Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Supreme Court: Texas Has Right to Deny Gay Spousal Benefits

  1. #1

    Supreme Court: Texas Has Right to Deny Gay Spousal Benefits

    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 Courtís ruling on the matter to stand. Houston had challenged a ruling by the Texas Supreme Court in June that overturned a lower courtís decision to grant spousal benefits to gay city employees. The stateís 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. Mondayís decision was handed down quietly, with no comment or explanation. The move quickly triggered condemnation by activists.

    More at: https://www.apnews.com/c925b94a7cc64...um=AP_Politics
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    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™
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  5. #4
    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 $#@!ed up by not restricting their power as the other two branches were. Who the $#@! are these nine Nazgul that are influenced by the ring of power to reinterpret that which is set in word?

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    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.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-08-2012, 06:04 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-20-2012, 04:14 PM
  3. Texas Supreme Court stops Texas from taking private beach property
    By Nate-ForLiberty in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2010, 06:52 PM
  4. Texas Supreme court
    By itshappening in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-23-2008, 08:42 PM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-17-2008, 12:36 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •