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

[jon_berzerk]

You made the "retarded" claim that gay couples were getting more benefits than straight couples. Going back on that?

hey fucktard this is for the state to decide not me

this is why the case was remanded to the lower courts

to be heard

To be laughed at more like.

Are you admitting you don't know as much as you professed? Sure seems that way. You claimed gays were getting more benefits but you can't name them. Smells like bullshit.

If you take blood pressure meds, you might want to check your BP

my b/p is just fine

i have walked 10 miles today

while you probably have not moved your fat ass off the computer chair

unless you fetched another bag of cheetos --LOL

i simply just dont like you

so fuck you snowflake

if you dont like it kiss my ass

however i will continue to point out

what a retard you are

Was it uphill both directions in the snow too?
I just got home from work, actually, but according to my fitbit, I did 4.28 miles just at work...plenty of hours left in the evening...and the opportunity for plenty of exercise.
{Suggestive eyebrow wiggle}

sure you did --LOL

View attachment 136896

whoopie ding

i walk every day 8 to 10 miles at work alone

you want a trophy or prize


--LOL

So sad. I proved my claim and you're just still blustering about yours. You obviously want some sort of prize. Here ya go..

you didnt prove anything

on the other hand who the fuck cares

 

[Seawytch]

To be laughed at more like.

Are you admitting you don't know as much as you professed? Sure seems that way. You claimed gays were getting more benefits but you can't name them. Smells like bullshit.
Was it uphill both directions in the snow too?
I just got home from work, actually, but according to my fitbit, I did 4.28 miles just at work...plenty of hours left in the evening...and the opportunity for plenty of exercise.
{Suggestive eyebrow wiggle}

sure you did --LOL

View attachment 136896

whoopie ding

i walk every day 8 to 10 miles at work alone

you want a trophy or prize


--LOL

So sad. I proved my claim and you're just still blustering about yours. You obviously want some sort of prize. Here ya go..

you didnt prove anything

on the other hand who the fuck cares

I proved you're a douche bag. Good enough for me.

Did you come prepared today to actually defend this ridiculous ruling you said is "reasonable"? How is it reasonable?

 

[jon_berzerk]

sure you did --LOL

View attachment 136896

whoopie ding

i walk every day 8 to 10 miles at work alone

you want a trophy or prize


--LOL

So sad. I proved my claim and you're just still blustering about yours. You obviously want some sort of prize. Here ya go..

you didnt prove anything

on the other hand who the fuck cares

I proved you're a douche bag. Good enough for me.

Did you come prepared today to actually defend this ridiculous ruling you said is "reasonable"? How is it reasonable?

you didnt prove anything other

then you sit on your fat ass all day and night on that computer chair of yours


but to keep this post on topic

it will be for the courts to decide this case

 

[Seawytch]

View attachment 136896

whoopie ding

i walk every day 8 to 10 miles at work alone

you want a trophy or prize


--LOL

So sad. I proved my claim and you're just still blustering about yours. You obviously want some sort of prize. Here ya go..

you didnt prove anything

on the other hand who the fuck cares

I proved you're a douche bag. Good enough for me.

Did you come prepared today to actually defend this ridiculous ruling you said is "reasonable"? How is it reasonable?

you didnt prove anything other

then you sit on your fat ass all day and night on that computer chair of yours


but to keep this post on topic

it will be for the courts to decide this case

You said it was reasonable, this ruling but you can't actually defend it. I apologize. You're not a douche, douches have an actual function (and get closer to vaginas than you ever will). You're just a sad troll.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I agree with your premise, man. My problem, however, is the govt got their greedy hands on it. They have no place getting involved in marriage. But they did..
Them denying equal rights is institutional discrimination. I'm just not down for govts being peculiar. That is closer to tyranny than giving marriage rights to a couple queers.

I see your point and I agree with it for the most part. However, I think this is Texas's way of sending the message that "Gay marriage" is not (or at least was not) a Constitutional right. This move tells me that they WANT it to be challenged and they want the Gay Marriage issue to be revisited by the SCOTUS. Like an earlier member said.... It's much the same as it is with Roe v Wade.

All Texas is doing, is sending a message that "equal protection of the law" is not a State responsibility; slackers.

 

[jon_berzerk]

whoopie ding

i walk every day 8 to 10 miles at work alone

you want a trophy or prize


--LOL

So sad. I proved my claim and you're just still blustering about yours. You obviously want some sort of prize. Here ya go..

you didnt prove anything

on the other hand who the fuck cares

I proved you're a douche bag. Good enough for me.

