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

[Preacher]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

The slanted, biased and woefully shallow article that you posted left out a few things:

Texas Supreme Court Rules That It’s Unclear Married Gay Couples Have Right to Government Spousal Benefits

The lawsuit, filed by two activists in 2013, attempts to repeal benefits for employees at the City of Houston who are married to a same-sex partner. But Friday’s ruling did not decide whether the couples should or should not get those employment benefits. Nor did the Texas court declare that the US Supreme Court’s marriage decision should be ignored in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case.

Rather, the 24-page opinion says that the activists behind the lawsuit can continue to help “the courts in fully exploring Obergefell’s reach and ramifications” by arguing their case in a lower court in the context of the Obergefell ruling.

So it is by no means the end of the road.

But some LGBT activists dispute the notion that this ruling is inherently consequential. Houston employees are continuing to obtain these benefits, they note. But by keeping the case alive, they say, Texas state court prolongs questions over whether same-sex couples can truly enjoy equal protection under the law.

Furthermore:

Lambda Legal responds:

The Texas Supreme Court today defied the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges which ushered in the freedom to marry for same-sex couples nationwide, saying it leaves open questions whether Texas municipalities must extend access to spousal benefits including health insurance to the legal same-sex spouses of municipal employees in the same way it does for other married employees. The ruling revives a case that was dead and sends it back to the trial court to give the parties another chance to attack the marriage of same-sex couples.

Today’s ruling, in the case Pidgeon v. Turner, also flies in the face of the Supreme Court summary reversal on Monday of an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling, in Pavan v. Smith, stating explicitly that states may not treat same-sex married couples differently than other married couples. Pidgeon v. Turner, originally filed in late 2013 as Pidgeon v. Parker, challenged then-Houston Mayor Annise Parker’s announcement that the city would begin offering health insurance and other benefits to the same-sex spouses of city employees.

So Bubba, what do you think will happen when this one gets to SCOTUS!??

Depends on if the SANE has a majority of the cultural marxist left has a majority. Get ginsburg or kennedy gone and the SANE will have a nice majority.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

The slanted, biased and woefully shallow article that you posted left out a few things:

Texas Supreme Court Rules That It’s Unclear Married Gay Couples Have Right to Government Spousal Benefits

The lawsuit, filed by two activists in 2013, attempts to repeal benefits for employees at the City of Houston who are married to a same-sex partner. But Friday’s ruling did not decide whether the couples should or should not get those employment benefits. Nor did the Texas court declare that the US Supreme Court’s marriage decision should be ignored in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case.

Rather, the 24-page opinion says that the activists behind the lawsuit can continue to help “the courts in fully exploring Obergefell’s reach and ramifications” by arguing their case in a lower court in the context of the Obergefell ruling.

So it is by no means the end of the road.

But some LGBT activists dispute the notion that this ruling is inherently consequential. Houston employees are continuing to obtain these benefits, they note. But by keeping the case alive, they say, Texas state court prolongs questions over whether same-sex couples can truly enjoy equal protection under the law.

Furthermore:

Lambda Legal responds:

The Texas Supreme Court today defied the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges which ushered in the freedom to marry for same-sex couples nationwide, saying it leaves open questions whether Texas municipalities must extend access to spousal benefits including health insurance to the legal same-sex spouses of municipal employees in the same way it does for other married employees. The ruling revives a case that was dead and sends it back to the trial court to give the parties another chance to attack the marriage of same-sex couples.

Today’s ruling, in the case Pidgeon v. Turner, also flies in the face of the Supreme Court summary reversal on Monday of an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling, in Pavan v. Smith, stating explicitly that states may not treat same-sex married couples differently than other married couples. Pidgeon v. Turner, originally filed in late 2013 as Pidgeon v. Parker, challenged then-Houston Mayor Annise Parker’s announcement that the city would begin offering health insurance and other benefits to the same-sex spouses of city employees.

So Bubba, what do you think will happen when this one gets to SCOTUS!??

Depends on if the SANE has a majority of the cultural marxist left has a majority. Get ginsburg or kennedy gone and the SANE will have a nice majority.

At least you admit that with the current makeup of the court , this take back attempt is going nowhere.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

It takes a special kind of INSANITY to think that sanity is the denial of benefits to the children of same sex couples who are married.

By the way, the headline is misleading. The court did not deny benefits. They actually said that the issue was unclear with respect to Obergefell, and remanded it back to the appeals court for further consideration in that context. So quit the crowing already.

 

[Preacher]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

The slanted, biased and woefully shallow article that you posted left out a few things:

Texas Supreme Court Rules That It’s Unclear Married Gay Couples Have Right to Government Spousal Benefits

The lawsuit, filed by two activists in 2013, attempts to repeal benefits for employees at the City of Houston who are married to a same-sex partner. But Friday’s ruling did not decide whether the couples should or should not get those employment benefits. Nor did the Texas court declare that the US Supreme Court’s marriage decision should be ignored in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case.

Rather, the 24-page opinion says that the activists behind the lawsuit can continue to help “the courts in fully exploring Obergefell’s reach and ramifications” by arguing their case in a lower court in the context of the Obergefell ruling.

So it is by no means the end of the road.

But some LGBT activists dispute the notion that this ruling is inherently consequential. Houston employees are continuing to obtain these benefits, they note. But by keeping the case alive, they say, Texas state court prolongs questions over whether same-sex couples can truly enjoy equal protection under the law.

Furthermore:

Lambda Legal responds:

The Texas Supreme Court today defied the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges which ushered in the freedom to marry for same-sex couples nationwide, saying it leaves open questions whether Texas municipalities must extend access to spousal benefits including health insurance to the legal same-sex spouses of municipal employees in the same way it does for other married employees. The ruling revives a case that was dead and sends it back to the trial court to give the parties another chance to attack the marriage of same-sex couples.

Today’s ruling, in the case Pidgeon v. Turner, also flies in the face of the Supreme Court summary reversal on Monday of an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling, in Pavan v. Smith, stating explicitly that states may not treat same-sex married couples differently than other married couples. Pidgeon v. Turner, originally filed in late 2013 as Pidgeon v. Parker, challenged then-Houston Mayor Annise Parker’s announcement that the city would begin offering health insurance and other benefits to the same-sex spouses of city employees.

So Bubba, what do you think will happen when this one gets to SCOTUS!??

Depends on if the SANE has a majority of the cultural marxist left has a majority. Get ginsburg or kennedy gone and the SANE will have a nice majority.

At least you admit that with the current makeup of the court , this take back attempt is going nowhere.

Well duh! Who would deny that? I don't hold ANY hope for Kennedy being sane and Roberts is a flake half the time as well!

 

[danielpalos]

Our extra-Constitutional, War on Drugs may actually result in asset forfeiture and jail time. Thank goodness, those bakers could claim, "bakers morals" to get out of criminal proceedings.

Separate issue.

Some people would rather get fined 149k, than have their assets forfeited and possibly face incarceration for several years.

Again, separate issues.

Try to stay on topic.

Yes, because Fining someone $149k for not baking a cake is not being assholes at all.....

it is being an asshole. However civil asset forfeiture (which I disagree with) is a separate example of government overreach.

How is paying a fine worse than asset forfeiture?

 

[martybegan]

Separate issue.

Some people would rather get fined 149k, than have their assets forfeited and possibly face incarceration for several years.

Again, separate issues.

Try to stay on topic.

Yes, because Fining someone $149k for not baking a cake is not being assholes at all.....

it is being an asshole. However civil asset forfeiture (which I disagree with) is a separate example of government overreach.

How is paying a fine worse than asset forfeiture?

When the fine is $149,000?

 

[Anathema]

Our supreme law of the land is more supreme, than Any commandments of Any religion.

Both of which are subservient to the Moral Laws of Right and Wrong, which supersede all.

 

[deltex1]

Tickle his dick he will say Boy!

I'll let the women make their own claim.

Newborn baby may be the first to be registered ‘gender unknown’ because its mum insists only the tot can decide what sex it wants to be

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Tickle his dick he will say Boy!

I'll let the women make their own claim.

Newborn baby may be the first to be registered ‘gender unknown’ because its mum insists only the tot can decide what sex it wants to be

And that has WHAT exactly to do with the topic? You wouldn't be a troll would ya


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Tickle his dick he will say Boy!

I'll let the women make their own claim.

Newborn baby may be the first to be registered ‘gender unknown’ because its mum insists only the tot can decide what sex it wants to be

That poor child is doomed

 

[danielpalos]

Some people would rather get fined 149k, than have their assets forfeited and possibly face incarceration for several years.

Again, separate issues.

Try to stay on topic.

Yes, because Fining someone $149k for not baking a cake is not being assholes at all.....

it is being an asshole. However civil asset forfeiture (which I disagree with) is a separate example of government overreach.

How is paying a fine worse than asset forfeiture?

When the fine is $149,000?

How do you figure, right winger? Asset forfeiture can include cash.

 

[danielpalos]

Our supreme law of the land is more supreme, than Any commandments of Any religion.

Both of which are subservient to the Moral Laws of Right and Wrong, which supersede all.

No, they don't. We have a Constitution; what is not covered by our Ten Amendments?

 

[martybegan]

Again, separate issues.

Try to stay on topic.

Yes, because Fining someone $149k for not baking a cake is not being assholes at all.....

it is being an asshole. However civil asset forfeiture (which I disagree with) is a separate example of government overreach.

How is paying a fine worse than asset forfeiture?

When the fine is $149,000?

How do you figure, right winger? Asset forfeiture can include cash.

Yes, but how much of them are for $149k in cash?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MARISA N. PAVAN, ET AL. v. NATHANIEL SMITH ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-992_868c.pdf
No. 16–992. Decided June 26, 2017
PER CURIAM.

As this Court explained in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576
U. S. ___ (2015), the Constitution entitles same-sex couples to civil marriage “on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 23).

Obergefell proscribes such disparate treatment. As we explained there, a State may not “exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.” 576 U. S., at ___ (slip op.,

4 PAVAN v

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, because Fining someone $149k for not baking a cake is not being assholes at all.....

it is being an asshole. However civil asset forfeiture (which I disagree with) is a separate example of government overreach.

How is paying a fine worse than asset forfeiture?

When the fine is $149,000?

How do you figure, right winger? Asset forfeiture can include cash.

Yes, but how much of them are for $149k in cash?

Do you not really understand what asset forfeiture means?

 

[jon_berzerk]

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?

--LOL

sure buddy

--LOL

thanks for proving you are a crack pot

--LOL

For stating fact? Every piece written on this case mentions the political pressure put on the Texas Supreme Court to "un-reject" this case.

it is bullshit and you know it

 

[Seawytch]

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?

--LOL

sure buddy

--LOL

thanks for proving you are a crack pot

--LOL

For stating fact? Every piece written on this case mentions the political pressure put on the Texas Supreme Court to "un-reject" this case.

it is bullshit and you know it

No I don't believe it is bullshit. It's very clear. TX SC rejected it, got pressured by republicans and decided to hear it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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?

--LOL

sure buddy

--LOL

thanks for proving you are a crack pot

--LOL

For stating fact? Every piece written on this case mentions the political pressure put on the Texas Supreme Court to "un-reject" this case.

it is bullshit and you know it

No I don't believe it is bullshit. It's very clear. TX SC rejected it, got pressured by republicans and decided to hear it.

as i already posted fuck wad all sides to the case agreed to remand

who the fuck cares if they first rejected it courts often do that turd breath

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

--LOL

sure buddy

--LOL

thanks for proving you are a crack pot

--LOL

For stating fact? Every piece written on this case mentions the political pressure put on the Texas Supreme Court to "un-reject" this case.

it is bullshit and you know it

No I don't believe it is bullshit. It's very clear. TX SC rejected it, got pressured by republicans and decided to hear it.

as i already posted fuck wad all sides to the case agreed to remand

who the fuck cares if they first rejected it courts often do that turd breath

Why is it necessary to be so belligerent and foul mouthed? It seems to me that if you knew what you you're talking about and had confidence in your argument-what ever that is - you would be able to present in in a calm and civil manner. Give it a try.

 

[jon_berzerk]

--LOL

sure buddy

--LOL

thanks for proving you are a crack pot

--LOL

For stating fact? Every piece written on this case mentions the political pressure put on the Texas Supreme Court to "un-reject" this case.

it is bullshit and you know it

No I don't believe it is bullshit. It's very clear. TX SC rejected it, got pressured by republicans and decided to hear it.

as i already posted fuck wad all sides to the case agreed to remand

who the fuck cares if they first rejected it courts often do that turd breath

Why is it necessary to be so belligerent and foul mouthed? It seems to me that if you knew what you you're talking about and had confidence in your argument-what ever that is - you would be able to present in in a calm and civil manner. Give it a try.

because i can so there