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

[jon_berzerk]

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 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

The case originated before the Obergefell decision.

so what

 

[Seawytch]

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

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

The case originated before the Obergefell decision.

so what

So you are wrong. This never went before the SCOTUS...yet.

You've been wrong from the get go despite claiming superior knowledge.

Have you figured out the alleged benefits gays received that you believe straight couples didn't? (Spoiler alert, there aren't any)

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

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

The case originated before the Obergefell decision.

so what

So you are wrong. This never went before the SCOTUS...yet.

You've been wrong from the get go despite claiming superior knowledge.

Have you figured out the alleged benefits gays received that you believe straight couples didn't? (Spoiler alert, there aren't any)

because the feds rejected it

 

[Seawytch]

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

The case originated before the Obergefell decision.

so what

So you are wrong. This never went before the SCOTUS...yet.

You've been wrong from the get go despite claiming superior knowledge.

Have you figured out the alleged benefits gays received that you believe straight couples didn't? (Spoiler alert, there aren't any)

because the feds rejected it

Provide a link.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

The case originated before the Obergefell decision.

so what

So you are wrong. This never went before the SCOTUS...yet.

You've been wrong from the get go despite claiming superior knowledge.

Have you figured out the alleged benefits gays received that you believe straight couples didn't? (Spoiler alert, there aren't any)

because the feds rejected it

Provide a link.

already did

 

[Seawytch]

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

The case originated before the Obergefell decision.

so what

So you are wrong. This never went before the SCOTUS...yet.

You've been wrong from the get go despite claiming superior knowledge.

Have you figured out the alleged benefits gays received that you believe straight couples didn't? (Spoiler alert, there aren't any)

because the feds rejected it

Provide a link.

already did

You did not provide a link that says this was presented to the SCOTUS and was rejected. That's impossible because it never happened.

Implementing Obergefell: An Addendum - Online Library of Law & Liberty

Only the 5th circuit has been involved.

In Pidgeon, a Texas trial court ruling issued prior to Obergefell had enjoined the provision of such benefits, and the city appealed to the intermediate court of appeals. While the appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell, prompting the court of appeals to reverse the injunction and remand the case back to the trial court. The plaintiff-taxpayers sought discretionary review by the Texas Supreme Court, which was initially denied but then granted following a petition for rehearing.

(And intense political pressure)

 

[jon_berzerk]

The case originated before the Obergefell decision.

so what

So you are wrong. This never went before the SCOTUS...yet.

You've been wrong from the get go despite claiming superior knowledge.

Have you figured out the alleged benefits gays received that you believe straight couples didn't? (Spoiler alert, there aren't any)

because the feds rejected it

Provide a link.

already did

You did not provide a link that says this was presented to the SCOTUS and was rejected. That's impossible because it never happened.

Implementing Obergefell: An Addendum - Online Library of Law & Liberty

Only the 5th circuit has been involved.

In Pidgeon, a Texas trial court ruling issued prior to Obergefell had enjoined the provision of such benefits, and the city appealed to the intermediate court of appeals. While the appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell, prompting the court of appeals to reverse the injunction and remand the case back to the trial court. The plaintiff-taxpayers sought discretionary review by the Texas Supreme Court, which was initially denied but then granted following a petition for rehearing.

(And intense political pressure)

i said federal courts asshole

which the 5th is

they sent it to the state

 

[Geaux4it]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

 

[Seawytch]

So you are wrong. This never went before the SCOTUS...yet.

You've been wrong from the get go despite claiming superior knowledge.

Have you figured out the alleged benefits gays received that you believe straight couples didn't? (Spoiler alert, there aren't any)

because the feds rejected it

Provide a link.

already did

You did not provide a link that says this was presented to the SCOTUS and was rejected. That's impossible because it never happened.

Implementing Obergefell: An Addendum - Online Library of Law & Liberty

Only the 5th circuit has been involved.

In Pidgeon, a Texas trial court ruling issued prior to Obergefell had enjoined the provision of such benefits, and the city appealed to the intermediate court of appeals. While the appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell, prompting the court of appeals to reverse the injunction and remand the case back to the trial court. The plaintiff-taxpayers sought discretionary review by the Texas Supreme Court, which was initially denied but then granted following a petition for rehearing.

(And intense political pressure)

i said federal courts asshole

which the 5th is

they sent it to the state

And I said SCOTUS. The 5th sent it back because Obergefell rendered it moot.

It's a bullshit case that will be rejected by the SCOTUS because it's stupid on its face.

 

[Seawytch]

I see a lot of people cheering this ridiculous decision, but not a one actually trying to defend it.

Could it be because you realize how ludicrous it is even for Texas? You really expect the Federal Courts to rule that benefits can be denied some legally married couples?

 

[martybegan]

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.

From what I read so far, I would have to agree. once they have the paper in hand, government can't pick or choose which papers it thinks are valid.

And before any lefties try to get me in a "goctcha" moment, I have always stated while I think it was wrong for the SC to force States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they don't want to, I have always said they CAN be forced to recognize SSM licenses from other States, just like they have always had to under full faith and credit.

 

[martybegan]

I see a lot of people cheering this ridiculous decision, but not a one actually trying to defend it.

Could it be because you realize how ludicrous it is even for Texas? You really expect the Federal Courts to rule that benefits can be denied some legally married couples?

It will and should be shot down. But it is and indication that, like Roe, Obergfell is not "settled" yet by any stretch of imagination.

 

[jon_berzerk]

because the feds rejected it

Provide a link.

already did

You did not provide a link that says this was presented to the SCOTUS and was rejected. That's impossible because it never happened.

Implementing Obergefell: An Addendum - Online Library of Law & Liberty

Only the 5th circuit has been involved.

In Pidgeon, a Texas trial court ruling issued prior to Obergefell had enjoined the provision of such benefits, and the city appealed to the intermediate court of appeals. While the appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell, prompting the court of appeals to reverse the injunction and remand the case back to the trial court. The plaintiff-taxpayers sought discretionary review by the Texas Supreme Court, which was initially denied but then granted following a petition for rehearing.

(And intense political pressure)

i said federal courts asshole

which the 5th is

they sent it to the state

And I said SCOTUS. The 5th sent it back because Obergefell rendered it moot.

It's a bullshit case that will be rejected by the SCOTUS because it's stupid on its face.

who the fuck cares what you said

people like you like to twist it around

but the fact is i said the federal court rejected it

and sent it back to the state

you do realize this opinion does NOTHING nothing at all

except send it back to the lower courts to fix errs

and that ALL parties agreed to the ruling

but as usual you will sit here and spout your nonsense all day long

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

From what I read so far, I would have to agree. once they have the paper in hand, government can't pick or choose which papers it thinks are valid.

And before any lefties try to get me in a "goctcha" moment, I have always stated while I think it was wrong for the SC to force States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they don't want to, I have always said they CAN be forced to recognize SSM licenses from other States, just like they have always had to under full faith and credit.

the same would apply to concealed carry

 

[Seawytch]

I see a lot of people cheering this ridiculous decision, but not a one actually trying to defend it.

Could it be because you realize how ludicrous it is even for Texas? You really expect the Federal Courts to rule that benefits can be denied some legally married couples?

It will and should be shot down. But it is and indication that, like Roe, Obergfell is not "settled" yet by any stretch of imagination.

No, nothing will be settled as long as insane people push an agenda.

 

[martybegan]

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.

From what I read so far, I would have to agree. once they have the paper in hand, government can't pick or choose which papers it thinks are valid.

And before any lefties try to get me in a "goctcha" moment, I have always stated while I think it was wrong for the SC to force States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they don't want to, I have always said they CAN be forced to recognize SSM licenses from other States, just like they have always had to under full faith and credit.

the same would apply to concealed carry

Agreed.

 

[martybegan]

I see a lot of people cheering this ridiculous decision, but not a one actually trying to defend it.

Could it be because you realize how ludicrous it is even for Texas? You really expect the Federal Courts to rule that benefits can be denied some legally married couples?

It will and should be shot down. But it is and indication that, like Roe, Obergfell is not "settled" yet by any stretch of imagination.

No, nothing will be settled as long as insane people push an agenda.

Thinking everyone who opposes you is "insane" is the sign of a weak mind, and a inability to understand that your views are not the end-all be-all.

It's reeks of narcissism as well.

 

[Seawytch]

Provide a link.

already did

You did not provide a link that says this was presented to the SCOTUS and was rejected. That's impossible because it never happened.

Implementing Obergefell: An Addendum - Online Library of Law & Liberty

Only the 5th circuit has been involved.

In Pidgeon, a Texas trial court ruling issued prior to Obergefell had enjoined the provision of such benefits, and the city appealed to the intermediate court of appeals. While the appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell, prompting the court of appeals to reverse the injunction and remand the case back to the trial court. The plaintiff-taxpayers sought discretionary review by the Texas Supreme Court, which was initially denied but then granted following a petition for rehearing.

(And intense political pressure)

i said federal courts asshole

which the 5th is

they sent it to the state

And I said SCOTUS. The 5th sent it back because Obergefell rendered it moot.

It's a bullshit case that will be rejected by the SCOTUS because it's stupid on its face.

who the fuck cares what you said

people like you like to twist it around

but the fact is i said the federal court rejected it

and sent it back to the state

you do realize this opinion does NOTHING nothing at all

except send it back to the lower courts to fix errs

and that ALL parties agreed to the ruling

but as usual you will sit here and spout your nonsense all day long

All parties bent to Republican pressure. They're elected. The Republicans threatened to Primary them. This case was rejected but the 5th because it was rendered moot. It still is, but you want to spend a lot of Texas taxpayer money to have that reiterated?

 

[jon_berzerk]

I see a lot of people cheering this ridiculous decision, but not a one actually trying to defend it.

Could it be because you realize how ludicrous it is even for Texas? You really expect the Federal Courts to rule that benefits can be denied some legally married couples?

It will and should be shot down. But it is and indication that, like Roe, Obergfell is not "settled" yet by any stretch of imagination.

No, nothing will be settled as long as insane people push an agenda.

Thinking everyone who opposes you is "insane" is the sign of a weak mind, and a inability to understand that your views are not the end-all be-all.

It's reeks of narcissism as well.

well put

have fun with this leftist today

i am off to work

--LOL

 

[Seawytch]

I see a lot of people cheering this ridiculous decision, but not a one actually trying to defend it.

Could it be because you realize how ludicrous it is even for Texas? You really expect the Federal Courts to rule that benefits can be denied some legally married couples?

It will and should be shot down. But it is and indication that, like Roe, Obergfell is not "settled" yet by any stretch of imagination.

No, nothing will be settled as long as insane people push an agenda.

Thinking everyone who opposes you is "insane" is the sign of a weak mind, and a inability to understand that your views are not the end-all be-all.

It's reeks of narcissism as well.

Assholes sound better? I can go with fucking assholes if you prefer.