Did you come prepared today to actually defend this ridiculous ruling you said is "reasonable"? How is it reasonable?

you didnt prove anything other

then you sit on your fat ass all day and night on that computer chair of yours


but to keep this post on topic

it will be for the courts to decide this case

You said it was reasonable, this ruling but you can't actually defend it. I apologize. You're not a douche, douches have an actual function (and get closer to vaginas than you ever will). You're just a sad troll.

hey dummy i said that is for the courts to decide

why are you so fucking stupid

i certainly do defend the ruling

the ruling is that it is remanded for further review in the lower courts

not understanding the ruling is your fault not mine

one of two thing either you are so stupid that you can not figure it out

or your simply a fat ass troll on the internet

which is it tard

 

[Seawytch]

So sad. I proved my claim and you're just still blustering about yours. You obviously want some sort of prize. Here ya go..

you didnt prove anything

on the other hand who the fuck cares

I proved you're a douche bag. Good enough for me.

Did you come prepared today to actually defend this ridiculous ruling you said is "reasonable"? How is it reasonable?

you didnt prove anything other

then you sit on your fat ass all day and night on that computer chair of yours


but to keep this post on topic

it will be for the courts to decide this case

You said it was reasonable, this ruling but you can't actually defend it. I apologize. You're not a douche, douches have an actual function (and get closer to vaginas than you ever will). You're just a sad troll.

hey dummy i said that is for the courts to decide

why are you so fucking stupid

i certainly do defend the ruling

the ruling is that it is remanded for further review in the lower courts

not understanding the ruling is your fault not mine

one of two thing either you are so stupid that you can not figure it out

or your simply a fat ass troll on the internet

which is it tard

Hey Troll, you said the ruling was reasonable. How was it reasonable to deny benefits to legally married gay city employees?

You can prove you're not simply a troll right now. Defend the reasonableness of this ruling.

 

[jon_berzerk]

you didnt prove anything

on the other hand who the fuck cares

I proved you're a douche bag. Good enough for me.

Did you come prepared today to actually defend this ridiculous ruling you said is "reasonable"? How is it reasonable?

you didnt prove anything other

then you sit on your fat ass all day and night on that computer chair of yours


but to keep this post on topic

it will be for the courts to decide this case

You said it was reasonable, this ruling but you can't actually defend it. I apologize. You're not a douche, douches have an actual function (and get closer to vaginas than you ever will). You're just a sad troll.

hey dummy i said that is for the courts to decide

why are you so fucking stupid

i certainly do defend the ruling

the ruling is that it is remanded for further review in the lower courts

not understanding the ruling is your fault not mine

one of two thing either you are so stupid that you can not figure it out

or your simply a fat ass troll on the internet

which is it tard

Hey Troll, you said the ruling was reasonable. How was it reasonable to deny benefits to legally married gay city employees?

You can prove you're not simply a troll right now. Defend the reasonableness of this ruling.

, you said the ruling was reasonable

yes retard the ruling is reasonable it was remanded to the lower courts for review

all parties agreed with the ruling

please by all means continue to demonstrate your stupidity

--LOL

 

[Seawytch]

I proved you're a douche bag. Good enough for me.

Did you come prepared today to actually defend this ridiculous ruling you said is "reasonable"? How is it reasonable?

you didnt prove anything other

then you sit on your fat ass all day and night on that computer chair of yours


but to keep this post on topic

it will be for the courts to decide this case

You said it was reasonable, this ruling but you can't actually defend it. I apologize. You're not a douche, douches have an actual function (and get closer to vaginas than you ever will). You're just a sad troll.

hey dummy i said that is for the courts to decide

why are you so fucking stupid

i certainly do defend the ruling

the ruling is that it is remanded for further review in the lower courts

not understanding the ruling is your fault not mine

one of two thing either you are so stupid that you can not figure it out

or your simply a fat ass troll on the internet

which is it tard

Hey Troll, you said the ruling was reasonable. How was it reasonable to deny benefits to legally married gay city employees?

You can prove you're not simply a troll right now. Defend the reasonableness of this ruling.

, you said the ruling was reasonable

yes retard the ruling is reasonable it was remanded to the lower courts for review

all parties agreed with the ruling

please by all means continue to demonstrate your stupidity

--LOL

So you can't un troll yourself by explaining why you think it is reasonable to deny benefits to legally married employees. (Spoiler alert, I'm not surprised you couldn't defend your position)

 

[jon_berzerk]

you didnt prove anything other

then you sit on your fat ass all day and night on that computer chair of yours


but to keep this post on topic

it will be for the courts to decide this case

You said it was reasonable, this ruling but you can't actually defend it. I apologize. You're not a douche, douches have an actual function (and get closer to vaginas than you ever will). You're just a sad troll.

hey dummy i said that is for the courts to decide

why are you so fucking stupid

i certainly do defend the ruling

the ruling is that it is remanded for further review in the lower courts

not understanding the ruling is your fault not mine

one of two thing either you are so stupid that you can not figure it out

or your simply a fat ass troll on the internet

which is it tard

Hey Troll, you said the ruling was reasonable. How was it reasonable to deny benefits to legally married gay city employees?

You can prove you're not simply a troll right now. Defend the reasonableness of this ruling.

, you said the ruling was reasonable

yes retard the ruling is reasonable it was remanded to the lower courts for review

all parties agreed with the ruling

please by all means continue to demonstrate your stupidity

--LOL

So you can't un troll yourself by explaining why you think it is reasonable to deny benefits to legally married employees. (Spoiler alert, I'm not surprised you couldn't defend your position)

it is painfully obvious that you have not read the opinion

take pages 18 and 19 for example

where the court sides with the mayor

i have defended my position which is remanding

remanding the case to the lower courts is reasonable

once again all sides agree that it is reasonable

you are simply just being an ass hole



----------
We agree with the Mayor that any effort to resolve whether and the extent to which the
Constitution requires states or cities to provide tax-funded benefits to same-sex couples without
considering Obergefell would simply be erroneous.18 On the other hand, we agree with Pidgeon
that the Supreme Court did not address and resolve that specific issue in Obergefell. “Whatever
ramifications Obergefell may have for sexual relations beyond the approval of same-sex marriage
are unstated at best . . . .” Coker v. Whittington, 858 F.3d 304, 307 (5th Cir. 2017).19 The Supreme
Court held in Obergefell that the Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex
marriages to the same extent that they license and recognize opposite-sex marriages, but it did not
hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons, and—unlike
the Fifth Circuit in De Leon—it did not hold that the Texas DOMAs are unconstitutional.

Of course, that does not mean that the Texas DOMAs are constitutional or that the City
may constitutionally deny benefits to its employees’ same-sex spouses. Those are the issues that
this case now presents in light of Obergefell. We need not instruct to the trial court to “narrowly
construe” Obergefell to confirm that Obergefell did not directly and expressly resolve those issues.

 

[Seawytch]

You said it was reasonable, this ruling but you can't actually defend it. I apologize. You're not a douche, douches have an actual function (and get closer to vaginas than you ever will). You're just a sad troll.

hey dummy i said that is for the courts to decide

why are you so fucking stupid

i certainly do defend the ruling

the ruling is that it is remanded for further review in the lower courts

not understanding the ruling is your fault not mine

one of two thing either you are so stupid that you can not figure it out

or your simply a fat ass troll on the internet

which is it tard

Hey Troll, you said the ruling was reasonable. How was it reasonable to deny benefits to legally married gay city employees?

You can prove you're not simply a troll right now. Defend the reasonableness of this ruling.

, you said the ruling was reasonable

yes retard the ruling is reasonable it was remanded to the lower courts for review

all parties agreed with the ruling

please by all means continue to demonstrate your stupidity

--LOL

So you can't un troll yourself by explaining why you think it is reasonable to deny benefits to legally married employees. (Spoiler alert, I'm not surprised you couldn't defend your position)

it is painfully obvious that you have not read the opinion

take pages 18 and 19 for example

where the court sides with the mayor

i have defended my position which is remanding

remanding the case to the lower courts is reasonable

once again all sides agree that it is reasonable

you are simply just being an ass hole



----------
We agree with the Mayor that any effort to resolve whether and the extent to which the
Constitution requires states or cities to provide tax-funded benefits to same-sex couples without
considering Obergefell would simply be erroneous.18 On the other hand, we agree with Pidgeon
that the Supreme Court did not address and resolve that specific issue in Obergefell. “Whatever
ramifications Obergefell may have for sexual relations beyond the approval of same-sex marriage
are unstated at best . . . .” Coker v. Whittington, 858 F.3d 304, 307 (5th Cir. 2017).19 The Supreme
Court held in Obergefell that the Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex
marriages to the same extent that they license and recognize opposite-sex marriages, but it did not
hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons, and—unlike
the Fifth Circuit in De Leon—it did not hold that the Texas DOMAs are unconstitutional.

Of course, that does not mean that the Texas DOMAs are constitutional or that the City
may constitutionally deny benefits to its employees’ same-sex spouses. Those are the issues that
this case now presents in light of Obergefell. We need not instruct to the trial court to “narrowly
construe” Obergefell to confirm that Obergefell did not directly and expressly resolve those issues.

Sorry troll, but re-copying and pasting their wrong headed ruling is not you defending why this as "reasonable". You will be hard pressed to find legal analysis defending this ruling. (Likely for the same reason YOU won't provide a defense for it. There is none)

Until you can actually offer a response beyond "dey sed so"...

 

[Preacher]

T

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

Ah, then we should take away some of the rights they like, how about we start with the second amendment?

The poor poor mentality of the left. They think butt fuckery is in the constitution LOL....

 

[danielpalos]

T

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

Ah, then we should take away some of the rights they like, how about we start with the second amendment?

The poor poor mentality of the left. They think butt fuckery is in the constitution LOL....

dear, it takes morals, to have moral forms of indignation. that is what the left, find funny.

 

[jon_berzerk]

hey dummy i said that is for the courts to decide

why are you so fucking stupid

i certainly do defend the ruling

the ruling is that it is remanded for further review in the lower courts

not understanding the ruling is your fault not mine

one of two thing either you are so stupid that you can not figure it out

or your simply a fat ass troll on the internet

which is it tard

Hey Troll, you said the ruling was reasonable. How was it reasonable to deny benefits to legally married gay city employees?

You can prove you're not simply a troll right now. Defend the reasonableness of this ruling.

, you said the ruling was reasonable

yes retard the ruling is reasonable it was remanded to the lower courts for review

all parties agreed with the ruling

please by all means continue to demonstrate your stupidity

--LOL

So you can't un troll yourself by explaining why you think it is reasonable to deny benefits to legally married employees. (Spoiler alert, I'm not surprised you couldn't defend your position)

it is painfully obvious that you have not read the opinion

take pages 18 and 19 for example

where the court sides with the mayor

i have defended my position which is remanding

remanding the case to the lower courts is reasonable

once again all sides agree that it is reasonable

you are simply just being an ass hole



----------
We agree with the Mayor that any effort to resolve whether and the extent to which the
Constitution requires states or cities to provide tax-funded benefits to same-sex couples without
considering Obergefell would simply be erroneous.18 On the other hand, we agree with Pidgeon
that the Supreme Court did not address and resolve that specific issue in Obergefell. “Whatever
ramifications Obergefell may have for sexual relations beyond the approval of same-sex marriage
are unstated at best . . . .” Coker v. Whittington, 858 F.3d 304, 307 (5th Cir. 2017).19 The Supreme
Court held in Obergefell that the Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex
marriages to the same extent that they license and recognize opposite-sex marriages, but it did not
hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons, and—unlike
the Fifth Circuit in De Leon—it did not hold that the Texas DOMAs are unconstitutional.

Of course, that does not mean that the Texas DOMAs are constitutional or that the City
may constitutionally deny benefits to its employees’ same-sex spouses. Those are the issues that
this case now presents in light of Obergefell. We need not instruct to the trial court to “narrowly
construe” Obergefell to confirm that Obergefell did not directly and expressly resolve those issues.

Sorry troll, but re-copying and pasting their wrong headed ruling is not you defending why this as "reasonable". You will be hard pressed to find legal analysis defending this ruling. (Likely for the same reason YOU won't provide a defense for it. There is none)

Until you can actually offer a response beyond "dey sed so"...

like i said earlier

you are too stupid to even post to

have a good time rolling around in your stupidity

carry on

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

I agree with your premise, man. My problem, however, is the govt got their greedy hands on it. They have no place getting involved in marriage. But they did..
Them denying equal rights is institutional discrimination. I'm just not down for govts being peculiar. That is closer to tyranny than giving marriage rights to a couple queers.

I see your point and I agree with it for the most part. However, I think this is Texas's way of sending the message that "Gay marriage" is not (or at least was not) a Constitutional right. This move tells me that they WANT it to be challenged and they want the Gay Marriage issue to be revisited by the SCOTUS. Like an earlier member said.... It's much the same as it is with Roe v Wade.

All Texas is doing, is sending a message that "equal protection of the law" is not a State responsibility; slackers.

Only a libtard would conclude that receiving benefits is tantamount to "equal protections."

I might start to believe you tards actually give a shit about "equal rights" when you start standing up for those being denied to children in the womb.

Maybe.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I agree with your premise, man. My problem, however, is the govt got their greedy hands on it. They have no place getting involved in marriage. But they did..
Them denying equal rights is institutional discrimination. I'm just not down for govts being peculiar. That is closer to tyranny than giving marriage rights to a couple queers.

I see your point and I agree with it for the most part. However, I think this is Texas's way of sending the message that "Gay marriage" is not (or at least was not) a Constitutional right. This move tells me that they WANT it to be challenged and they want the Gay Marriage issue to be revisited by the SCOTUS. Like an earlier member said.... It's much the same as it is with Roe v Wade.

All Texas is doing, is sending a message that "equal protection of the law" is not a State responsibility; slackers.

Only a libtard would conclude that receiving benefits is tantamount to "equal protections."

I might start to believe you tards actually give a shit about "equal rights" when you start standing up for those being denied to children in the womb.

Maybe.

Legally married straight couples are granted benefits. By what logic do you deny the same benefits to legally married gay couples?

 

[Seawytch]

Hey Troll, you said the ruling was reasonable. How was it reasonable to deny benefits to legally married gay city employees?

You can prove you're not simply a troll right now. Defend the reasonableness of this ruling.

, you said the ruling was reasonable

yes retard the ruling is reasonable it was remanded to the lower courts for review

all parties agreed with the ruling

please by all means continue to demonstrate your stupidity

--LOL

So you can't un troll yourself by explaining why you think it is reasonable to deny benefits to legally married employees. (Spoiler alert, I'm not surprised you couldn't defend your position)

it is painfully obvious that you have not read the opinion

take pages 18 and 19 for example

where the court sides with the mayor

i have defended my position which is remanding

remanding the case to the lower courts is reasonable

once again all sides agree that it is reasonable

you are simply just being an ass hole



----------
We agree with the Mayor that any effort to resolve whether and the extent to which the
Constitution requires states or cities to provide tax-funded benefits to same-sex couples without
considering Obergefell would simply be erroneous.18 On the other hand, we agree with Pidgeon
that the Supreme Court did not address and resolve that specific issue in Obergefell. “Whatever
ramifications Obergefell may have for sexual relations beyond the approval of same-sex marriage
are unstated at best . . . .” Coker v. Whittington, 858 F.3d 304, 307 (5th Cir. 2017).19 The Supreme
Court held in Obergefell that the Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex
marriages to the same extent that they license and recognize opposite-sex marriages, but it did not
hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons, and—unlike
the Fifth Circuit in De Leon—it did not hold that the Texas DOMAs are unconstitutional.

Of course, that does not mean that the Texas DOMAs are constitutional or that the City
may constitutionally deny benefits to its employees’ same-sex spouses. Those are the issues that
this case now presents in light of Obergefell. We need not instruct to the trial court to “narrowly
construe” Obergefell to confirm that Obergefell did not directly and expressly resolve those issues.

Sorry troll, but re-copying and pasting their wrong headed ruling is not you defending why this as "reasonable". You will be hard pressed to find legal analysis defending this ruling. (Likely for the same reason YOU won't provide a defense for it. There is none)

Until you can actually offer a response beyond "dey sed so"...

like i said earlier

you are too stupid to even post to

have a good time rolling around in your stupidity

carry on

That's it, troll...don't try to actually make a cogent argument, just troll some more.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You said it was reasonable, this ruling but you can't actually defend it. I apologize. You're not a douche, douches have an actual function (and get closer to vaginas than you ever will). You're just a sad troll.

hey dummy i said that is for the courts to decide

why are you so fucking stupid

i certainly do defend the ruling

the ruling is that it is remanded for further review in the lower courts

not understanding the ruling is your fault not mine

one of two thing either you are so stupid that you can not figure it out

or your simply a fat ass troll on the internet

which is it tard

Hey Troll, you said the ruling was reasonable. How was it reasonable to deny benefits to legally married gay city employees?

You can prove you're not simply a troll right now. Defend the reasonableness of this ruling.

, you said the ruling was reasonable

yes retard the ruling is reasonable it was remanded to the lower courts for review

all parties agreed with the ruling

please by all means continue to demonstrate your stupidity

--LOL

So you can't un troll yourself by explaining why you think it is reasonable to deny benefits to legally married employees. (Spoiler alert, I'm not surprised you couldn't defend your position)

it is painfully obvious that you have not read the opinion

take pages 18 and 19 for example

where the court sides with the mayor

i have defended my position which is remanding

remanding the case to the lower courts is reasonable

once again all sides agree that it is reasonable

you are simply just being an ass hole



----------
We agree with the Mayor that any effort to resolve whether and the extent to which the
Constitution requires states or cities to provide tax-funded benefits to same-sex couples without
considering Obergefell would simply be erroneous.18 On the other hand, we agree with Pidgeon
that the Supreme Court did not address and resolve that specific issue in Obergefell. “Whatever
ramifications Obergefell may have for sexual relations beyond the approval of same-sex marriage
are unstated at best . . . .” Coker v. Whittington, 858 F.3d 304, 307 (5th Cir. 2017).19 The Supreme
Court held in Obergefell that the Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex
marriages to the same extent that they license and recognize opposite-sex marriages, but it did not
hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons, and—unlike
the Fifth Circuit in De Leon—it did not hold that the Texas DOMAs are unconstitutional.

Of course, that does not mean that the Texas DOMAs are constitutional or that the City
may constitutionally deny benefits to its employees’ same-sex spouses. Those are the issues that
this case now presents in light of Obergefell. We need not instruct to the trial court to “narrowly
construe” Obergefell to confirm that Obergefell did not directly and expressly resolve those issues.

Thank you for documenting the fact that the tittle of this thread and the news source that it was based on, which says that the Texas SC ruled that same sex couples do not have the right to benefits.....is a blatant lie

 

[jon_berzerk]

hey dummy i said that is for the courts to decide

why are you so fucking stupid

i certainly do defend the ruling

the ruling is that it is remanded for further review in the lower courts

not understanding the ruling is your fault not mine

one of two thing either you are so stupid that you can not figure it out

or your simply a fat ass troll on the internet

which is it tard

Hey Troll, you said the ruling was reasonable. How was it reasonable to deny benefits to legally married gay city employees?

You can prove you're not simply a troll right now. Defend the reasonableness of this ruling.

, you said the ruling was reasonable

yes retard the ruling is reasonable it was remanded to the lower courts for review

all parties agreed with the ruling

please by all means continue to demonstrate your stupidity

--LOL

So you can't un troll yourself by explaining why you think it is reasonable to deny benefits to legally married employees. (Spoiler alert, I'm not surprised you couldn't defend your position)

it is painfully obvious that you have not read the opinion

take pages 18 and 19 for example

where the court sides with the mayor

i have defended my position which is remanding

remanding the case to the lower courts is reasonable

once again all sides agree that it is reasonable

you are simply just being an ass hole



----------
We agree with the Mayor that any effort to resolve whether and the extent to which the
Constitution requires states or cities to provide tax-funded benefits to same-sex couples without
considering Obergefell would simply be erroneous.18 On the other hand, we agree with Pidgeon
that the Supreme Court did not address and resolve that specific issue in Obergefell. “Whatever
ramifications Obergefell may have for sexual relations beyond the approval of same-sex marriage
are unstated at best . . . .” Coker v. Whittington, 858 F.3d 304, 307 (5th Cir. 2017).19 The Supreme
Court held in Obergefell that the Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex
marriages to the same extent that they license and recognize opposite-sex marriages, but it did not
hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons, and—unlike
the Fifth Circuit in De Leon—it did not hold that the Texas DOMAs are unconstitutional.

Of course, that does not mean that the Texas DOMAs are constitutional or that the City
may constitutionally deny benefits to its employees’ same-sex spouses. Those are the issues that
this case now presents in light of Obergefell. We need not instruct to the trial court to “narrowly
construe” Obergefell to confirm that Obergefell did not directly and expressly resolve those issues.

Thank you for documenting the fact that the tittle of this thread and the news source that it was based on, which says that the Texas SC ruled that same sex couples do not have the right to benefits.....is a blatant lie

exactly

as i have stated the opinion made no such claim

 

[Dr Grump]

If two gays want to live together as a civil union, that is their business, just don't call it a marriage.

Why do you care? How does it affect your life one iota (hint: it doesn't). You want to reinforce our bigoted fantasies, go live in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or any other regressive regime that supports your ideals.