The Taliban tells people to live under God's laws too.

You're Christian Sharia.

But I don't say death to homosexuals.

...out loud

I've never done anything against a homosexual, other than disagree.

...while anyone's watching.....

I'm not a hateful person, like yourself.

 

[jknowgood]

Homosexuality is a sin, not created by God. Just like bestiality liberals are now working on normalizing.

You keep parroting the same line but not actually answering the questions I posed. No independent thought, just "gay = sin"?

Why was I given attractions for members of my same gender? We're you given them too and you choose not to "sin"?

Yes homosexuality is a sin, but I was taught to hate the sin and not the dinner.

There you go again,parroting the same line. Can't think independently enough to answer some pretty simple questions?

Why was I given attractions for members of my same gender? We're you given them too and you choose not to "sin"?

I sin everyday, you chose to do it. Not my fault.

You're still not answering the question.

Why was I given attractions for members of my same gender? Were you given them too and you choose not to act upon your same gender attractions?

Lol, an angry lesbian. Do you wish for a penis every now and then?

 

[jknowgood]

The devil brought the perversions of the earth. If the earth started with homosexuality we wouldn't be here today. Therefore it's against humanity, but if it floats your boat, none of my business. Seems today you want to make it my business.

Why is the devil singling out 6-10% of the population randomly?

Actually, population control is the opposite of against humanity...it ensures it's continuation.

You choose to sin. Homosexuality if lived the way it's wrote out. It is population control. Two of the same sex cannot have children withowithout outside help.

Proverbs 6:16-19

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Good Google search, please don't cherry pick the bible as a non believer.

Morals are morals. Only the right wing has, nothing but repeal.

Actually a liberal telling the truth partfully.

 

[Seawytch]

The goal of this case is to challenge Obergefell. It failed before, they exerted pressure and now are getting it to move forward under the premise that states and localities should still be able to deny equal benefits to married gay couples.

It's not going to win. No "reasonable" judge is going to rule that only some married couples are deserving of benefits.

so you say

leftards and their magic crystal ball

It failed before

you really dont know what you are rambling about do ya

The court initially declined to hear Pidgeon. But after being lobbied by many of the state's most influential conservatives, the justices surprised everyone and reinstated the case. That decision brought back memories from 2000, when two Republican justices on the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston had the gall to find that the Texas sodomy statute violated the Texas Constitution, and a campaign was launched against them.

Can Texas conservatives put limits on gay marriage?

The court initially declined to hear Pidgeon

The goal of this case is to challenge Obergefell. It failed before, they exerted pressure and now are getting it to move forward under the premise that states and localities should still be able to deny equal benefits to married gay couples.

It's not going to win. No "reasonable" judge is going to rule that only some married couples are deserving of benefits.

so you say

leftards and their magic crystal ball

It failed before

you really dont know what you are rambling about do ya

The court initially declined to hear Pidgeon. But after being lobbied by many of the state's most influential conservatives, the justices surprised everyone and reinstated the case. That decision brought back memories from 2000, when two Republican justices on the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston had the gall to find that the Texas sodomy statute violated the Texas Constitution, and a campaign was launched against them.

Can Texas conservatives put limits on gay marriage?

The court initially declined to hear Pidgeon. But after being lobbied by many of the state's most influential conservatives, the justices surprised everyone and reinstated the case. That decision brought back memories from 2000, when two Republican justices on the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston had the gall to find that the Texas sodomy statute violated the Texas Constitution, and a campaign was launched against them.

yeah so what

the mayor took it to federal court

and the court rejected it

sending it back to the state

thanks for demonstrating

that you do not know what you are rambling about

The State Supreme Court initially rejected it. Under political pressure they decided to hear it.

But after being lobbied by many of the state's most influential conservatives, the justices surprised everyone and reinstated the case.

Surprised everyone because it has no merit, no "reasonableness". It is not reasonable to deny gay couples the same benefits as straight couples.

they took it the federal supreme court and the federal supreme court sent it back to the state

again you do not have a clue as to the case

. But after being lobbied by many of the state's most influential conservatives, the justices surprised everyone and reinstated the case. That decision brought back memories from 2000, when two Republican justices on the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston had the gall to find that the Texas sodomy statute violated the Texas Constitution, and a campaign was launched against them.

yeah so what

the mayor took it to federal court

and the court rejected it

sending it back to the state

thanks for demonstrating

that you do not know what you are rambling about

The State Supreme Court initially rejected it. Under political pressure they decided to hear it.

But after being lobbied by many of the state's most influential conservatives, the justices surprised everyone and reinstated the case.

Surprised everyone because it has no merit, no "reasonableness". It is not reasonable to deny gay couples the same benefits as straight couples.

they took it the federal supreme court and the federal supreme court sent it back to the state

again you do not have a clue as to the case

Wrong.

The case originated before the Obergefell decision. In 2013, Houston’s then-mayor Annise Parker extended spousal benefits to city employees in same-sex marriages legally obtained in other states. Parker argued that although same-sex marriages weren’t legal in Texas at the time, marriages outside the state were still legal and state employees who fit that criteria should be extended the same benefits as legal straight couples. CultureMap Houston reported that at the time, Parker’s own union would not fit the criteria because they were domestic partners (they later married in 2014 in California).

“Based on the right to equal protection under the law, it is unconstitutional for the city to continue to deny benefits to the same-sex spouses of our employees who are legally married,” Parker said to the Houston Chronicle. “We believe that the only constitutional, just, right and fair thing to do is to extend benefits to all of our married employees, whether they are heterosexual or same-sex couples.”

Houston taxpayers Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks filed a lawsuit against Parker and the City of Houston, alleging that the they were violating the Texas Constitution and the Texas Family Code. A trial court granted a temporary injunction that prevented the city from providing the spousal benefits to city employees in same-sex marriages. But in July 2015, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the injunction in light of the Obergefell decision.

The Texas Supreme Court originally declined to hear to case (which now addresses current Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner) in September, and conservative Texans responded with letters urging the court to take up the case. The pressure reached its peak when Governor Greg Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed an amicus brief urging the court to reopen the case. Wednesday’s oral arguments center on the interpretation of the Obergefell decision in application to spousal benefits.

In a 2015 court filing, lawyers representing the two Houston residents argue that court should have maintained the injunction and that the Obergefell decision should be interpreted narrowly. “Obergefell may require States to license and recognize same-sex marriages, but that does not require States to give taxpayer subsidies to same-sex couples—any more than Roe v. Wade … requires States to subsidize abortions or abortion providers,” the filing states. It also adds that marriage benefits are not a “fundamental right” since states can abolish the benefits without violating the Constitution.

Lawyers representing the city responded in a court filing that the Obergefell decision includes benefits for same-sex couples just as they would for couples of the opposite sex. Those benefits, in other words, are more than the right to obtain a marriage license, and include property rights, hospital access, and child custody. “Therefore, if an employer offers employee benefits to spouses, it must offer them to all spouses, regardless of gender,” the filing states. “Certainly, as Petitioners suggest, there is no constitutional right to spousal employee benefits. The City could deny spousal benefits to same-sex couples if it denied them to all married couples, regardless of gender.”

Here’s What You Need To Know About Pidgeon v. Turner

 

[Seawytch]

You keep parroting the same line but not actually answering the questions I posed. No independent thought, just "gay = sin"?

Why was I given attractions for members of my same gender? We're you given them too and you choose not to "sin"?

Yes homosexuality is a sin, but I was taught to hate the sin and not the dinner.

There you go again,parroting the same line. Can't think independently enough to answer some pretty simple questions?

Why was I given attractions for members of my same gender? We're you given them too and you choose not to "sin"?

I sin everyday, you chose to do it. Not my fault.

You're still not answering the question.

Why was I given attractions for members of my same gender? Were you given them too and you choose not to act upon your same gender attractions?

Lol, an angry lesbian. Do you wish for a penis every now and then?

You're just proving my theory that you're incapable of independent thought. You can't answer my question so you're going to try to distract from it and get your rocks off at the same time. Porn is free on the internet, dude.

 

[Anathema]

We find that Con-servatives have a hard time distinguishing the difference between people and animals.

Not at all. We're some if the few with the ability to make that differentiation.