• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Supreme Court rules gay couples not guaranteed spousal benefits

C

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/lgb...les-gay-couples-notguaranteedspousal-benefits

[FONT=&quot]AUSTIN — The Texas Supreme Court on Friday said that while same-sex marriage is legal nationwide, the "reach and ramifications" of the rights of gay couples have yet to be determined.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In a unanimous decision, the nine-member court reversed a lower court's ruling in favor of the city of Houston's decision to extend spousal benefits to same-sex city employees and their married partners. The court ordered the case sent back to the trial court in Houston.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The high court conceded the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage two years ago in Obergefell v. Hodges, but added it is unclear what other rights that decision extends to same-sex couples. That must be hashed out in the courts in cases like this one.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

This is big. The Texas Supreme Court had virtually closed shop on this but then came the national election in November and then under intense Republican pressure they completely turned around. Social conservatives have not even been subtle. This is the case they intend to use to overturn Obergefell or significantly limit its scope. Gorsuch signaled his willingness to limit spousal rights of gay couples just days ago in a dissent he wrote for an overturned Arkansas law that allowed a stepparent in a married, heterosexual relationship to be listed on a birth certificate but not a stepparent in a married, same sex relationship. The only thing social conservatives need now is Justice Kennedy to retire. Then Republicans can use their current state muscle to begin chipping away at the benefits of marriage for same sex couples. The new mantra will likely be "my tax dollars should not subsidize gay marriage" and a legalistic ji jitsu of finding innumerable ways to deny to some married couples what is guaranteed to others.
 
It will go to the Federal Court system then. Not sure what will become of it there, but I suppose we'll see.
 
If my tax dollars have to subsidize christian marriage you ****ers can learn to get over it as well. The government is not a weapon for you to attack the groups you hate.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If my tax dollars have to subsidize christian marriage you ****ers can learn to get over it as well. The government is not a weapon for you to attack the groups you hate.
Click to expand...

Your tax dollars don't subsidize any marriage. a marriage is a ceremony and they pay a fee to have it.
 
SocialD said:
Your tax dollars don't subsidize any marriage. a marriage is a ceremony and they pay a fee to have it.
Click to expand...

You're right, which is why their argument is beyond stupid. Other people getting married has no effect on their lives whatsoever. They're bitter, religious zealots who want to use the government as a weapon to hurt people they've arbitrarily labeled as "sinners".
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You're right, which is why their argument is beyond stupid. Other people getting married has no effect on their lives whatsoever. They're bitter, religious zealots who want to use the government as a weapon to hurt people they've arbitrarily labeled as "sinners".
Click to expand...

'Other people getting married has no effect on their lives whatsoever.' I agree with that. Honestly I wish government would stay out of marriage completely.
 
SocialD said:
'Other people getting married has no effect on their lives whatsoever.' I agree with that. Honestly
I wish government would stay out of marriage completely.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Tell the right-wing evangelicals in Texas that.

My guess is that the U. S. Supreme Court will have something to say about this.
 
CriticalThought said:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/lgb...les-gay-couples-notguaranteedspousal-benefits



This is big. The Texas Supreme Court had virtually closed shop on this but then came the national election in November and then under intense Republican pressure they completely turned around. Social conservatives have not even been subtle. This is the case they intend to use to overturn Obergefell or significantly limit its scope. Gorsuch signaled his willingness to limit spousal rights of gay couples just days ago in a dissent he wrote for an overturned Arkansas law that allowed a stepparent in a married, heterosexual relationship to be listed on a birth certificate but not a stepparent in a married, same sex relationship. The only thing social conservatives need now is Justice Kennedy to retire. Then Republicans can use their current state muscle to begin chipping away at the benefits of marriage for same sex couples. The new mantra will likely be "my tax dollars should not subsidize gay marriage" and a legalistic ji jitsu of finding innumerable ways to deny to some married couples what is guaranteed to others.
Click to expand...

If Justice Kennedy retires soon and President Trump succeeds in appointing a second originalist justice, I hope the Court will undo some of its mistakes. That could take some time--it is probably too soon to overrule Kennedy's lawless diktat in Obergefell.
 
