Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, July 12, 2017

In a significant setback for marriage equality, the Texas Supreme Court has allowed the denial, for now, of spousal benefits for government employees in same-sex marriages. The nine-member, all-Republican court ruled unanimously on a case that began after Houston's first openly gay mayor, Annise Parker, granted spousal benefits in 2013 to city government employees who had been legally married outside of the state. Shortly after, a suit accused Houston of violating Texas law, which still banned same-sex marriages. A state trial court agreed with Pidgeon and reversed Parker's order.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Mark Joseph Stern writes in Slate, "The unanimous decision interprets the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges narrowly, questioning whether it compels states to treat same-sex couples equally to opposite-sex couples in any context outside of marriage licensing. Arkansas recently raised this argument at the United States Supreme Court and lost. The Texas Supreme Court's decision may eventually meet the same fate."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The 14th Amendment will render this null and void. Equal protection under the law baby.

#1 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-07-12 04:41 PM | Reply

Awww, look at how cute Laura is being all gullible sitting up on her Purity Pony.

I warned you specifically about this and other things that should have been of enough importance to liberals to try to convince you to be pragmatic. When Justice Kennedy retires and Trump (or worse, Pence) gets to place another Gorsuch on the bench it's all gone.

#2 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-07-12 04:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Awww, look at how cute Laura is being all gullible sitting up on her Purity Pony.
I warned you specifically about this and other things that should have been of enough importance to liberals to try to convince you to be pragmatic. When Justice Kennedy retires and Trump (or worse, Pence) gets to place another Gorsuch on the bench it's all gone.

POSTED BY REAGAN58 AT 2017-07-12 04:58 PM | REPLY

Awwwwwwwwwwwwww Reagan talking out of the keister again. How cute.

#3 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-07-12 05:11 PM | Reply

The 14th Amendment will render this null and void.

Render what null and void? The court's opinion was procedural, not substantive. It said nothing about whether benefits should or should not be granted. Try reading the opinion rather than what some journalist tells you it says. www.documentcloud.org

Equal protection under the law baby.

Far too simplistic to have any meaning.

#4 | Posted by et_al at 2017-07-12 05:11 PM | Reply

#4 | POSTED BY ET_AL

I get that you are a lawyer but did you want LauraMohr to write a legal treatise here?

The article is pretty poorly written. The Court didn't allow anything. They merely found instructing the trial court to follow De Leon as binding was not legally correct. Instead, it should have been viewed merely as instructive.

It's pretty clear a ruling that same sex couples aren't entitled tot he same benefits is highly unlikely to survive on the Federal circuit due to SCOTUS's ruling in Obergefell under a 14th Amendment analysis. But it's also very likely, especially from the wording of the opinion, that the trial court will follow De Leon and rule in favor of same sex benefits.

#5 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-07-12 05:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

... but did you want LauraMohr to write a legal treatise here?

No.

The article is pretty poorly written.

My point and one that I've made many, many times. Never, ever, rely on journalists to accurately report on legal matters.

#6 | Posted by et_al at 2017-07-12 05:46 PM | Reply

Texas, any surprise?????

#7 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2017-07-12 08:10 PM | Reply

"The unanimous decision interprets the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges narrowly, questioning whether it compels states to treat same-sex couples equally to opposite-sex couples in any context outside of marriage licensing."

As Afkabl2 knows, it's all about the benefits.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-12 11:55 PM | Reply

The 14th Amendment will render this null and void. Equal protection under the law baby.

#1 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2017-07-12 04:41 PM | REPLY

Gorsuch will say otherwise. But her emails.

#9 | Posted by 726 at 2017-07-13 07:18 AM | Reply

When Justice Kennedy retires and Trump

You give Trump too much credit. He had no clue, probably still doesn't, who Gorsuch is.

#10 | Posted by 726 at 2017-07-13 07:19 AM | Reply

"Awwwwwwwwwwwwww Reagan talking out of the keister again. How cute."

Attempting to communicate with you but you have closed your mind, I don't want to read your whining posts when what Reagan warns you about happens.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-13 09:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ummm. It's freakin Texas.

One of the most hung up states in the union.

Aren't they are still having trouble accepting interracial marriages and the ------- voting there?

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-07-14 01:24 PM | Reply

May God bless Texas and keep Texas law far, far away from California.

#13 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-07-14 01:38 PM | Reply

#13

Amen. I think also the Texans want to keep California away from Texas. Please build a wall and stop them from moving east as their failed state continues its collapse.

#14 | Posted by rjm53 at 2017-07-14 08:39 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort