Supreme Court: Texas Has Right to Deny Gay Spousal Benefits

[Swordsmyth]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday swatted down an appeal by Houston to ensure that gay spouses working for the city are entitled to government-subsidized workplace benefits, allowing the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter to stand. Houston had challenged a ruling by the Texas Supreme Court in June that overturned a lower court’s decision to grant spousal benefits to gay city employees. The state’s all-Republican high court had issued its ruling amid pressure from conservative officials who argued that Texas may be able to limit the scope of the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which held that same-sex couples should be granted the fundamental right to marry. The Texas court argued that while Obergefell gives same-sex couples the right to marry, it does not necessarily grant them benefits. Monday’s decision was handed down quietly, with no comment or explanation. The move quickly triggered condemnation by activists.

More at: https://www.apnews.com/c925b94a7cc6475587a770e4d3235bea?utm_campaign=Soci alFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics

[phill4paul]

:eek::eek:::eek:

[r3volution 3.0]

So the "benefits" are welfare-state benefits ("government-subsidized workplace benefits")?

If so, that's swell, but missing the larger point, isn't it (i.e. that no one should have such benefits)?

O well, Culture War™

[phill4paul]

OK. After reading other account they just rejected the appeal. They didn't actually vote on it.

Which just goes to show the sham that the Clowns in Gowns have become. They pick and chose which cases they choose to make a decision about. And honestly, the Constitution fucked up by not restricting their power as the other two branches were. Who the fuck are these nine Nazgul that are influenced by the ring of power to reinterpret that which is set in word?

[phill4paul]

So the "benefits" are welfare-state benefits ("government-subsidized workplace benefits")?

If so, that's swell, but missing the larger point, isn't it (i.e. that no one should have such benefits)?

O well, Culture War™

State rights vs. Federal prohibition? The original intent of the Republic?

We'll agree all day long if a state should have the capacity to create benefits for it's employees by theft. And, I've argued on here that if the Federal government gives benefits to straight couples it needs to give it to a person and his cat.

But, this is specifically about an appeal the Federal government to force state benefits.