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

[miketx]

Just in case there is anyone here who can stop obsessing about gay sex, and slinging mud at gays and liberals long enough to actually consider the facts of this case, here is an interesting take on it.

Texas’ Bizarre Anti-Equality Ruling | Right Wing Watch
By Paul Gordon | July 5, 2017 10:57 am

The Texas Supreme Court issued a bizarre ruling on Friday that, Obergefell notwithstanding, it isn’t clear whether Houston can legally provide marriage benefits to city employees married to someone of the same sex, given the state’s laws prohibiting such benefits.

First, a little background on the Texas Supreme Court: Justices are elected in partisan elections, and all nine justices are Republicans. In fact, the court in this deeply red state has been all-Republican since 1999.

To respect precedent and the rule of law, the court should have held that Obergefell requires the government to treat all marriages the same regardless of the sex of the spouses. But that’s not what they did, as today’s decision states:

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 …

The state supreme court doesn’t take a position on the benefits issue, but remands it back to the trial court for it to consider:

We cannot resolve the parties’ claims now, however, because they have not yet been fully developed or litigated. The parties’ arguments address the meaning and ramifications of Obergefell, which was not announced until after the parties had filed their briefs in the court of appeals. Naturally, the parties did not raise their current arguments in the trial court or in the court of appeals, and neither court ruled on them.

This “reasoning” would be laughable if it weren’t so harmful

Pavan reversed the lower court without even a hearing not because it was an example of an “open question” left by Obergefell that the Court needed to address. The Court forcefully issued a summary reversal precisely because Obergefell provided the final word on these types of issues.
The state supreme court doesn’t take a position on the benefits issue, but remands it back to the trial court for it to consider:

We cannot resolve the parties’ claims now, however, because they have not yet been fully developed or litigated. The parties’ arguments address the meaning and ramifications of Obergefell, which was not announced until after the parties had filed their briefs in the court of appeals. Naturally, the parties did not raise their current arguments in the trial court or in the court of appeals, and neither court ruled on them.

Any thoughts or do you clowns just want to continue you adolescent bigoted banter?

Why are you so bigoted against people who are not sick? Are you a homo? Do you want to marry a man?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Just in case there is anyone here who can stop obsessing about gay sex, and slinging mud at gays and liberals long enough to actually consider the facts of this case, here is an interesting take on it.

Texas’ Bizarre Anti-Equality Ruling | Right Wing Watch
By Paul Gordon | July 5, 2017 10:57 am

The Texas Supreme Court issued a bizarre ruling on Friday that, Obergefell notwithstanding, it isn’t clear whether Houston can legally provide marriage benefits to city employees married to someone of the same sex, given the state’s laws prohibiting such benefits.

First, a little background on the Texas Supreme Court: Justices are elected in partisan elections, and all nine justices are Republicans. In fact, the court in this deeply red state has been all-Republican since 1999.

To respect precedent and the rule of law, the court should have held that Obergefell requires the government to treat all marriages the same regardless of the sex of the spouses. But that’s not what they did, as today’s decision states:

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 …

The state supreme court doesn’t take a position on the benefits issue, but remands it back to the trial court for it to consider:

We cannot resolve the parties’ claims now, however, because they have not yet been fully developed or litigated. The parties’ arguments address the meaning and ramifications of Obergefell, which was not announced until after the parties had filed their briefs in the court of appeals. Naturally, the parties did not raise their current arguments in the trial court or in the court of appeals, and neither court ruled on them.

This “reasoning” would be laughable if it weren’t so harmful

Pavan reversed the lower court without even a hearing not because it was an example of an “open question” left by Obergefell that the Court needed to address. The Court forcefully issued a summary reversal precisely because Obergefell provided the final word on these types of issues.
The state supreme court doesn’t take a position on the benefits issue, but remands it back to the trial court for it to consider:

We cannot resolve the parties’ claims now, however, because they have not yet been fully developed or litigated. The parties’ arguments address the meaning and ramifications of Obergefell, which was not announced until after the parties had filed their briefs in the court of appeals. Naturally, the parties did not raise their current arguments in the trial court or in the court of appeals, and neither court ruled on them.

Any thoughts or do you clowns just want to continue you adolescent bigoted banter?

Why are you so bigoted against people who are not sick? Are you a homo? Do you want to marry a man?

Brilliant, just fucking BRILLIANT. So much for having an adult discussion about the legal issues . Pretty pathetic!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Perhaps a welcome side effect this ruling would be Texas homosexuals moving out of the state say to California. Win win.

What ruling? You don't even seem to have a grasp of the facts and status of the case.

Pot kettle black.

You can't even give a yes or no answer to a straight forward question.

 

[Chuz Life]

Perhaps a welcome side effect this ruling would be Texas homosexuals moving out of the state say to California. Win win.

What ruling? You don't even seem to have a grasp of the facts and status of the case.

Pot kettle black.

You can't even give a yes or no answer to a straight forward question.

Thanks for the reminder.

 

[martybegan]

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?

I understand completely. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to inject it into this thread.

Being fined mere lucre is not the same as asset forfeiture.

Being fined 149k is the same as losing 149k through asset forfiture.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Perhaps a welcome side effect this ruling would be Texas homosexuals moving out of the state say to California. Win win.

What ruling? You don't even seem to have a grasp of the facts and status of the case.

Pot kettle black.

You can't even give a yes or no answer to a straight forward question.

It must be difficult for you living in a changing and diverse world with complex issue while only being able to deal with simplistic yes or no answers. I feel sorry for you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The crazy fuck of the hour goes to...........

Mat Staver: Impeach Judges Who Rule For Marriage Equality & Abortion Rights | Right Wing Watch

Mat Staver, the attorney behind the Religious Right legal group Liberty Counsel, guest-hosted VCY America’s “Crosstalk” program on June 26, the day that the Supreme Court ruled in the church-state case Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer. While Staver was happy with the Trinity Lutheran ruling, he told a caller that he was frustrated with Congress’ refusal to impeach Supreme Court justices and other federal judges who “create law” on issues like abortion rights and same-sex marriage.

First runner up goes to...............

Kevin Swanson: Katy Perry’s Promotion of ‘Lesbianism’ Will Drive Her Fans To Suicide | Right Wing Watch

On his “Generations” radio show on June 19, Religious Right activist Kevin Swanson claimed that Katy Perry is “about to commit suicide” and linked the mental health issues she discusses on her new album with what he says is her music’s abandonment of God in favor of the promotion of lesbianism.

“She said, ‘I got tired of singing Amazing Grace,’ and began to write songs relating to lesbianism and encouraging young teenybopping thirteen-year-old girls towards lesbianism,” Swanson said.

“First you begin with decadence, then you move rather quickly into despair, and this is where modern music has gone,” Swanson said.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

I understand completely. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to inject it into this thread.

Being fined mere lucre is not the same as asset forfeiture.

Being fined 149k is the same as losing 149k through asset forfiture.

No, it isn't.

 

[martybegan]

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

Do you not really understand what asset forfeiture means?

I understand completely. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to inject it into this thread.

Being fined mere lucre is not the same as asset forfeiture.

Being fined 149k is the same as losing 149k through asset forfiture.

No, it isn't.

yes, it is.

 

[danielpalos]

Do you not really understand what asset forfeiture means?

I understand completely. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to inject it into this thread.

Being fined mere lucre is not the same as asset forfeiture.

Being fined 149k is the same as losing 149k through asset forfiture.

No, it isn't.

yes, it is.

You have some protection of the law; being fined in that case, means a civil case not a criminal case.

 

[martybegan]

I understand completely. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to inject it into this thread.

Being fined mere lucre is not the same as asset forfeiture.

Being fined 149k is the same as losing 149k through asset forfiture.

No, it isn't.

yes, it is.

You have some protection of the law; being fined in that case, means a civil case not a criminal case.

Asset forfeiture is a civil procedure as well, and that is most people's issue with it. If it were a criminal proceeding, asset forfeiture could not exist.

 

[danielpalos]

Being fined mere lucre is not the same as asset forfeiture.

Being fined 149k is the same as losing 149k through asset forfiture.

No, it isn't.

yes, it is.

You have some protection of the law; being fined in that case, means a civil case not a criminal case.

Asset forfeiture is a civil procedure as well, and that is most people's issue with it. If it were a criminal proceeding, asset forfeiture could not exist.

I think you need to become more well informed:

Asset forfeiture or asset seizure is a form of confiscation of assets by the state. It typically applies to the alleged proceeds or instruments of crime. This applies, but is not limited, to terrorist activities, drug related crimes, and other criminal and even civil offenses.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

 

[martybegan]

Being fined 149k is the same as losing 149k through asset forfiture.

No, it isn't.

yes, it is.

You have some protection of the law; being fined in that case, means a civil case not a criminal case.

Asset forfeiture is a civil procedure as well, and that is most people's issue with it. If it were a criminal proceeding, asset forfeiture could not exist.

I think you need to become more well informed:

Asset forfeiture or asset seizure is a form of confiscation of assets by the state. It typically applies to the alleged proceeds or instruments of crime. This applies, but is not limited, to terrorist activities, drug related crimes, and other criminal and even civil offenses.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

About what? Oh wait, I made a statement you can't refute, so you go all vague, and will now probably slink away from the thread.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it isn't.

yes, it is.

You have some protection of the law; being fined in that case, means a civil case not a criminal case.

Asset forfeiture is a civil procedure as well, and that is most people's issue with it. If it were a criminal proceeding, asset forfeiture could not exist.

I think you need to become more well informed:

Asset forfeiture or asset seizure is a form of confiscation of assets by the state. It typically applies to the alleged proceeds or instruments of crime. This applies, but is not limited, to terrorist activities, drug related crimes, and other criminal and even civil offenses.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

About what? Oh wait, I made a statement you can't refute, so you go all vague, and will now probably slink away from the thread.

You just have lousy reading comprehension. Why not read some anecdotes on the web?

Punishment Without Crime

 

[martybegan]

yes, it is.

You have some protection of the law; being fined in that case, means a civil case not a criminal case.

Asset forfeiture is a civil procedure as well, and that is most people's issue with it. If it were a criminal proceeding, asset forfeiture could not exist.

I think you need to become more well informed:

Asset forfeiture or asset seizure is a form of confiscation of assets by the state. It typically applies to the alleged proceeds or instruments of crime. This applies, but is not limited, to terrorist activities, drug related crimes, and other criminal and even civil offenses.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

About what? Oh wait, I made a statement you can't refute, so you go all vague, and will now probably slink away from the thread.

You just have lousy reading comprehension. Why not read some anecdotes on the web?

Punishment Without Crime

Again, I am fully aware of the abuse of asset forfeiture by various law enforcement agencies. I am also aware of the abuse done by human rights councils that forget freedom of religion is also a human right. Trying to say one is worse than the other is not helping anything.

 

[danielpalos]

You have some protection of the law; being fined in that case, means a civil case not a criminal case.

Asset forfeiture is a civil procedure as well, and that is most people's issue with it. If it were a criminal proceeding, asset forfeiture could not exist.

I think you need to become more well informed:

Asset forfeiture or asset seizure is a form of confiscation of assets by the state. It typically applies to the alleged proceeds or instruments of crime. This applies, but is not limited, to terrorist activities, drug related crimes, and other criminal and even civil offenses.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

About what? Oh wait, I made a statement you can't refute, so you go all vague, and will now probably slink away from the thread.

You just have lousy reading comprehension. Why not read some anecdotes on the web?

Punishment Without Crime

Again, I am fully aware of the abuse of asset forfeiture by various law enforcement agencies. I am also aware of the abuse done by human rights councils that forget freedom of religion is also a human right. Trying to say one is worse than the other is not helping anything.

A fine usually means you were found guilty of something.

 

[martybegan]

Asset forfeiture is a civil procedure as well, and that is most people's issue with it. If it were a criminal proceeding, asset forfeiture could not exist.

I think you need to become more well informed:

Asset forfeiture or asset seizure is a form of confiscation of assets by the state. It typically applies to the alleged proceeds or instruments of crime. This applies, but is not limited, to terrorist activities, drug related crimes, and other criminal and even civil offenses.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

About what? Oh wait, I made a statement you can't refute, so you go all vague, and will now probably slink away from the thread.

You just have lousy reading comprehension. Why not read some anecdotes on the web?

Punishment Without Crime

Again, I am fully aware of the abuse of asset forfeiture by various law enforcement agencies. I am also aware of the abuse done by human rights councils that forget freedom of religion is also a human right. Trying to say one is worse than the other is not helping anything.

A fine usually means you were found guilty of something.

Yes, guilty of not baking a cake. Again, you don't have to play "which is worse" here.

 

[danielpalos]

I think you need to become more well informed:

About what? Oh wait, I made a statement you can't refute, so you go all vague, and will now probably slink away from the thread.

You just have lousy reading comprehension. Why not read some anecdotes on the web?

Punishment Without Crime

Again, I am fully aware of the abuse of asset forfeiture by various law enforcement agencies. I am also aware of the abuse done by human rights councils that forget freedom of religion is also a human right. Trying to say one is worse than the other is not helping anything.

A fine usually means you were found guilty of something.

Yes, guilty of not baking a cake. Again, you don't have to play "which is worse" here.

Bakers who are in it for profit are not in it for morals. It really is that simple. They should be legally required to be not-for-profit if they "want to engage in the socialism of morals over the pursuit of capital profit in public accommodations."

 

[martybegan]

About what? Oh wait, I made a statement you can't refute, so you go all vague, and will now probably slink away from the thread.

You just have lousy reading comprehension. Why not read some anecdotes on the web?

Punishment Without Crime

Again, I am fully aware of the abuse of asset forfeiture by various law enforcement agencies. I am also aware of the abuse done by human rights councils that forget freedom of religion is also a human right. Trying to say one is worse than the other is not helping anything.

A fine usually means you were found guilty of something.

Yes, guilty of not baking a cake. Again, you don't have to play "which is worse" here.

Bakers who are in it for profit are not in it for morals. It really is that simple. They should be legally required to be not-for-profit if they "want to engage in the socialism of morals over the pursuit of capital profit in public accommodations."

bullshit. Where in the constitution does it say you give up your rights if you want to make money?

 

[danielpalos]

You just have lousy reading comprehension. Why not read some anecdotes on the web?

Punishment Without Crime

Again, I am fully aware of the abuse of asset forfeiture by various law enforcement agencies. I am also aware of the abuse done by human rights councils that forget freedom of religion is also a human right. Trying to say one is worse than the other is not helping anything.

A fine usually means you were found guilty of something.

Yes, guilty of not baking a cake. Again, you don't have to play "which is worse" here.

Bakers who are in it for profit are not in it for morals. It really is that simple. They should be legally required to be not-for-profit if they "want to engage in the socialism of morals over the pursuit of capital profit in public accommodations."

bullshit. Where in the constitution does it say you give up your rights if you want to make money?

Profit seeking is a requirement. The only bullshitter here is you.