CriticalThought said:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/lgb...les-gay-couples-notguaranteedspousal-benefits



This is big. The Texas Supreme Court had virtually closed shop on this but then came the national election in November and then under intense Republican pressure they completely turned around. Social conservatives have not even been subtle. This is the case they intend to use to overturn Obergefell or significantly limit its scope. Gorsuch signaled his willingness to limit spousal rights of gay couples just days ago in a dissent he wrote for an overturned Arkansas law that allowed a stepparent in a married, heterosexual relationship to be listed on a birth certificate but not a stepparent in a married, same sex relationship. The only thing social conservatives need now is Justice Kennedy to retire. Then Republicans can use their current state muscle to begin chipping away at the benefits of marriage for same sex couples. The new mantra will likely be "my tax dollars should not subsidize gay marriage" and a legalistic ji jitsu of finding innumerable ways to deny to some married couples what is guaranteed to others.
Click to expand...

Anything else would seem unconstitutional. Or how can Congress pass a law that forces consciously objecting persons to pay for crimes against their God's commandments?
 
CriticalThought said:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/lgb...les-gay-couples-notguaranteedspousal-benefits



This is big. The Texas Supreme Court had virtually closed shop on this but then came the national election in November and then under intense Republican pressure they completely turned around. Social conservatives have not even been subtle. This is the case they intend to use to overturn Obergefell or significantly limit its scope. Gorsuch signaled his willingness to limit spousal rights of gay couples just days ago in a dissent he wrote for an overturned Arkansas law that allowed a stepparent in a married, heterosexual relationship to be listed on a birth certificate but not a stepparent in a married, same sex relationship. The only thing social conservatives need now is Justice Kennedy to retire. Then Republicans can use their current state muscle to begin chipping away at the benefits of marriage for same sex couples. The new mantra will likely be "my tax dollars should not subsidize gay marriage" and a legalistic ji jitsu of finding innumerable ways to deny to some married couples what is guaranteed to others.
Click to expand...

TX SCOTUS should be thrown in jail for perjury for claiming Obergefell is not clear about what rights are extended to same sex couples
Baker v. Nelson
must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged
by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid
to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil
marriage on the same terms and conditions as oppositesex
couples.
Click to expand...

Obergefell clearly states that SS couples must have all the priviliges of marriages
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If my tax dollars have to subsidize christian marriage you ****ers can learn to get over it as well. The government is not a weapon for you to attack the groups you hate.
Click to expand...

Which is why Congress may not pass laws that restrict religious practice, which forcing them to pay for other's sin definitely is. This is totally unconnected with whether or not homosexual activities are cool or not.
 
joG said:
Which is why Congress may not pass laws that restrict religious practice, which forcing them to pay for other's sin definitely is. This is totally unconnected with whether or not homosexual activities are cool or not.
Click to expand...

By that logic, not one single tax dollar of mine should be spent on people that I've abritrarily labeled as morally undesirable such as christians. They shouldn't be allowed to get married, own property, or have the same rights as everyone else because I have some stupid prejudice against them.

Or we could accept that we're all equal under the law and nobody gets any special privileges.
 
Texas....nuff' said
 
This whole issue MUST come down to a separation of the "social contract" of marriage and the "civil contract" of marriage. If two people want to form a legal partnership that somewhat parallels marriage, then set up a legal status that reflects that strictly civil relationship. If two people want to have a "social marriage" where they pledge their undying love for each other and commit to each other, then they can do that all they want, but it doesn't form the civil partnership. If someone wants to form a civil partnership, then as long as both parties are legal adults, with the mental capacity to legally enter into such an agreement, then let them be "civil partners" or whatever name you want to apply to the legal status.
 
faithful_servant said:
This whole issue MUST come down to a separation of the "social contract" of marriage and the "civil contract" of marriage. If two people want to form a legal partnership that somewhat parallels marriage, then set up a legal status that reflects that strictly civil relationship. If two people want to have a "social marriage" where they pledge their undying love for each other and commit to each other, then they can do that all they want, but it doesn't form the civil partnership. If someone wants to form a civil partnership, then as long as both parties are legal adults, with the mental capacity to legally enter into such an agreement, then let them be "civil partners" or whatever name you want to apply to the legal status.
Click to expand...

We call that legal status marriage. I think it's really up to you religious people to draw distinction within your own minds between civil marriage and any personal or spiritual meanings you place on those words
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom