Texas Supreme Court hears challenge on same-sex marriage rights

[DonViejo]

Source: Reuters



01 MAR 2017 AT 13:35 ET

Two Houston taxpayers, backed by Texas Republican leaders, on Wednesday challenged Houston’s spousal benefits for same-sex couples, asking the state’s highest civil court to re-examine parts of a landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage.

Lawyers for Houston said in opening arguments at the Texas Supreme Court that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that same-sex marriages should be treated equally nationwide and its decision means Houston is obliged to provide the benefits.

Human rights groups contend the case tries to erode the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on an already-settled matter. Petitioners countered the top U.S. court’s decision on same-sex marriage is poorly reasoned and the couples are not entitled to the spousal employment benefits.

“A state court’s ultimate obligation is to the Constitution, not to the jargon and innovations created by Supreme Court justices,” the petitioners said in court papers. Jonathan Mitchell, a petitioners’ lawyer, told the Texas court it should be up to the state to decide whether to extend spousal benefits to same-sex couples.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/texas-supreme-court-hears-challenge-on-same-sex-marriage-rights/

[angrychair]

1. I'm....confused...

About what their point is

First off, there is no marriage and same-sex marriage...it's just marriage. It's not different or a special right.
If you are legally married, the spouse is entitled to benefits as a spouse.

What is confusing or in contention?

Is their broader point that spouses should not be offered benefits?

This makes zero sense to me.

[LonePirate]

2. Their point is that they are bigots. This case should be laughed out of court.

They are trying to overturn a SCOTUS decision in a state court. No way is that possible but then again, this is in Texas.

If the plaintiffs want the slimmest chance of victory, they would go after all spousal benefits. However, they are perfectly fine with benefits for heterosexual spouses. The SCOTUS ruling overrules that so this is a pretty simple case to reject.

[Renew Deal]

7. That's all this is about

Hate

[asiliveandbreathe]

3. Thank you angrychair...TX high court - what part of the SCOTUS

legal opinion don't they understand....and, in what way would 2 Houston taxpayers even have standing -

So much chaos surrounding so many issues that affect so many lives...I just don't get it!

[gay texan]

4. the bible thumpers are

Throwing a hissy fit

[Ligyron]

8. They must feel emboldened by Trump's "victory".

Should have frivilous lawsuit statutes thrown at them and make them pay court costs.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Republicans only refer to the Constitution

when it suits their end game. Otherwise it should be ignored because its
flexible and living, or it should be stone because it's based on original
intent, as in what did John Adams think about silicon chip patents or
IT privacy statutes.

[Grins]

6. Yup!

“A state court’s ultimate obligation is to the Constitution, not to the jargon and innovations created by Supreme Court justices."

And therein lies their real reason. Those damn 'activist judges'. They openly scream Supreme Court rulings they don't like are invalid and, somehow, it's the Democrats who are the extremists.

[Yo_Mama]

9. WTH? Just - incredible. Clueless idiotic waste of time. n/t