Supreme Court: Texas Has Right to Deny Gay Spousal Benefits

[workinclasszero]

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 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.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-texas-has-right-to-deny-gay-spousal-benefits

[unblock]

1. wtf??? you have the right to marry but not the right to have it mean anything???

[workinclasszero]

2. It would seem so

[Kablooie]

3. I have a sinking feeling this is the start of a huge swing to the extreme right.

I'm sorry but I'm beginning to feel that the right has won.

Public sentiment will largely swing left but they've locked up so much of the countries legal machinery that it won't make a difference.
From now on all legal decisions may be decided in favor of facist and evangelistic values.

We may get a Democratic congress someday but their laws can be overruled by judges who decide that progressive laws are unconstitutional

And it can only get worse since there's a good chance that more liberal SCOTUS seats are likely to be replaced within this Republican presidents term whether Trump remains or not

I'm really feeling down.

[Orrex]

11. When the electoral option is stolen from the citizens, the citizens seek other options

[JustAnotherGen]

23. Agreed

Sadly so.

[bagelsforbreakfast]

26. Sad to say that's my mood also hope its fleeting.

[LenaBaby61]

28. "I have a sinking feeling this is the start of a huge swing to the extreme right."

Yes, the fat clown will more than likely have a few more appointments for the High Court unfortunately. The only chance we have is if we can retake the Senate, and that's NO given, seeing as our voting structure is still SO flawed. Not much has changed since November 8th 2016. The GOP will be coming with major doses of voter-suppression, gerrymandering and we know that the ruskies WILL be doing their part as well in continuing to sew the seeds of anger, discord, racism & hate in THIS country

Anyway, MANY of these RWNJ/unqualified justices that fatso will be appointing will be on the various benches for LIFE.

We're screwed for a generation and more because of these crazy, right-winged rulings we'll be receiving.

Might as well say good-bye to Rowe v Wade, various pieces of Civil Rights laws--Hell, to most pieces of civil rights legislation.

Very dark days coming as far as right-winged court rulings being handed down are concerned.

[vi5]

4. If courts won't help us then we need to resort to the power of the purse...

...Make sure everyone, everywhere knows which businesses don't want our dollars and the dollars of people living in the 21st century. Let's see if they can survive on Republican racist homophobe dollars. And if certain towns or cities or states as a whole endorse and support these discriminatory policies then we should all show them that we all have a right to decide who gets our dollars, support, and business.

I'm not someone who screams "BOYCOTT!!!" at every opportunity but when the court and the law and our politicians let us down then we all have to use the only power that seems to matter in this country any more, the almighty $$$$$$.

[ck4829]

5. So we're just throwing the 14th Amendment out the window, OK

I mean if the spouses of employees of same sex marriage are not entitled to the same rights and benefits of those spouses in a different sex marriage, then that is exactly what is going on.

[Freethinker65]

6. So corporations are people, but people are not. I am ashamed of this country.

[tblue37]

7. This is no different from saying that interracial couples can marry, but that they can still be

denied some of the benefits that other couples receive as a couple. That was one of the challenges to the idea of civil unions rather than marriage for gay couples--that they were not given access to all the benefits that marriage bestowed on hetero couples.

The Loving case was the model for the SC decision protecting the civil rights of gay couples who wish to marry. Just as we would be (rightly!) outraged if interracial couples were denied the benefits of marriage, despite being legally married, everyone should be similarly outraged at this SCOTUS refusal to protect the rights of married gay couples.

[JustAnotherGen]

24. It's frightening

I don't know a single person (including my brother and me) whose parents were met/married prior to or just right after the loving decision that does not watch these cases with laser vision.


They are only a few steps away from deny the very personhood and right to parentage of same sex marriage children - and then we are next.

I really truly deeply believe that anything that happens to the gay/lesbian community is a precedent - for example -

To seize my mother's home and wealth because she was a bad girl who married a black man. I truly believe they will try to over turn it.

They have ZERO regard for decency, common sense, and keeping things calm. They LOVE chaos.

[Roland99]

8. Wait...WTF?!?!

[yardwork]

9. This is really bad. The parties are NOT "just the same."

[bluestarone]

10. kinda tells you what

the gay birthday cake decision is going to be in June, if i'm reading this right

[workinclasszero]

15. Yes and that will open the door to widespread legal discrimination

Get ready for the "Whites Only" signs to reappear.

Plus "we don't serve gay's" no doubt.

[WillowTree]

12. That's not exactly what they did.

All that happened is that they declined to hear an appeal that would have killed a suit filed by conservative groups that would prohibit city governments from providing spousal benefits to same-sex spouses. Effectively, it just allows the suit to go forward while the City of Houston, the city at the center of the suit, continues to provide those benefits, at least for the time being.

This isn't the worst news in the world. Letting the suit work its way through the courts to a final ruling would put this issue to bed once and for all. I think ultimately the conservatives would not get their way on this one.

Of course, I could be wrong about that. Wouldn't be the first time.

[Orrex]

14. I hadn't thought of it that way, and I hope that you're correct (nt)

[riversedge]

20. See post # 18, and AP story. Better explanation but still confusing to me.

[Orrex]

13. What a surprise that "states' rights" are used to discriminate against an oppressed minority

Who would have believed that such a thing was possible?

[brooklynite]

16. Honestly I have to concur with the legality of the ruling

You may deserve a pension, or spousal benefits, but you don't have a right to them.

What you DO have a right to do is take your labor to an employer that respects civil rights.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. That's exactly what my libertarian douche bag Ayn Rand loving co worker says.

In his world, minorities just have to "sell their labor" to a more evolved employer or pay their taxes in a more evolved State or order their lunch from a more accepting lunch counter. The invisible hand of the free market will fix everything!!!

Why didn't anyone think of this!!

Oh Ayn, why did we ever doubt you!

[progressoid]

30. +1

[kdmorris]

29. If you are allowed to be married

And being married to a person of the opposite sex does grant you those rights, how the fuck can you deny the same rights to people who happen to marry someone of the same sex?

Houston challenged the decision by the Texas SC to allow benefits to be granted to same-sex married couples in exactly the same fashion they are granted to opposite-sex married couples who work for the government.

It's not feasible to "take their labor somewhere else". In many cases, these people have seniority and pensions on the line... but they cannot share them with their LEGAL SPOUSES because... their spouses happen to be the same gender.

How is granting spousal benefits based on the gender of your spouse not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?

[GeorgeGist]

31. Equality under the law ...

is not your thing. Got it.

[brooklynite]

32. No, I'm just saying it's not a legal principle when it comes to benefits.

If I worked for the Long Island Rail Road, my spouse (of either gender) would get a free transportation pass. If I worked for the New York City Transit Authority, he or she wouldn't.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

33. Does The Transit Authority deny those benefits based on a same sex marriage?

Or is it they don't offer that benefit to anyone?

[Curmudgeoness]

34. The problem with your argument

is that ALL employees are treated the same in this example. If the benefits are provided to spouses, there is no reason to exempt spouses that you don't like. How would you feel if they exempted any spouses who were of a certain religion, or spouses who were disabled? Benefits are benefits, as long as the company provides said benefits.

[WillowTree]

35. There WAS no ruling!

The Supremes only declined to hear (and, therefore, rule on) the request from the City of Houston to kill the suit altogether. As I said before, they're just allowing the suit to work its way through the system.

The headline on this thread is very misleading.

[underpants]

17. This is what happens when you elect judges let alone elect your Supreme Court

The Chief Justice and the associate justices are elected to staggered six-year terms in statewide partisan elections. When a vacancy arises the Governor of Texas may appoint Justices, subject to Senate confirmation, to serve out the remainder of an unexpired term until the next general election.

[riversedge]

18. US SC decision to reject Houstons appeal of the T couXrt decision came without dissent or comment

This may explain the US SC a bit better. Seems, Tx case not concluded??? not sure.




Supreme Court lets stand Texas ruling on gay spouse benefits


https://www.apnews.com/c925b94a7cc6475587a770e4d3235bea?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics



By WILL WEISSERT
Yesterday


AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a Texas ruling that gay spouses may not be entitled to government-subsidized workplace benefits — a potential victory for social conservatives hoping to chip away at 2015′s legalization of same-sex marriage.

In June, the Texas Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s decision favoring spousal benefits for gay city employees in Houston, ordering the issue back to trial. That was a major reversal for the all-Republican state high court, which previously refused to even consider the benefits case after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision that the Constitution grants gay couples who want to marry “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

The Texas court changed its mind and heard the case amid intense pressure from Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton, as well as dozens of other conservative elected officials, church leaders and grassroots activists. They argued that the case may help Texas limit the scope of the Supreme Court ruling, especially in how it is applied to states.

Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision to reject Houston’s appeal of the Texas court decision came without dissent or comment. The case began with a coalition of religious and socially conservative groups suing America’s fourth-largest city in 2013 to block a move to offer same-sex spousal benefits to municipal employees.

Sarah Kate Ellis, President and CEO of the civil rights group GLAAD, said the U.S. Supreme Court “has just let an alarming ruling by the Texas Supreme Court stand which plainly undercuts the rights of married same-sex couples.”

“Today’s abnegation by the nation’s highest court opens the door for an onslaught of challenges to the rights of LGBTQ people at every step,” Ellis said in a statement.

But other advocates said Monday’s action simply shows the Texas case is not fully concluded, rather than indicating how the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the larger issue...................

[WillowTree]

21. Exactly. It's not decided yet, so all this hand wringing is premature.

[spanone]

19. this court will take us back to the stone ages

[sl8]

22. Article title is a major mischaracterization.

SCOTUS said no such thing. They denied cert for this particular appeal.

Texas Supreme Court decision, to send the case back to trial court, stands.

We don't know what will happen with the trial or any future appeals

Texas Supreme Court decision

[snooper2]

25. Its the daily beast- All they do is clickbait just like RipStory- Notice no "author" is mentioned

The AP title to the story-

"Supreme Court lets stand Texas ruling on gay spouse benefits"


The daily beast sucks ass...just because they promote leftist ideals doesn't mean they are real journalists LOL