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.

go read the opinion

in other words, I don't need to take You seriously, just the opinion piece.

 

[danielpalos]

Tou understand you righties are cheering for less freedom!

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

--LOL

you don't know what you are talking about. What "due process" are you referring to?

 

[danielpalos]

Tou understand you righties are cheering for less freedom!

Or more religious freedom

What freedom?

 

[bodecea]

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?

Do you ask that of every married couple?.....Is it a requirement?

 

[danielpalos]

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)

Why is the right wing, "immoral" enough to bear false witness to their own laws; but, blame less fortunate illegals for being illegal to our own laws.

This is the law, right wingers:

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

 

[bodecea]

Tou understand you righties are cheering for less freedom!

They always do.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.”

This is headed to the SCOTUS.

this has already been to the federal supreme court stupid

what do you think the references to Obergefell v. Hodges is all about

--LOL

like i said earlier you dont have a clue as to what happened




as for obergefell there are more cases headed that way

one is there currently

 

[bodecea]

Tou understand you righties are cheering for less freedom!

Or more religious freedom

For only ONE religion.....the one we should never trust our children alone with its leaders.

 

[Seawytch]

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.”

This is headed to the SCOTUS.

this has already been to the federal supreme court stupid

what do you think the references to Obergefell v. Hodges is all about

--LOL

like i said earlier you dont have a clue as to what happened




as for obergefell there are more cases headed that way

one is there currently

The goal of this case is to challenge Obergefell. It failed before, they exerted pressure and now are getting it to move forward under the premise that states and localities should still be able to deny equal benefits to married gay couples.

It's not going to win. No "reasonable" judge is going to rule that only some married couples are deserving of benefits.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Tou understand you righties are cheering for less freedom!

Or more religious freedom

For only ONE religion.....the one we should never trust our children alone with its leaders.

 

[danielpalos]

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.”

This is headed to the SCOTUS.

this has already been to the federal supreme court stupid

what do you think the references to Obergefell v. Hodges is all about

--LOL

like i said earlier you dont have a clue as to what happened




as for obergefell there are more cases headed that way

one is there currently

The goal of this case is to challenge Obergefell. It failed before, they exerted pressure and now are getting it to move forward under the premise that states and localities should still be able to deny equal benefits to married gay couples.

It's not going to win. No "reasonable" judge is going to rule that only some married couples are deserving of benefits.

so, why did this get past the Texas supreme court?

 

[Seawytch]

Tou understand you righties are cheering for less freedom!

Or more religious freedom

For only ONE religion.....the one we should never trust our children alone with its leaders.

You still haven't explained how it is "religious freedom" to deny married gay city employees the same benefits as straight married city employees.

 

[Seawytch]

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.”

This is headed to the SCOTUS.

this has already been to the federal supreme court stupid

what do you think the references to Obergefell v. Hodges is all about

--LOL

like i said earlier you dont have a clue as to what happened




as for obergefell there are more cases headed that way

one is there currently

The goal of this case is to challenge Obergefell. It failed before, they exerted pressure and now are getting it to move forward under the premise that states and localities should still be able to deny equal benefits to married gay couples.

It's not going to win. No "reasonable" judge is going to rule that only some married couples are deserving of benefits.

so, why did this get past the Texas supreme court?

Political pressure. It's why judges shouldn't be elected.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

Gays are actually number 1 on the GOP "hate" list. This is the list:

1. Gays
2. Muslims
3. Blacks
4. Hispanics
5. Liberals
6. Jews
7. Women's rights
8. Sick and disabled
9. College professors
10. Scientists

They have been number one the longest. People how don't hurt anyone hated by people who hurt everyone. There is a symmetry there.

You wanna know why your list is an obvious fabrication?
Liberals aren't at the top of the list.

 

[Nosmo King]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

Gays are actually number 1 on the GOP "hate" list. This is the list:

1. Gays
2. Muslims
3. Blacks
4. Hispanics
5. Liberals
6. Jews
7. Women's rights
8. Sick and disabled
9. College professors
10. Scientists

They have been number one the longest. People how don't hurt anyone hated by people who hurt everyone. There is a symmetry there.

This kind of hateful rhetoric is the reason that Democrat shot at Republican Congressmen a few weeks ago.

That's hateful rhetoric? Tell me then, what's the virtue of this decision? Why is it good? How does it protect liberty, equality and freedom?

It allows people to form the society, not small activist groups.

It's called the Tyranny of the Majority. The same argument used to justify Jim Crow.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

So you mean tyrant when it says 'I'm so religious I refuse to do the public sector job I was hired to do. My magic is stronger than law!'?

God is stronger than any man or his laws.

Except in an American courtroom. Your argument would work,well for the Taliban though.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

So you mean tyrant when it says 'I'm so religious I refuse to do the public sector job I was hired to do. My magic is stronger than law!'?

God is stronger than any man or his laws.

Not something everyone believes...nor are we required to.

Your right, but non believers will live eternity in hell. You have that choice.

Drop the pretense. Call them infidels.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

So you mean tyrant when it says 'I'm so religious I refuse to do the public sector job I was hired to do. My magic is stronger than law!'?

God is stronger than any man or his laws.

Except in an American courtroom. Your argument would work,well for the Taliban though.

On judgement day the courts will mean nothing and so will man's laws.

 

[jknowgood]

It is resistance against tyranny, so I'm down for it.

So you mean tyrant when it says 'I'm so religious I refuse to do the public sector job I was hired to do. My magic is stronger than law!'?

God is stronger than any man or his laws.

Not something everyone believes...nor are we required to.

Your right, but non believers will live eternity in hell. You have that choice.

Drop the pretense. Call them infidels.

No, just live under God's will and you will be fine. God's will doesn't include the perversion of homosexuality.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

So you mean tyrant when it says 'I'm so religious I refuse to do the public sector job I was hired to do. My magic is stronger than law!'?

God is stronger than any man or his laws.

Except in an American courtroom. Your argument would work,well for the Taliban though.

On judgement day the courts will mean nothing and so will man's laws.

In the meantime, let's stick with our system of equal justice under the law. Apocryphal arguemnet aside, using religion, particularly a beautiful, forgiving and loving religion, is anathema to both justice and religion.

The Bible is not a bludgeon.