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

[danielpalos]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

seems reasonable

Really? It seems "reasonable" to deny benefits only to gay couples who are married? Flesh out the reasonableness of that for us, won't you.

yeah it does

all bones an no flesh? Flesh it out.

 

[danielpalos]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

seems reasonable

Really? It seems "reasonable" to deny benefits only to gay couples who are married? Flesh out the reasonableness of that for us, won't you.

yeah it does

So it would be "reasonable" for San Francisco to deny marriage benefits to Christian couples? Republican couples? Explain how it is reasonable to deny marriage benefits to legally married couples.

Reasonable is "drafting gun lovers first", for our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[Seawytch]

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

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

 

[jon_berzerk]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

seems reasonable

Really? It seems "reasonable" to deny benefits only to gay couples who are married? Flesh out the reasonableness of that for us, won't you.

yeah it does

So it would be "reasonable" for San Francisco to deny marriage benefits to Christian couples? Republican couples? Explain how it is reasonable to deny marriage benefits to legally married couples.

that is for their courts to decide not me dumb shit

have you even bothered to read the opinion of the court

unlikely

Austin American-Statesman Document Viewer

the plaintiffs claimed that Houston benefits policy goes further than the Obergefell (federal) decision required

the state agreed

using your lame examples why should a republican couple get more benefits then a demtard couple

you fuckers always claim to be the champions of fair play

would that be fair

 

[danielpalos]

Texas needs to enter the 21st century.

The century of faggotry and gender confusion? That century?

Only infidels, protestants, and renegades have a problem with it; not true believers.

 

[Seawytch]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

seems reasonable

Really? It seems "reasonable" to deny benefits only to gay couples who are married? Flesh out the reasonableness of that for us, won't you.

yeah it does

So it would be "reasonable" for San Francisco to deny marriage benefits to Christian couples? Republican couples? Explain how it is reasonable to deny marriage benefits to legally married couples.

that is for their courts to decide not me dumb shit

have you even bothered to read the opinion of the court

unlikely

Austin American-Statesman Document Viewer

the plaintiffs claimed that Houston benefits policy goes further than the Obergefell (federal) decision required

the state agreed

using your lame examples why should a republican couple get more benefits then a demtard couple

you fuckers always claim to be the champions of fair play

would that be fair

Name the benefits gays received that straights did not.

 

[jon_berzerk]

seems reasonable

Really? It seems "reasonable" to deny benefits only to gay couples who are married? Flesh out the reasonableness of that for us, won't you.

yeah it does

So it would be "reasonable" for San Francisco to deny marriage benefits to Christian couples? Republican couples? Explain how it is reasonable to deny marriage benefits to legally married couples.

that is for their courts to decide not me dumb shit

have you even bothered to read the opinion of the court

unlikely

Austin American-Statesman Document Viewer

the plaintiffs claimed that Houston benefits policy goes further than the Obergefell (federal) decision required

the state agreed

using your lame examples why should a republican couple get more benefits then a demtard couple

you fuckers always claim to be the champions of fair play

would that be fair

Name the benefits gays received that straights did not.

obviously you have not read the opinion

check it out some time dipshit

 

[Seawytch]

Texas law prohibits same-sex couples from receiving such benefits. After the Supreme Court struck down the federal same-sex marriage ban in 2013, the Houston city attorney advised then-Mayor Annise Parker that this prohibition ran afoul of the Constitution. While the Texas law remains on the books, Parker mandated that it no longer be enforced in Houston, ordering the city to “extend benefits” to government employees’ same-sex spouses who’d been legally married elsewhere. (At this point, Texas’ same-sex marriage ban had not yet been struck down.) Two taxpayers, Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks, challenged Parker’s directive shortly thereafter, arguing that by granting benefits to same-sex couples, Houston was “expending significant public funds on an illegal activity.” (When Parker left office, current Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner stepped in as the defendant.)

A state trial court agreed and blocked the new policy. While the city appealed that decision, the Supreme Court issued Obergefell in June 2015, invalidating state-level same-sex marriage bans. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applied Obergefell to Texas several days later in a case called De Leon v. Abbott, striking down the state’s bar on same-sex marriage. In light of these decisions, a state appeals court reversed the block on same-sex benefits in Houston and sent the case back down to the trial court “for proceedings consistent with Obergefell and De Leon.” Pidgeon and Hicks appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court, which initially refused to take the case. After a group of high-profile Republicans urged the justices to reconsider, however, the court reversed course and heard arguments in March. (The justices on the Texas Supreme Court are elected and occasionally face primary challenges from the right.)

Now the justices have ruled, and their decision is a blow to the constitutional equality of same-sex couples. According to the court, Obergefell “did not address and resolve” the “specific issue” of state spousal benefits. Therefore, the state appeals court erred in ordering the trial court to resolve the case “consistent with Obergefell and De Leon.” Instead, the Texas Supreme Court insisted, the trial court must settle the issue itself—keeping in mind that Obergefell “did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.”

Texas Supreme Court Defies Obergefell, Refuses to Extend Spousal Benefits to Same-Sex Couples

So "reasonably" when this gets to the SCOTUS, how do you think they're going to rule? Will they rule that all must be treated equally or that local governments can decide which married couples are deserving of benefits?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

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

Did your "wife" and you create them together?

 

[Seawytch]

Really? It seems "reasonable" to deny benefits only to gay couples who are married? Flesh out the reasonableness of that for us, won't you.

yeah it does

So it would be "reasonable" for San Francisco to deny marriage benefits to Christian couples? Republican couples? Explain how it is reasonable to deny marriage benefits to legally married couples.

that is for their courts to decide not me dumb shit

have you even bothered to read the opinion of the court

unlikely

Austin American-Statesman Document Viewer

the plaintiffs claimed that Houston benefits policy goes further than the Obergefell (federal) decision required

the state agreed

using your lame examples why should a republican couple get more benefits then a demtard couple

you fuckers always claim to be the champions of fair play

would that be fair

Name the benefits gays received that straights did not.

obviously you have not read the opinion

check it out some time dipshit

I did. I read the entire thing...and I know the history behind it too. Gays did not receive any benefits in addition to what straight married couples received. They received the exact same benefits.

 

[Seawytch]

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

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

Did your "wife" and you create them together?

Yes we did...with a little help from a friend. He didn't put the sperm in, she did

 

[danielpalos]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the financial benefits of marriage do not have to be granted to same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.

What sanity do you claim?

This is the law:

Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. This amendment is self-operative.

 

[jon_berzerk]

yeah it does

So it would be "reasonable" for San Francisco to deny marriage benefits to Christian couples? Republican couples? Explain how it is reasonable to deny marriage benefits to legally married couples.

that is for their courts to decide not me dumb shit

have you even bothered to read the opinion of the court

unlikely

Austin American-Statesman Document Viewer

the plaintiffs claimed that Houston benefits policy goes further than the Obergefell (federal) decision required

the state agreed

using your lame examples why should a republican couple get more benefits then a demtard couple

you fuckers always claim to be the champions of fair play

would that be fair

Name the benefits gays received that straights did not.

obviously you have not read the opinion

check it out some time dipshit

I did. I read the entire thing...and I know the history behind it too. Gays did not receive any benefits in addition to what straight married couples received. They received the exact same benefits.

no you didnt

or you would not be asking so many ignorant questions

you do not even understand what happened

--LOL

(the SC didnt give an opinion one way or the other )

other then neither the plaintiffs or the city had a chance

to argue their side

so it was remanded

(remanded) sent back to the lower courts

 

[Timmy]

Tou understand you righties are cheering for less freedom!

 

[jon_berzerk]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

seems reasonable

Really? It seems "reasonable" to deny benefits only to gay couples who are married? Flesh out the reasonableness of that for us, won't you.

yeah it does

all bones an no flesh? Flesh it out.

go read the opinion

 

[jon_berzerk]

Tou understand you righties are cheering for less freedom!

how do you figure the lack of due process to be more freedom

--LOL

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Tou understand you righties are cheering for less freedom!

Or more religious freedom

 

[Seawytch]

So it would be "reasonable" for San Francisco to deny marriage benefits to Christian couples? Republican couples? Explain how it is reasonable to deny marriage benefits to legally married couples.

that is for their courts to decide not me dumb shit

have you even bothered to read the opinion of the court

unlikely

Austin American-Statesman Document Viewer

the plaintiffs claimed that Houston benefits policy goes further than the Obergefell (federal) decision required

the state agreed

using your lame examples why should a republican couple get more benefits then a demtard couple

you fuckers always claim to be the champions of fair play

would that be fair

Name the benefits gays received that straights did not.

obviously you have not read the opinion

check it out some time dipshit

I did. I read the entire thing...and I know the history behind it too. Gays did not receive any benefits in addition to what straight married couples received. They received the exact same benefits.

no you didnt

or you would not be asking so many ignorant questions

you do not even understand what happened

--LOL

(the SC didnt give an opinion one way or the other )

other then neither the plaintiffs or the city had a chance

to argue their side

so it was remanded

(remanded) sent back to the lower courts

I just posted the timeline of the ruling. This is headed to the SCOTUS.

Again, there are no benefits gays got in addition to benefits straights received. This case was about timing, but bass ackward Texas Republicans want to make it bigger.

Instead, the Texas Supreme Court insisted, the trial court must settle the issue itself—keeping in mind that Obergefell “did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.”

 

[Seawytch]

Tou understand you righties are cheering for less freedom!

Or more religious freedom

How is it "religious freedom" to deny gay married city employees the same benefits given straight married city employees?

This isn't about some baker refusing to bake a fucking wedding cake. This is the government, as an employer, being able to arbitrarily deny benefits to some legally married couples.

 

[Preacher]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

Not enough social morals for free to bear True Witness to their own State supreme law of the land?

Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. This amendment is self-operative.

Funny how they weren't denied ANY rights based on ANY of those things! Funny how that works and even if it said sexual preference well homosexuality is a mental illness not a sexual preference.

Yes; they are being denied and disparaged based on sex.

Did you know, our federal Constitution was Intelligently Designed to be both gender and race neutral, from Inception?

REALLY! It bans males from marrying?! WOW! Better tell all those straight guys marrying women in Texas! Oh and no the Constitution was NOT race neutral it specifically says

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

OURSELVES (WHITE MEN) and OUR POSTERITY (Their children and children's children etc etc etc)