BREAKING: Texas Supreme Court Rules Married Gays Have No Inherent Right To Government Benefits

The Austin Statesman reports:

A unanimous Texas Supreme Court concluded Friday that there is no inherent right to government-provided spousal benefits in same-sex marriages. The 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established the right to same-sex marriage did not decide all marriage-related matters, leaving room for state courts to explore the decision’s “reach and ramifications,” the Texas court said.

Supporters of gay marriage have vowed to appeal such a ruling to the federal courts, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court clearly stated that all marriages must be treated equally. The case arose out of then-Houston Mayor Annise Parker’s 2013 decision to grant benefits to same-sex spouses of city employees who had married in other states. While an appeal from Houston was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its June 2015 opinion that overturned state bans on gay marriage, prompting the appeals court to lift the injunction.

More from the Texas Tribune:

The decision by the Texas Supreme Court to take up the case was regarded as an unusual move because it had previously declined to take it up last year. That allowed a lower court decision, which upheld benefits for same-sex couples, to stand. But the state’s highest civil court reversed course in January after receiving an outpouring of letters opposing the decision. They also faced pressure from Texas GOP leadership — spearheaded by Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — who asked the court to clarify that Obergefell does not include a “command” to public employers regarding employee benefits.

  • The new Jim Crow

    • S1AMER

      Not quite. With Jim Crow, racists at least pretended separate could be equal. The homophobes aren’t even willing to pretend when it comes to our rights.

      • I for one am NOT going to pretend as a Black gay man that separate is equal and there lies a problem for them because I and others WILL fight and continue to FIGHT until it is corrected…I am not going to wait for Democrats or some shift in power…I have done my cardio and I am coming out swinging and ready to engage…

        • Juliaswood

          my roomate’s mother gets $62 an hour at home and she’s been out of work for 2 months. last month her pay was $19199 just working on the laptop for 3 hours a day.➤ look at ➤ this site

      • Nowhereman

        They actually claim that we don’t even exist.

        • glass

          Stupid I know. So if we don’t exist, then why are they so upset over same-sex marriage? Since same gendered people are not actually getting married, since we don’t exist, what’s all the fuss about?
          And why do they want to “reclaim” the rainbow flag? Since we don’t exist, who are they reclaiming it from?
          Christians have no clue how to defend an argument. Prop8 & Obergefell proved that. They didn’t have invalid arguments, they had no arguments.

          We’re Here, We’re Queer, Get Used To It!

          • prixator

            Don’t you know? To them we are choosing to be gay just to rebel against their Lard!

          • Steve Teeter

            Christian defending an argument: “But we’re right and they’re wrong! It says so right here in the Bible. See? Read it, read it, right there. What more do you need?”

            And they think this should actually sway a court.

          • Nowhereman

            They really don’t make any sense. And they call themselves christians, yet go to the old testament to hate on us. They should live by levitican laws themselves if that is how it is.

          • glass

            I’ve always found it odd that “christianity” took Jewish holy documents (the old testament) and claimed it for themselves.
            Their “religion” is nothing more than a twisted, stolen, hate cult.

    • crewman

      Separate but “equal”

    • This will ultimately be struck down, as it violates the equal protection clause. If there is no right so same-sex spousal benefits, then there is no right to opposite-sex spousal benefits.

      If you are married, you ALL get the benefits…. or NO ONE gets the benefits!!!!

      What a waste of time and tax payers money…also the Supreme Court was elected so this court has been positioned to align with certain ideas…

      he US Supreme Court decided Obergefell because exclusions on same sex marriage denied the rights of same sex couples under the Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection clause flat out states *no person* shall be denied equal protection under the law.

      This decision flat out goes directly against the US Supreme Court decision, and when this case goes to the Supreme Court, they will rule against Texas. (And it won’t be the first time that’s happened.)

      • The_Wretched

        Were these regular times, I’d say you’re right. But the TX SCT knows they are 100% in violation of following the law and the USSCT is stacked with loons – especially now that they have that stolen seat.

        • I see your point but the Constitution is not ready to be torn to pieces…what is to stop them from rolling back laws of integration and other key decisions such as interracial marriage…the sad truth is this elected panel has over stepped their powers and will be corrected…

          • Sebastian

            “what is to stop them from rolling back laws of integration and other key decisions such as interracial marriage”
            nothing. that is the point. Based on recent ruling Gorsuch will be more than willing to agree with this ruling, add in safe agreement from Thomas and Alito, and probable agreement from Roberts you just need one more vote. If Kennedy does retire soon that will be end game.

          • The_Wretched

            I hope you’re right. I don’t mind when my pessimism is disproved.

          • Stephen Elliot Phillips

            Oh your on the right track. This verdict (and more to come) is designed to go to a hard right scotus

          • Stephen Elliot Phillips

            Whats to stop a federalist scotus from simply voiding all state/federal employees from govt benefits??
            Its a win/win for the hard right, ayn rand crowd.
            One way to drastically shrink our already dying government is to make it unappealing to work in it

          • well I am not ready to play that game, I know it is easy to do in this day and age…however that is WAY too far and WAY too out there…

          • Stephen Elliot Phillips

            Ill give u an example for your consideration. Mull it over at your convenience.
            Several states attempted to halt marriage licenses for gay couples simply by not giving those licenses to anyone wanting to wed.
            It was a way around the equal protection clause.

          • Yes I know that but that would set a major backlash that would cause WAY too many people to react…you can not decide to STOP equal protection laws to EVERYONE and expect it to go unnoticed and unchecked…it is easy to play “devil’s advocate” but I stand firm in my thinking

          • Stephen Elliot Phillips

            Our country was hacked by russians and most people just go about their business…..
            Whats to stop unelected scotus judges from rewriting precedent?
            Yeah there will be backlash, but as uve said about urself. The rethugs have also done their cardio.

          • There are enough moderates and Democrats who have done their cardio…also it is time for people to get out and REALLY push for Democratic candidates during the 2018 mid-term election…DO YOUR PART!!!

          • Nothing. There is nothing stopping them from overturning public accommodations law when the anti-gay baker case gets to them next year. You’ve read the minority opinions on all these cases, I assume. If those were the majority opinions they’d have done that a long time ago. The right has been arguing that people should be able to hire and fire and serve or refuse to serve anyone for any or no reason for decades now. You didn’t think they were serious?

          • Nowhereman

            I’m wondering if they do overturn the public accommodations law, will that open the floodgates to go back to Jim Crow?

          • No. Not exactly, anyway. Jim Crow was apartheid. The states with those laws required discrimination. It wasn’t that it was allowed. It was required. I don’t see that happening again. But with the repeal of those laws it could be legal to refuse service on the basis of race or not hire or promote women etc. Some would do this, most probably wouldn’t. (There’s being racist and then there’s needing paying customers.) But it would still be bad, especially in areas where there would be local celebration of that discrimination which is more of the country than people care to admit.

        • If I were Obama I would have not conceded and appointed a judge..I would have KEPT on trying and trying until it was an international incident…that is one thing that I truly lost respect of him and the Democrats…

          • The_Wretched

            Obama and the national level dems lack of fight is a big reason why I’m not on the democratic team. I vote for dems since we’re stuck with binary choices but I don’t support them.

          • They are in a lose-lose position. If they cheat, like Republicans do, then they will be held to a higher standard and NOT get away with it. If they play fair against cheaters, they lose. I’m not sure what the solution is.

          • The_Wretched

            Even though the right wingers are usually the close minded ones who can’t think outside their bubble, they manage creative bs with some regularity.

          • JMS

            Term limits and removal of all gerrymandering. straight population districts based on city and number based on population and no crazy lines. it’s a city… that city has 90% of the state population so they get 9/10 representatives. do that for all elected official seats in every branch. the system was setup to give rural voters more of a voice, but that voice isn’t even conservative anymore…. it’s just plain hate speech. When you have 10% of a population determining every election because the republican party decided they wanted to value a white farmer’s vote 1000/1 to a black college student… you already have a serious lack of democracy.

          • penpal

            They’re absolutely lousy fighters and get pummeled relentlessly by the Rethugs. Rethugs don’t care about integrity or honesty, they want to win at any cost, and the Dem establishment is inclined to let them. They set the tone, the define the terms, they win the fights.

          • Agreed…Democrats need to do more cardio and come out swinging

          • Belthazar

            There is no constitutional authority under which Obama could appoint a judge. All he could do is nominate a person, which has to be confirmed by the Senate. Also, there was plenty of press about leaving an open spot on the bench; even other judges made comments.

            CNN & MSNBC did numerous stories. If Republican delay having hearings, there is not much that could be done. Embarrassing them obviously doesn’t work.

          • “he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court…”

            There was NOT enough press about this…in my opinion it was glossed over as everyone was drinking Trump Kool-Aide (his comments and tweets were taking center stage) and being swept up into the circus of the election…

          • Belthazar

            Key: …by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. There was plenty of press coverage – all the major networks including Fox news and every legal publication we receive.

            It’s also difficult to embarrass a group that votes against their own bills and policies. For example, the individual mandate was a Heritage Foundation longstanding policy (read the white paper) until the President agreed with them.

            IMO, the consequences of this lies with the voters. As Ninja so often says, elections matter.

          • YES elections do MATTER and when you have 40% of eligible people NOT voting this is a problem and rest assured they were Democrats in that mix…add the Green Party who stole votes it was a MAJOR cluster-fuck in November 2016…

          • Steve Teeter

            I’d like to have heard Obama say: “I have requested the Advice and Consent of the Senate for this appointment and the Senate has declined to give it. Therefore, I have fulfilled my constitutional duty in this regard and shall proceed with the appointment of Judge Garland to the Supreme Court. If the Senate dislikes this I suggest they respond by doing their duty and scheduling hearings. You’ve got 24 hours, bitches.”

          • I would have done just that…gave them a timeline and let it ride…Obama was too measured and balanced in some areas…he needed to be a bit more aggressive and concise!!!

          • This is from the NEWS giants less than 3 minutes REALLY…the giants were in LOVE with Trump and we paid for it…


          • kaydenpat

            Liberal media, indeed.

          • TimCA

            OMG! Really I had no idea. It’s almost unbelievable. No wonder the average citizen never could fully understand the extend of GOP obstructionism… was NEVER reported.

          • The news media stations LOVED Trump and were cashing in on rating profits…so they did not report on many things to keep the American people informed…

          • Phillip in L.A.

            iirc, wasn’t there an opportunity for a recess appointment, which Pres Obama declined?

          • 2patricius2

            That was the problem. I wish he would have made a recess appointment and fought for Garland, when the Republicans put up a fight. Had he made the appointment and sworn in Garland, the SCOTUS would have to have decided whether to screw one of their own, or screw the Republicans in the Senate. .

          • Belthazar

            The SCOTUS had earlier ruled that Obama’s recess appointments were unconstitutional. And with Garland, even Breyer along with the other conservative Justices said it was very likely unconstitutional. At best it would have been a 5-3 decision and worse 6-2 as most Justices expressed concern with such appointments. They sent a strong signal to the President not to attempt.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            Irrelevant. It is easier to say “sorry” after the fact than to ask permission ahead of time

          • Belthazar

            While that’s a cliche answer, it is not based in law. The salient fact would be “Senate Recess”. The Supreme Court in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning expanded the concept of when the Senate would be in recess so that the president could make a [temporary appointment].

            However, it also gave the Senate more control over when it does recess and how long the recesses last. “The gesture toward the Senate’s choices was probably the more important result.”

            Strongly on the Senate’s side, the decision left it largely up to the Senate to decide when it does take a recess, allowing it to avoid the formality of a recess by taking some legislative action, however minor or inconsequential and however few senators actually take part in some action.”

            Nevertheless, it seems you believe that the POTUS can unilaterally nominate and appoint a Supreme Court Judge. Okay, there’s nothing left to say after that.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            ‘Nevertheless, it seems you believe that the POTUS can unilaterally nominate and appoint a Supreme Court Judge.’

            Not only do I not believe it, I did not say it, either! 🙂

          • dotvollans

            but you got it on record… you did SAY it.

          • david fairfield

            I agree. He didn’t fight the big fight, and we have a lot to lose because of it.

          • Andymac3

            It’s very easy to say on hindsight, but I’m sure even up to the last day of voting, Obama thought Clinton would win the Presidency and the Supreme court pick would have been via her administration.

          • Warren Lawler Chansky

            I am soooooo sick of Republican “light” woosey Democrats. Disorganized, impotent and corporate ass kissers.

        • metrored

          All justices that ruled in favor of us in Obergefell are still sitting on the Supreme Court and Texas just decided to take a dump on their legacy. It would take an act of god for them to let that stand.

          • tristram

            There’s a very good chance that by the time this case gets to SCOTUS, one of the Obergefell majority will have been replaced – probably by Pryor. Then it’s up to Roberts.

          • metrored

            That’s if this gets to the Supreme Court. Texas decision is so bonkers that it might not make it that far in the federal courts. Its reasoning is not only contradicted by the very text of Obergefell but by a subsequent Supreme Court ruling issued against Alabama just this week.

          • tristram

            I suspect the 5th Circuit will be glad to pass this case along to SCOTUS.

          • metrored

            We’ll see. I’d like to think the 5th Circuit is less susceptible to intimidation from the Texas Governor and AG. They may be conservative but they don’t live in Bizzaro land.

          • tristram

            5th dsn’t live in Bizzaro land bcz they’ve bn subject to review by a balanced SCOTUS. One new justice = no balance = Bizzaro World.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            There are several comments on this thread that point out the Supreme Court is the ONLY federal court with Constitutional power to ‘revise’ judgments of the highest State courts of appeal. iow, the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals do not have jurisdiction to hear any direct ‘appeal’ or ‘petition’ from this decision by the Texas Supreme Court

          • metrored

            I wondered about that. In that case, it seems very likely that this will be decided by the very people who decided Obergefell. There are rumors that Kendedy is going to retire soon but I think keeping his signature decision from being gutted will give him reason to hold on a little longer… especially now that Goresuch’s intentions on this issue are clear.

      • Why do you assume that? If Kennedy is replaced (or any of the liberals) Obergefell gets overturned when this hits SCOTUS. If the current balance in the court on gay rights stays, they won’t even bother hearing the case, but if there is a shift in the balance you bet your ass they will.

        • Not ready to go into panic mode…the shift of power has been swaying for 30 years and Roe Vs. Wade has stood…I see this staying as the law of the land

          • Chris Baker

            Agreed, people have been trying for 30 years to get Roe overturned, and it hasn’t happened. Obergefell was just ruled on. I don’t think, realistically, the Supreme Court wants to be seen as flip-flopping every few years or so. Especially when gay marriage really doesn’t hurt anyone. The court usually doesn’t re-visit the same issue unless there’s some new issue. Roe could be re-visited, based on medical knowledge and progress over the past 40 years, but what really has changed in the past 2 years that would cause the court to re-visit same-sex marriage? The Robert’s court ruled and I don’t think he wants to be the head of a court that changes it’s opinion every few years.
            That’s just my opinion.

          • VERY WELL stated and thank you!!!

          • Phillip in L.A.

            I agree with your opinion, Chris Baker, fwiw! 🙂

          • Nowhereman

            Let’s hope you’re right. But I have zero optimism.

          • Chris Baker

            I should admit, I am a pessimist myself, in general. But there is always a chance that I could be 100% wrong and Robert could just say “f*** it” and let his court take another marriage case. But I think it really would hurt the image of the court being the ‘final authority’ on the law. (espcially, before Obergefell, there were 21 (?) other lower courts that said same-sex marriage was a constitutional right.)

          • tristram

            Roe argues against you, not for you. It is a virtual nullity in a growing number of states due to state-imposed restrictions. Some of those have been overruled by Federal courts, but as the Trump wave of appointees take over the Fed. District and Appeals courts, the erosion of Roe will accelerate (as will erosion of protections against gerrymandering and voter suppression). The Ohio legislature passed bills banning abortion after 20 weeks and 6-10 weeks (fetal heartbeat). The ‘moderate’ Kasich signed the 20-week no-exceptions ban. If the U.S. House of Reps gets its way, one or the other of those bills – and a number of other restrictions – could be applied nationwide. So without ‘overturning’ Wade, even in a state like Massachusetts performing an abortion after 6+/- weeks (before many women realize they’re pregnant) would be a Federal offense.
            As for SCOTUS, you are right to focus on Roberts – with a second Trump appointment he becomes the swing vote. But there’s no guaranty he would take the heat to protect Obergefell (and Windsor, which is also very much on the block). And it’s perfectly possible that Trump (or Pence) will have two more appointments in his first term, in which case the majority will be far right of Roberts. Barring a miracle – and I’m open to suggestions as to what that would be – I think Obergefell and Windsor will both be seriously undermined, if not overturned during the Trump/Pence presidency.

          • shivadog

            Except Roe Vs. Wade is pretty much a joke in some red states where access to abortion is almost non-existent.

          • Nowhereman

            It’s the old “starve it until you can drown it in the bathtub.”

          • Chris Baker

            yes, agreed. but that is because abortion is such a volatile and emotional issue and there are ways for states to restrict. And it has such a negative perception and shame around it. Thousands show up for anti-abortion rallies, but Bryan Brown can barely get a few dozen to show up. Same sex marriage was barely an issue in the last election. (ok maybe only a minor issue).

          • shivadog

            I hope you are right, but is seems for now they are having success at chipping away at our rights like they have done with abortion. This case could either put a stop to that or open the floodgates depending on how the Supreme Court rules. If this is allowed to stand a lot of red states will follow with similar “Jim Crow” laws.

          • Nowhereman

            Roe v Wade is another one that they would like to overturn. They’ve been waging war on it since it was decided. They will never ever give it up and live and let live.

          • Ah yes the difference of Pro-Birth and Pro-Life is lost on these people…


        • Steverino

          And Windsor would be next, which is opposed to rationale behind this Texas Supreme Court decision. All it would take would be for the U.S. House and Senate to pass a DOMA 2.0, and a president Trump or Pence to sign it into law, where it would be immediately challenged as unconstitutional, wend its way up to a right-wing dominated SCOTUS, and *poof* bye bye federal spousal rights for same-sex marriages, hello “skim milk” marriages with only whatever state rights would apply.

        • David

          I agree with you, but one wrench thrown in the works is that there’s a huge number of us who got married. We’ve been filing our joint taxes and getting our married benefits and they can’t really take that away, so that leaves them having to treat populations differently and that’s a problem.

      • There is Gorsuch, and whoever is going to replace Kennedy [corrected from Stevens . . . ] – and at that point, it may be time for an uprising of some sort. Peaceful, if possible.

        • Phillip in L.A.

          Stevens? Justice Stevens retired in 2010!

          • Stevens? Um, Kennedy, I meant Kennedy! (Another white guy in a black robe)

            I am gong to edit-correcting. Thanks

        • Nowhereman

          I think you mean Kennedy.

      • JCF

        Um….will Kennedy still be on SCOTUS or not?

      • Dustin Nieder

        Dear Texas, when you joined the union you reserved the right to leave it. Please feel free to do this at any point in time.

    • Keiffer

      Hmmm…when I read the opinion I didn’t see that the court said, “of course there’s no right to benefits in spite of Obergefell.” What I read is that they are questioning the procedural process because the lower court’s decision was based on arguments pre-Obergefell and have remanded the case to be head once again by the lower court in light of that.

      Now the court could have just said, “Don’t be silly folks; as SCOTUS has stated teh gays are entitled to ‘the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage.'” and these government benefits fall under that umbrella but they didn’t.

      Stating the obvious but it’s also hypocritical that they elected to leverage the “must go back and re-argue” thing when just a few days ago SCOTUS stated in Pavan that birth certificates were listed among the “governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities” granted in their earlier decision so they could have relied on that.

      Since I’m not a lawyer perhaps someone with more legal training can assess my assessment?

      • when I read the opinion I didn’t see that the court said, “of course there’s no right to benefits in spite of Obergefell.” What I read is that they are questioning the procedural process because the lower court’s decision was based on arguments pre-Obergefell and have remanded the case to be head once again by the lower court in light of that.

        NAILED IT…thank you…I too read it as the same thing…

      • Phillip in L.A.

        I think you got it exactly right, Keiffer–the Court could have done that, but decided to punt and see what happens

      • Chris Baker

        ah, i took a quick look and maybe they are just sending it back to the lower court again? So they didn’t rule on the case, they were sending it back to the lower court.

    • metrored

      There is already a new Jim Crow. If it stands, this might be another new Jim Crow.

  • Gigi

    But I thought only xtians were victims of persecution in America.

    • KnownDonorDad

      And the President.

      • Gigi

        Well he’s a xtian, right? 😉

        • Tawreos

          Those 2 Corinthian guys say so.

          • Opa Karl

            Did you hear about the Two Corinthians who walked into a bar? The third one ducked!

        • Them thar Xtians ain’t so shor… They knowz they’z gotta suport him but wen he talks, it just ain’t got that Xtian ring. Kinda embarissing, so they ain’t gonna talk bowt it 2 much or admit innything. Ya see? Cuz… whatevah…Hey, want a beer or some whattamelun?

        • He says he is, and he says he’s persecuted. A president wouldn’t lie.

        • Oh’behr in Minnesota

          Is that xtra-martian?
          Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

  • Waarki
  • TimCA

    Relax. We’ll soon have several Gorsuch clones on the Supreme Court to uphold our rights.

  • S1AMER

    Let this be a loud and clear wake-up call to anyone foolish enough to believe our rights to marriage equality are secure.

    • Todd20036

      Or foolish enough to think they can “send a message” by not voting or voting for someone with 0% chance of winning an election.

      • Not voting does send a message. That message is “I don’t care enough to vote so feel free to ignore me for the next 2, 4 or 6 years.” That message is heard by elected officials after every election.

        • Lionel Slouber

          There is another thing that is a reverse message to the voters that in some of the Republican ran states they actually blocked people from voting by enacting Voter ID laws and or turning possible voters away or moving places to vote to somewhere else without telling the voters.

  • Stogiebear

    This is utter Dominionist bullshit. Spouses are spouses are spouses are spouses.

    • Todd20036

      No. Because Jesus… and babies….

    • Steverino

      And marriage is marriage.

    • Uncle Mark

      For a state that lowers corporate taxes to ridiculous levels, while trying to court jobs away from California, they should look at this ruling as the equivalence of raising a tax on the higher tech jobs & creative companies they’re trying to woo. Why move a company HQ or facility to a state that’s hostile to 7-10% of your employees & executives? Their desire to punish a group of people, many of them won’t even see or even recognize as gay will have consequences that will affect all of them. Unfortunately, most of those consequences won’t be readily visible, unless corporations actively protest, like they did with Indiana’s prejudice.

  • Greg B.

    An unconstitutional ruling by an obviously activist court. They’re bound by SCOTUS’ 2015 decision. They have absolutely no leeway to create a sub class of marriages. None.

    • TampaZeke

      By the time it reaches the Supreme Court, anti-gay conservatives will hold a solid majority and potentially a super-majority.

      That justice that Republicans stole from Obama while America twiddled her thumbs, is going to fuck us for our lifetimes.

      • Stephen Elliot Phillips

        Yep. These are the shots fired over our bow. Test runs to get one of these cases to a hard right federalist supreme court.
        The massive ramifications of electing a republican prez in 2016 was simply lost on a certain bitching segment of our side.

    • Adam Stevens

      this is a plan, greg. it’s not the law. the Texas supreme court declined to hear the case last year. they knew they would lose.

      now that the new bigot Justice G is on the bench, they feel, correctly, that they have a more sympathetic ear.

      and they are correct.

      this is a carefully crafted plan.

      • Stephen Elliot Phillips

        Oh yes. The evangelicals see how successfully theyve chipped away at abortion to where its almost nonexistent in red states.
        Theyre using the same game plan with us.

    • Phillip in L.A.

      Although, this is exactly (almost) what the California Supreme Court did in In re Marriage Cases: first, it decided that sexual orientation was a suspect class, and that under California constitutional law’s version of ‘strict scrutiny,’ the government needed to show a compelling governmental interest to draw valid classes based on sexual orientation–which it had not done.

      In the companion case, however, the California Supreme Court went on to ‘carve out’ an exception for marriage, just because (apparently–I have never understood the reasoning of this case, although I have read it close to ten times.)

  • Gustav2

    Damn that pesky 14th Amendment!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!

  • Xiao Ai: The Social Gadfly

    It’s such a great feeling to hear how liberal Austin is.

    • TheManicMechanic

      What good is an island of paradise in a big sea of shit?

      • Xiao Ai: The Social Gadfly

        Exactly! And, Tucson is heading that way as well, but people here don’t want to believe it.

  • Kelly Lape

    Faggots need not apply.

  • KnownDonorDad

    As an acquaintance once said, “Texas: America’s Anbar Province of reason.”

  • AtticusP

    See you in court, you backward assholes!

    SCOTUS, that is.

    Anthony Kennedy: please don’t retire. Your country needs you. Now more than ever!

  • Bad Tom

    “An outpouring of letters opposing the legislation…”

    Unless those letters demonstrated A VALID LEGAL ARGUMENT, they should have NO FORCE AT ALL in a legal proceeding. Otherwise they are mere popular sentiment.

    Loving v. Virginia would have been decided otherwise if SCOTUS decided cases on popularity.

    • Chucktech

      “An outpouring of letters opposing the legislation…” means “Y’all undoo this er we’ll vote yew outta awffice.”

      • Bad Tom

        An excellent illustration of why judges should never be elected.

  • ChrisInKansas

    Someone needs to remove any stairs and trip hazards in Ginsburg’s home NOW!

  • TheManicMechanic

    Because Texas and Jesus.

  • Dejerrity

    I wonder how many billions of dollars have been sucked out of the wallets of the citizens of Texas over the decades in order for the government of the state to keep reminding us that the members of that state’s government really, really, really hate America and our freedoms.

    Give the whole fucking state back to Mexico. If they’ll even take it back.

    • Tawreos

      I bet they make us keep the conservatives before they take it back

  • Rex

    Everything is bigger in Texas.
    Including the assholes.

    • Phillip in L.A.

      Reminds me of an old joke that takes place in a Men’s Room, the punchline of which is: “The doctor told me not to lift anything heavy for a few weeks afterwards.”

      You can probably work out the rest!

  • Tawreos

    Fuck Texas!

    • Christopher

      I wouldn’t fuck Texas with someone else’s dick!

      • Frank

        I wouldn’t fuck Texas with Ann Coulter’s dick.

        There. I fixed it for you.

    • Stev84

      It’s always been a disgusting state. Look at at their revolution. That shows how they’ve always been assholes. They were immigrants in Mexico and received a lot of concessions by the Mexican government, but refused to make any of their own. Instead they immediately complained that the official language was Spanish along with all kind of other racial attitudes. And when Mexico abolished slavery they just couldn’t accept that.

  • bkmn

    Supreme assholes

  • Jefe5084

    I bet they are thinking that it will end up with the Supremes, and Mr. Gorsuch will help narrow it with a 5-4 decision.

    • Leo

      They’re hoping it’ll end up there after Kennedy’s retirement after a year.

  • j.martindale

    This is from Obergefel ruling:

    “Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal
    treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices
    and diminish their personhood to deny them this right,”
    Unequal benefits afforded some couples flies directly in the face of the decision. SCOTUS won’t permit it.

    • TimCA

      “SCOTUS won’t permit it.”

      For now.

      • j.martindale

        If Merkel caved, and over 60 percent of Americans favor SSM, the SCOTUS is not going to reverse this decision. I know we face a reactionary court down the line, but the courts have generally looked around and seen the landscape. A reversal on this decision would be bizarrely out of character for the court.

        • Michael White

          and we were all sure that Hillary would be elected.

        • Ninja0980

          The same logic could be used in reverse.
          Alito,Gorsuch and Thomas could state that since since support is so high, no reason we can’t make all of these changes through the legislature and courts then.

          • Sebastian

            precisely, they will side with this decision, Roberts may as well and then they just need one more vote. And Kennedy may retire anytime…

          • Phillip in L.A.

            through the ‘Democratic process,’ in other words! 🙂

        • TimCA

          I’m unconvinced that’ll be necessarily true. We just saw Gorsuch vote to uphold the Arkansas Supreme Court opinion that treated us very differently from our heterosexual counterparts in that state. There’s an equal protection clause in our federal constitution which seemingly, according to these right wingers, is inapplicable to gay people and our rights. When a few more Neil Gorsuchs make it onto SCOTUS , we may very well find ourselves converted into de jure second class citizens.

          • Ninja0980

            But homocons like Guy Benson etc. will still ask us to respect the other side.
            Fuck that.

        • Why wouldn’t they? We’re talking about hard right idealogues on the court. If we lose Kennedy or a single liberal justice our rights are toast. Thinking otherwise is dangerously naive.

          • j.martindale

            Why wouldn’t they? Well, there is Stare decisis. I don’t trust conservatives, either. But consistency in the court has long been a governing tradition. Can we count on it? No. But it does inform our understanding.

          • Steverino

            And that’s the only hope I would have for Roberts being a “wild card” in refusing to go along with overturning any of the marriage equality decisions. He demonstrated this with respect to voting with the 5-4 majority to deny standing at both the appellate and SCOTUS levels to the Prop. 8 defenders (even Kennedy was in the minority in that decision) stating that only California officials (Kamala Harris and/or Jerry Brown) had standing, and since they refused to defend Prop. 8 in court, Vaughn Walker’s decision against Prop. 8 at the district level was allowed to stand. Roberts is no friend of marriage equality, but him being a stickler for court precedents seems to trump his opposition to equality, otherwise. I don’t think it likely it was just a punt to avoid ruling on the merits of the case.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            Agree about Roberts, Steverino! (He might also be a closet case, but that is a unicorn of a different rainbow hue!)

    • lymis

      What these clowns are missing is that there are no inherent constitutional requirements that legal marriage give ANYONE benefits. Texas could presumably strip all state benefits from all legal couples equally.

      What they can’t do is strip state benefits – including access to federal benefits managed by the state – to any subset of legally married people. Not same sex couples, not atheists, not minority religions, not racial minorities, not mixed race couples.

      No, the constitutions doesn’t give married couples the right to any particular benefits. But it does give everyone access to the same rights, whatever those rights may be seen to be.

      • The_Wretched

        ^bingo, the State’s not required to do everything but so far as it comes to ‘married people’ they don’t get to single out a group for less than the base line.

  • CPT_Doom

    Does that mean Blue states can now refuse to recognize any marriages from Texas? (asking for a friend).

  • Jon Doh

    So gay Texans are no longer required to pay state taxes?

    • Stephen Elliot Phillips

      Taxation without reprsentation is tyranny

      • Jon Doh

        And it’s not just the gays they hate, they hate the tyrannys too.

  • So you can treat same sex marriages differently than straight marriages? What about inter-racial marriages? inter-faith marriages? re-marriage after divorce?


    • Chucktech

      ‘Slong as thar ain’t no homos, they’re awl jus fann.

  • Michael

    So glad I left Texas many years ago.

  • Christopher

    Just one more reason, in a VERY long list of reasons, why I will never set foot in that state.

  • Michael White

    They are going to take away our rights just like the right to choose – one chip at a time. They are doing this to get it all before SCOTUS. We have to take back congress in 2018 or America will for sure be Amerikkka

    • They really-really-really hate us.

  • Matt

    Texas, you continue to disgust me. This is what happens when you have idiot governors appointing idiot state supreme court justices. Abbott, Perry, Bush II – what the hell do people expect? Texas is worthless.

    • Adam King

      I think Texas has elected judges.

      • Jonathan Smith

        i think Texas can go fuck off

  • swimboy

    Remember a few years ago when a lot of tech companies relocated from California to Texas? Don’t you think this might stem the tide, or even reverse it?

    I can’t imagine any HR department thinking that Texas is a good idea right now.

    • Tomcat

      I can’t imagine individuals thinking Texas is a good idea anymore.

      • Jonathan Smith

        shit, it was a bad idea around 1836.
        has not gotten much better

  • Ninja0980

    Those who didn’t vote or voted third party thinking the right to marriage couldn’t be taken away?
    Go fuck yourselves.

  • JustDucky

    They’re going to make us waste our time and resources fighting to defend settled law over and over to stall any additional progress on LGBT rights. No surprise. They’ve been doing this shit to women’s rights with Roe v Wade for years.

    But what can you expect from the assholes who are still fighting the Civil War because they don’t like it that slavery is over.

    • Skokieguy [Larry]

      It the shock and awe principal. Throw so much shit against the wall, any one outrage just turns into noise. People give up or tune out, or become number.

      Instead of advancing rights, like ENDA, we have to retrench and fight to maintain the rights we already have.

      • JustDucky

        I think it’s more like a war of attrition. They spent decades weakening abortion rights and now they’ve expanded into attacking birth control. We’re likely to see the same playbook used against LGBT rights.

        After a couple of decades spent chipping away at marriage (and trying out message after message to find something that gets some traction) they’re going to expand their attacks on our rights.

        To them, equal treatment under the law and the right to self-determination of women and of LGBT folks are two different fronts of the same war.

    • Like they did in the 80s and 90s. How much money and time did we spend battling the same ballot initiatives over and over and over. If they lost they’d come back again. And again. And again. They will not give up. They don’t think they are wrong or even could be wrong. And what concerns me is that they may turn violent when they can’t get what they want politically. That new NRA ad was not shocking to me. That’s what every Republican I know talks like when they don’t think there’s anyone around that will disagree with them (which around here is always).

  • Jonathan Smith
  • Michael R

    Texas Supreme Court Rules State Rights Invalidate Supreme Court Decisions

  • another_steve

    “TX Supreme Court: 9 Republicans, 0 Dems”

    And there you have it.

  • The_Wretched

    As Tasty from OITNB might say, that’s some grade-A bs.

  • FlKeysKevin

    This is why I want to punch gay men in the face when I hear them say, “Give the GOP a chance! We’re still married! Nothing will happen!”

  • Ragnar Lothbrok

    WHAT!! This cant stand. The SCOTUS will…….

    Oh fuck.

    • djcoastermark

      Yeah, I am fully confident Neil G will be fair and honest and come to our resc oh shit, just crap.

  • AmeriCanadian

    And so the deconstruction begins.

    • Jonathan Smith

      works for me, the last time the South played that shit, we kicked their asses

    • Igby

      “I see your stupidity and raise you two stupidities.”

  • Ninja0980

    It was made clear to these judges that if they didn’t rule this way, they’d be primaried.
    Bullshit ruling all the way around but one that can sadly be used to undermine our rights.

  • PR

    So there is no inherent reason why gay texans should pay taxes then.

  • Bryan

    Nope. Everyone who marries deserves the “full constellation of benefits.” See you in freaking court.

  • The_Wretched

    Lest anyone thing those TX justices are just stupid, there is no way that they don’t understand what they did is pure power and flys in the face of how law operates.

    • Phillip in L.A.

      Almost all “law” in the U.S. (especially where the highest appellate courts are involved) can be analyzed in this way–as an exercise of raw power. Although I agree with the result in Obergefell, the poor reasoning of, and/or inability to properly explain, Justice Kennedy’s Opinion for the Court makes that case a weaker precedent, as we are now seeing.

      • The_Wretched

        I disagree. Some law in the US is fiat and outcome driven. Other cases are pretty clear that the court took the facts and law at hand and carefully considered rules that decide that case and can be applied in other cases.

        The fiat decisions are notoriously difficult to figure out how to apply in other cases in anyway other than an outcome driven one. The apotheosis of fiat cases is Bush v Gore that said it shouldn’t be cited by anyone for any purpose and was signed per curiam.

        • Phillip in L.A.

          Well, we will have to agree to disagree, then!

        • Phillip in L.A.

          How would you attempt to generally characterize those cases that are “fiat and outcome driven”? Is it because they are cases of a ‘political’ nature? Are they cases a Court should not ever be ruling on? Or is it just because they are such difficult cases to decide in a principled manner?

          • The_Wretched

            Usually I find they are by financial interest. Or the bigger the litigant, the more likely they are to have specious wins. We see that a lot at SCT with corporation’s wins or the police.

  • Adam Stevens

    they will never let us live in peace. never.

    • djcoastermark

      In their minds, hate is a wonderful thing.

      • In their minds, it’s the Christian thing to do.

        • Tomcat

          In their minds it is spaghetti.

          • Todd20036

            The FSM is of one mind.

    • HZ81

      Never. I am reminded (again) of the great Nina Simone: You don’t have to live next to me, just give me my equality.

      I don’t want to shoot guns, go to church or break bread with any of these motherfuckers, but the days of treating us as less-than are fucking over. They can tolerate my ass in court.

      • I have this conversation with social conservatives all the time. They think I want tolerance and acceptance. All I really want is equal protection under the law, to not be discriminated against in hiring, housing and public accommodations and otherwise to be left alone. Enough people already like me. I don’t need their love or acceptance. I just need them to stop getting in the way of me doing what everyone else takes for granted being able to do (like marry).

        • HZ81

          Amen.I always say this so forgive my broken record-ness, but screw your tolerance. You tolerate a crying baby on a plane or a migraine or traffic. We’re equal under the law, so I am not to be tolerated, like straight people are doing us a big fucking favor by letting us be gay in public. Fuck you.

          Ah, that feels better.

          • I deplore the current practice of the obligatory standing ovation, but that aria deserves a standing O.

          • HZ81

            Tanx, you’re too kind. Now stop it! 🙂

          • BudClark

            Agreed. “Tolerance” does NOT equal “equality.”

            I don’t care if you hate my guts for being gay … just don’t mess with me or mine.

        • Christopher Smith

          You talk to social FASCISTS? (the word ‘conservative ‘ was destroyed at least thirty-five years ago by Raygun and his thugs, thank you) why? Serious question.

          • Delphini

            There is always value in having a conversation, provided you aren’t being abused in some way. You probably won’t change the long-term nutcases but there are often lots of people watching who are uncertain of their beliefs. We know for a fact that public opinion has changed rapidly. It wasn’t too long ago that a majority was against gay marriage. That didn’t happen by isolating and refusing to talk to people. Evangelicals like Ken Ham are raising the alarm about young people becoming less strict or outright leaving their faith and a lot of deconverts (like me) can point to logical inconsistencies in the evangelical gay marriage obsession as something that caused us to start questioning.

          • Christopher Smith

            I suppose. However, the catch here lies in ‘provided you aren’t being abused in some way.’ I was never a convert but I was brought up Protestant (Presbyterian, fortunately–one of the least damaging forms of Christofascism at the time) and have always been exposed to many religitards simply because I went to church etc. In my considerable experience, xenophobic hate for and abuse of ‘them’ is utterly central to nearly all religions–and certainly the Abrahamic ones.

          • As little as possible, but the answer would be relatives and location. Trying to finish my disseration and get the hell out of teabagistan. Until then sometimes it can’t be avoided.

          • Christopher Smith

            Yes. I sympathize.

    • Jonathan Smith

      they will eventually DIE.
      We shall still be here.
      It will take DECADES.
      We will survive.
      it wont happen in any of our lives……..BUT it will happen

      • Jonathan Smith

        actually, thats kinda fucking depressing……aint it?

      • I was born in 1962. My first day of first grade was the first day my school was desegregated. Yes, that was 14 years after Brown. Some schools in our are didn’t desegregate until the mid-1970s. By high school though I thought we were moving forward and slowly but surely (with some setbacks) I thought we were getting somewhere. Lately I see that we haven’t made the progress on racial issues that I thought we had and certainly not where I thought we would be by the 21st century. So to think that the anti-gay bigots will just go away in a few years is seriously naive. The racists, certainly haven’t.

        • Jonathan Smith

          few years, no. but they lose more and more ground every year.
          I’m not a fool, i KNOW it’s going to take decades. I’ll be well dead by then, but it SHALL happen.
          otherwise, why keep fighting?

          • Yes. But in the meantime it is going to take a lot more fights. Liberals seem to think they can show up every now and again and do one thing and poof it’s done. The right has known better for a long time. They organized locally all over the country. Liberals thought they could do it top down. Who contols over half the states completel now? Republcians. Democrats have total control of five states. Five. Not even NY (where five Democrats caucus with Republicans in the state senate to form a majority…do you think the GOP would put up with that shit)?

            I don’t know what it’s going to take to wake up the left. I thought 2000 would do it, but no. If this doesn’t then I need to expand my job search internationally because this country is fucked (if we survive the next four years).

          • Jonathan Smith

            just change that to “SOME” liberals, please.
            have a puppy 🙂

          • How about “way too many” liberals?

          • Jonathan Smith

            I’ll give you that one.

          • Obviously some of us show up for midterms and runoffs but not nearly enough. We have the voters, but they don’t show up unless they think it matters. I was mocked for feeling that we needed to convince everyone that Hillary would lose if they didn’t show up and vote for her. Well some didn’t and she lost. I was right. I wish I had been wrong, but I was right because obvious.

  • HZ81

    See you in court, fuckfaces.

  • Ninja0980
  • nope. I am a full fucking citizen. there is no piecemeal steps. this is not a gray area.

  • Tomcat

    Make America Great Again is just code for hatred for fellow man.

  • Rex

    Nice way to end Pride month.

  • -M-

    Wrong. An inherent right to certain government benefits is what being legally married means.

    • lymis

      Sort of. There’s no guarantee to those benefits to the entire population of married people. But there is a guarantee that any benefit that accrues to any couple accrues to them all.

      • Jonathan Smith

        key word there? ANY
        my parents got it…..
        I get it, who ever the fuck i marry

  • Jonathan Smith
  • grada3784

    Not so big a problem for me personally. I wrote off my family in Texas; not to difficult to write off the entire state as a total mess.

    Besides, my chances of marriage in the 10 or so years of life I can reasonably consider possible are like slim and none.

    Going beyond the personal, I am royally pissed. And not in a way that would sexually excite widdle Donnie or President Bannon.

    • Jonathan Smith

      ok. let’s say it dosent affect you personally…… it WILL the next several generations, they are the one’s we MUST fight for.
      not a dig at you, but we CAN NOT let this stand.

      • grada3784

        Did you read my last line?

      • Stephen Elliot Phillips

        Who? the bernie generation that caused this? Let them eat cake

        • Jonathan Smith

          see. no. just wrong. (nothing personal)
          the Tranies started a Riot at Stonewall, should gay people have stood back and said “well, good for them, enjoy jail” or did we jump on that that bandwagon?
          sometimes children DON’T know what is best for them, what to fight for, what to let slip away.
          it is OUR job to make sure the future is there for them, when they are READY to grab it.
          Otherwise, why bother with any of this?
          I won’t be needing rights, I got’s mine, fight for yours.
          just not a world view i can live with. i WILL leave this world just a little better than it was when i came in

  • TexasBoy

    Apparently Abbott’s imaginary friend in the sky dropping a tree on him wasn’t enough of a hint.

    • Jonathan Smith

      tree should have hit harder.

  • JT

    You know it had to be Texas, the asshole state.

    • AmeriCanadian

      I’ve long believed that the closer people are to the equator, the more intolerant they seem to be. I don’t know if it’s the heat or what.

      • The_Wretched

        People from colder places seem to be a lot nicer or at least understand communitarian values better.

        • Karl Dubhe

          You’ve got to pull together, or you freeze in the dark.

          Life in the south is much safer, well except for the bugs, the weather and the people.

        • Phillip in L.A.

          In his classic, De l’Esprit des Lois, Montesquieu made this same argument (in 1748): people from hot countries were more “hot-blooded” and impetuous, etc. (See, e.g., M. de Secondat [Baron de Montesquieu], The Spirit of Laws, Bk. XIV (“Of Laws as Relative to the Nature of the Climate”) [Dublin: Ewing & Faulkner, 1751]).

      • Adam King

        Yet another way climate change is ending the world.

  • Ninja0980

    For all the bigots who say we have to do changes through the legislature, I’ll remind them that here in NY, the minute marriage equality was passed by our legislature, they sued in court claiming the procedure wasn’t done right, it had to be put to a public vote blah blah.
    They don’t want us having equal rights no matter how we get them, period.

    • Stephen Elliot Phillips

      Yeah that logic is just mitch mcconnell bait and switch bullshit

  • teedofftaxpayer

    It’s TEXAS no other explanation is needed. They’re doing the same thing they did to the blacks in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s.

    • Jonathan Smith

      so, i should clear 30 years in my appointment book?

  • TimJ

    Holy crap. They just can’t stand it can they? Assholes.

  • unclemike

    Oh, for fuck’s sake, Texas. Get yer head outta yer ass. #notalltexans

  • Hank

    It is apparent that the Texas Supreme Court is TOTALLY unable to read the Federal Supreme Court’s rulings and comprehend them!!! The arguments, that were made, before the court INCLUDED, the discrepancy of SSM NOT having the same @ 1100 benefits, that heterosexual marriages had.

  • Gigi

    Xtian fundamentalists say that they hate radical Islam and Sharia Law but secretly, they’re jealous of them and it. They want their own version of Sharia Law in America. They want to control the country with laws based on their interpretation of scripture. They’re Talibangelists.

    • Phillip in L.A.

      They do want this, Gigi, but only if they can find a way for Xtians to not be subject to these same laws–they are apparently rehearsing before the Supreme Court of Texas, too!

  • Belthazar

    This flies directly in the face of the EP clause. It’s one thing to determine “married couples” do not have an inherent right to government (or private) benefits but to apply only to SS marriages is completely different. I have to read the full opinion to see how it was crafted around the 14th.

  • Dreaming Vertebrate

    So despicable.

  • Dean

    Brian Brown hauls his lazy grifting ass up and uses this for a money beg in 3…2…1.

  • Doesn’t this decision DIRECTLY conflict with United States v. Windsor?

    • The_Wretched

      100%. the TX judges know it too.

    • Windsor or Obergefell?

    • Phillip in L.A.

      In my opinion, yes, it does directly conflict. However, they can and might argue that Windsor was a ruling about federal law, not about what States can do. I’m not saying it’s a winning argument….

  • danolgb

    “But the state’s highest civil court reversed course in January after receiving an outpouring of letters opposing the decision.”

    This is not how courts are supposed to operate.

    • Mike C

      In Texas a Supreme Court Justice is an elected position. Surprise, surprise.

    • Stev84

      That’s how courts can operate if you are stupid enough to directly elect the judges. Which is the case with a lot of state supreme courts

  • TexasBoy

    So now Texas will waste millions of dollars in taxpayer money in a non-winnable SCOTUS case.

    • Hank

      Let us hope, that by the time, Texas makes its appeals to the US Supreme Court, it will just be refused to be accepted, as most likely, the Federal Appeals Courts can READ and will overturn it.

      • Phillip in L.A.

        Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals have no jurisdiction to hear cases from the highest courts of States; only the U.S. Supreme Court has that jurisdiction, and it is exercised by discretion only. (Please see my earlier post on the same issue, upthread.)

  • Mark

    I fucking hate Texas. Always have and always will. Secede already, motherfuckers.

  • Macbill

    Zeus, what petty assholes. Always calculating ways to show their fucking religious bias in a secular society.

    • Stephen Elliot Phillips

      Always calculating ways to stack the deck in the favor of the straight white man

  • justmeeeee

    Dear God, if you exist (which you don’t) please let Tejas become its own country and lte them have El Cheeto as their leader. And let them leave the rest of us the fuck alone.

  • ok, i didn’t read the ruling. but what was their “basis” for this decision?

    • Tomcat

      They don’t like gays,

    • Adam King

      “Gay people icky.”

    • The_Wretched

      From the decision:

      Petitioners Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks contend that the court’s [appeals court] opinion and judgment impose—or at least can be read to impose—greater restrictions on remand than Obergefell and this Court’s precedent require. We agree.

      The TX SCT says Obergefell means ‘gay get marriage’ and that’s it. PERIOD.

      It’s bs, utter and complete bull. Brown v Board of Education and a host of other rights cases make that clear. I’m ‘throwing things’ mad btw. They know they are engaging in bs contrary to the plain law.

      Their decision reminds me of the over turned case of Bowers v. Hardwick by authored by Justice White.

  • Mihangel apYrs

    No doubt they will continue to take deductions towards pensions that include “spousal rights” from same-sex couples.

  • Talisman

    Welcome to America, the land of the dumpsters.

  • Hank

    You know, that if they could, the State of Texas would take AWAY, everyone ELSE’S Civil Rights, except for White Men!!! Texas is sinking to the level of AL and MS!!!

    • MaryJOGrady

      Sinking? Texas has been there for a good long while. I am so glad I no longer live there.

  • M Jackson
  • joe ho

    This is Gorsuch’s position as well. Soon to be SCOTUS’s position too.

    Thanks again to Green Partiers and Bernie or Busters! Well played! Well played!

    • Treant

      I’m not entirely sure that any of the players could justify a multi-tier set of rights. We’ll have to see, but I’m betting on a circuit court ruling against them and the Supremes not bothering to take this up.

      ETA: But, as you noted, the fact that we’re even having to discuss this is really not great. If it were Garland, we’d be shaking our heads and moving on.

      • Phillip in L.A.

        The U.S. Supreme Court only hears cases from a State Supreme Court if there is a question of law under the United States Constitution (which includes issues arising from federal treaties, statutes, or regulations); such appeals are heard at the Court’s sole discretion (that is, only if the Court grants a petition for writ of certiorari). This also means the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals have no jurisdiction in this type of case.

    • Tread

      I’ve blocked those cünts from Facebook. I couldn’t listen to another word of “Hillary is just as bad” or “The DNC stole the primary.” I hope their fucking protest vote was worth it, selfish assholes.

  • whollyfool

    How anyone can read the law and get this out of it…. Is it too much to ask for people to just do their fing jobs?

  • shellback

    Imagine, a state so perfect in every way, that they can devote all of their time to fucking over people who do them no harm. Fuck off texASS.

  • April

    Pardon my French but fuck these people.

    P.S. I know now I won’t have my surgery in Texas. Not getting any of my hard earned money.

    • Treant

      Best of luck with your surgery! Try New York, they rarely pull this kind of crap…

      • April

        Thanks. Not sure if there are any GRS surgeons in New York state but I will keep that in mind. Progressive states will have the edge.

  • Tomcat

    Isn’t this what they did back when they were trying to stop mixed marriage?
    Even though mixed marriage in Texas is as old as the state is.

  • TexasBoy

    Republicans: Self-touted fiscal conservatives that think nothing of wasting millions in taxpayers money defending clearly illegal laws to appease their imaginary friend in the sky.

  • Tread

    Elections. Fucking. Matter.

  • Boreal

    I keep hearing that demographically, Texas will soon turn blue. When the fuck is that going to happen?

    • Tomcat

      It most likely won’t turn blue. They will turn on the browns before that happens and get them all felonies so they can’t vote.

    • Circ09

      2025 is my guess but only if we have a fair shot at redrawing the redistricting maps in 2020. And the Democratic Party invests some money here to rebuild.

  • Bill Kanouff

    The Texas courts are following Jesus’s word. All should remember the Bible’s message of Intolerance & discrimination. Jesus was clear in his message to judge others show them hate & contempt. Until this country embraces the true word of God & spreads his message oh hate & intolerance we will keep slipping from our heritage as a Christian society.

    • William

      Show me the page where Jesus mentions the gays.

  • Rebecca Gardner

    Un! Fucking! Believable!

    What they have done is created different classes of people. This legally married couple over here is entitled to these benefits, but those legally married couples over there aren’t entitled to shit.

    This is so insane, outrageous, un-American, and just plain mean.

  • TexasBoy

    Christians: The most un-Christ-like humans on earth.

  • Achilles Tsakiridis

    ” Blessed be the fruit …. “

    • ByronK

      May the Lord open.

  • safari

    And today was going so well…

    • Jonathan Smith

      in exactly WHAT world

  • RJ (TO)

    Next up: Non-Christian religions have no inherent right to protection under law.

    • Tomcat

      And mixed marriages.

  • j.martindale

    The Texas Supreme Court evidently has severe reading comprehension problems. This comes from the Obergefell ruling:

    “State laws (prohibiting same sex marriage) 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 opposite-
    sex couples.”

    The states CANNOT determine separate “terms and conditions” for gay couples than they do for straight couples.

    • RJ (TO)

      However, we are now living in an age where “CANNOT” has become “Just Watch Us”.

    • Rebecca Gardner

      You’re assuming they read the Obergefell decision. They probably read the BuyBull to come to their conclusions instead.

      • The_Wretched

        I didn’t get too far past their opening but they argue (9-0) that Obergefell means gays get ‘marriage’ but nothing else. The TXSCT are willfully misapplying and ignoring the decision that they did read.

      • William

        The Texas court must not have had a copy of United States v. Windsor at hand.

    • Daveed_WOW

      They do not have a reading comprehension problem. They have a morality problem.

  • Boreal

    But I got this response to my post in an earlier thread. If this is the way the comments on this blog are going, then I will be to.

    Cousin Bleh
    replied to you on
    Rapper Jay-Z’s Mother Comes Out As Lesbian
    21 minutes ago
    2 hours ago

    Who is Jay-Z?

    Cousin Bleh
    21 minutes ago
    Jesusfuckingchrist, the olds on this site are insufferable.

    One of the most prominent figures in not just hip-hop, but in the music
    world overall (he was just inducted into the songwriter’s hall of fame),
    and a key progenitor of youth and black culture, just released a gay
    anthem. And people here respond with dildo memes, dickish retorts and
    the tiredest of cliches, claims to not know who he is. If you’re really
    so mentally deficient as to disregard the significance of this song,
    just die off already and save everyone else the oxygen.

    • Jonathan Smith

      so, to reply. who exactly is Bette Middler?
      you don’t like “olds” go elsewhere.
      or learn something.
      for some reason I don’t listen to (C)Rap music. sorry i don’t know who he is. (no, actually, I’m not) someday he will be the elevator music you suffer through.

      • William

        That reminds me, I once heard ‘Helter Skelter’ on Muzak.

        • Jonathan Smith

          nothing to say “hey, your old!!!!” than your favorite High School top 10 played on musak.

    • m_lp_ql_m

      Two things:
      1-Not everyone knows everything. Use your ‘olds’ wisdom and grant this insufferable youth it’s ignorance.
      2-It might not be a bad thing to familiarize yourself with Jay-Z. You don’t have to like him (I don’t), but learnin’s a good thing overall usually.

      • Boreal

        I know who Jay-Z is. I was being sarcastic. I don’t care about Jay-Z and I have no plan to listen to his music. I hate rap.

    • Ernest Endevor

      Hilarious. I too have no idea who JZ is and am happy to leave it that way. And I know it’s generational and I don’t give a fuck. I loathe and despise the fake rhymes and rhythms of hip-hop as well as the tired clichés it (mostly) expresses. And yes, I’m aware of its historical routes and cultural significance, just don’t make me have to listen to it. So now, who is this person?

      • Boreal

        A regular poster here in the past.

    • Stephen Elliot Phillips

      Youve never encountered the cuntanimal name cousin bleh?
      Thats par for the course with this species

      • Boreal

        I have encountered it before but today I blocked it.

    • Tomcat

      I left that thread to get away from the hate that was shown for the artist that wrote a gay anthem, and now you guys drag it over to this site, take it back to it’s own site.

      • Boreal

        You don’t get to tell others what to do either.

        • Tomcat

          You are right, I’ll leave to better threads.
          Enjoy your hate.

    • Ragnar Lothbrok

      All I knew was that he was a rapper that I don’t care a single thing about.
      I also feel the exact same way about every single country singer.

      Besides you can’t leave, the leaving committee is on summer break.

  • Talisman

    One SCOTUS seat – ONE – is all that stands between us keeping our rights and a reset of 50 years of progress.

    If any of you married LGBTQ’s think you are safe, think again. They will gladly annul your marriage, take your kids, and put you in prison – or force you into some kind of toretire therapy – just because of who you love.

    And that does not even begin to cover the horror as conservatives “take back” America and make it great again. Women’s rights, voting rights, rights for minority races…POOF!

    And all because Democratic voters are too flighty to see past their own entitled emotions.

    • Tiger Quinn

      I think we’re well aware of that. Would you like us to come over and run some stress beads with you?

    • joe ho


      Liberals don’t understand that politics and voting are tribal. The GOP does. That’s why they win even though their ideas are unpopular.

      If liberals feelings are hurt or they feel they’ve been slighted or they’re not given the awe-inspiring candidate they childishly feel the world owes them, they storm off, stay home, or worse, sabotage the candidate.

      The GOP detested Trump. But they supported their tribe. The far-left by contrast sabotaged theirs. And now a generation of far right judicial activism is the result.

      It’s a self-destructive cycle of far-left behavior that must end.

  • Frostbite

    Can we refuse to recognize Texas as a state?

    • m_lp_ql_m

      We could encourage their secession.

      • William

        Not until I get out of here.

        • Jonathan Smith

          we’ll keep the door open for ya

        • Jeffg166

          Political asylum will be granted to those who ask for it. I expect an exodus from the liberal northeast of all the good religious types to Jesus land. There should be housing available.

      • Frostbite

        I do! And they can take my family members who live there with them!

  • ArchiLaw

    Skim milk.

  • Phil in Colorado

    Wow… All I’ve learned today is that the Texas Supreme Court is made up of nothing more than the governor’s personal bitches…..

  • Ernest Endevor

    OK. Who’s running for re-election and is going for the ‘maverick’ vote?

  • bambinoitaliano

    Welcome to the Middle East of the United States of America.

    • FormerMainer

      What do you mean by that?

  • The Professor

    Assholes. More wasted money. See ya at the Supremes.

  • DJ John Bear

    Oh yes there is, cupcake.

  • Texndoc

    The Texas Supeme Court is entirely elected by voters

    ETA I was going to say that sounds good in theory but when you think about it, it’s just mob rule. (Hate when Disqus freezes)

  • bobbyjoe

    But the state’s highest civil court reversed course in January after
    receiving an outpouring of letters opposing the decision.

    Okay, if you’re a State Supreme Court judge and you’re reversing decisions based on “an outpouring of letters,” you’ve proved yourself so incompetent at even understanding the very basics of your job that you should be convicted of malpractice and removed from your office.

    • TexasBoy

      Yes, but remember, in most states the State Supremes are elected.

    • FormerMainer

      I disagree – Courts often decide which cases to take based upon the importance of an issue to the public. SCOTUS does all of the time.

      • Phillip in L.A.

        The U.S. Supreme Court does not make decisions on which cases it will hear based on cards and letters from the public.

        • FormerMainer

          But it does based upon public interest in a case or issue. Not sure why all of a sudden this long standing practice is being called into question.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            “Public interest” as defined by the Court–it is a term of art

          • FormerMainer

            And what is the concern then of the Texas court?

          • Phillip in L.A.

            Beats the hell out of me. Maybe we should ask them.

  • Tiger Quinn

    August 1 will be one year since we left Dallas for Palm Springs. Fuuuuuuuck that place.

    • Stephen Elliot Phillips

      I begged my partner for countless years to get us the fuck out of south carolina. He has always had the good job to my house husband job.
      He never wanted to leave. Finally his employer found a nefarius way to send him packing.
      After a year of being unemployed he found a job in california. We lost 200k in savings but in hindsight it was money well spent.
      Fuck the south

      • Skeptical_Inquirer

        Well, you can comfort him by telling him that the South is going to bear the brunt of global warming.

        Counties in the South face a higher risk of economic downturn
        due to climate change than their northern counterparts, a new computer
        simulation predicts. Because southern counties generally host poorer
        populations, the new findings, reported in the June 30 Science, suggest that climate change will worsen existing wealth disparities.

    • William

      Out of the frying pan and into the convection oven?

      • Jeffg166

        Yes, but it’s a dry heat. I was talking to a friend who lives there last night that said it really does make a difference until it get to be around 110.

        • William

          We were someplace near Palm Springs when I was a kid. It was summer, the outside temperature was unbearable. That has always stuck in my mind.

          • BudClark

            I live just outside Palm Springs … the heat IS unbearable, but I have EXCELLENT medical care, and I feel relatively safe in California if “war” does come … whatever form it takes.

        • Circ09

          Where does your friend live? I’m guessing West Texas or the Panhandle, maybe? Texas is a huge State with diverse terrain and climate. I can guarantee in most parts of this State we do not have a dry heat. 89 degrees feels like 100 when the humidity is high – which is almost always in North and South Texas. It’s 93 degrees here right now at 6 PM but the real temp. feel is 103.

          • Jeffg166

            Friend is in Tucson, AZ.

            I live in Philadelphia, PA and know all about heat and humidity. The only difference from you is ours starts later than yours and ends sooner.

    • Hoping to be an ex-pat myself soon.

  • Tiger Quinn

    Look, I know that it’s not this easy – but gays who live in these states: LEAVE THEM. They are telling you that you have no rights IN THEIR STATE. But there are other states where you will have them. There’s no choice at this point – deprive them of their tax base and then they will HAVE to address what they are doing. Because that’s actual money out of their pocket.

    • FormerMainer

      Well, the Court never actually said that same sex couples have no guaranteed right to spousal benefits. they more or less punted on that question.

  • Tiger Quinn

    Every one of these crazy laws that’s firing right up the food chain is designed to get to the SC – I think they’re wildly overestimating how the SC works or its willingness to overturn a ruling it just made two years ago.

    • William

      Wait until Trump or his successor Pence/Ryan appoint a few more justices to the court.

      • Stephen Elliot Phillips

        Yep all bets are off in this new era.
        Make America Hate More

  • JT
  • William

    David Letterman used to have a game called “Will it Float”.
    I don’t know why I thought of that after seeing this story.

    • Jonathan Smith

      piece of shit in the toilet?
      just guessing

  • Jon Doh

    Our planned road trip in two weeks had us spending an afternoon and overnight stay in Amarillo. We will be planning a new route that allows us to get to New Mexico without spending any money in the state of Texas. When cancelling our hotel reservation, we will make sure they know why.

    • Jonathan Smith

      because the hotel had soooooo much to do with this.
      —-Not you, i just do not understand the whole “let’s bitch out the management staff of some place” as opposed to calling the state house and saying the same thing?

      • Jon Doh

        The hotel management very likely voted the governor and their court into power. Money talks and it gives me warm fuzzies to know I vote with my money. Have you called the state house yet?

        • Jonathan Smith

          actually, yes.
          but people calling me at my job to tell me how badly my state suck and to chew me out for it, usually gets…..”er…um…..thanks for calling”
          dont aim small. when they go low, we go high

          • Jon Doh

            Going high hasn’t gone very well for us lately. It may be time to play the game as they do.

          • Jonathan Smith

            i meant high like the Governor, not your check out clerk at 7/11

      • Daveed_WOW

        You have to make the whole state suffer.

  • Michael

    Anyone know what legal reasoning they used?

    • nocadrummer

      Because “Jesus”.

    • Jonathan Smith

      “gay sex. Ewwwwwww…….” at a guess.

    • FormerMainer

      Very simply:

      1.”The Supreme Court held in Obergefell that the Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages to the same extent that they license and recognize opposite-sex marriages, but it did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.”

      2. The Court then remanded to the lower court to give the parties an opportunity to litigate that issue.

      • Phillip in L.A.

        The Texas Supreme Court is probably telegraphing to certain litigants that if they can show the legislature was addressing a “compelling State interest” in creating competing classes, there is a slim chance of not being pounded into the equivalent of legal dust

        • FormerMainer

          Possible though they were not that explicit.

          • The_Wretched

            The tx sct was that explicit in the first few paragraphs of the opinion. I posted the cut/paste earlier.

          • FormerMainer

            can you do it again so I can see what you are referring to?

          • The_Wretched


            I tried to reload the decision but the tx court site is down.

          • FormerMainer

            Thanks. I read the decision and have a copy but didn’t want to guess to what you were referring to.

            It’s possible, but I disagree that is very explicit. They leave the door open, of course, but the path they set forth for the litigants is fairly obvious. Thus, it is difficult for me to read too much into it with any certainty.

          • The_Wretched

            I don’t find it hard to see the animus and outcome they expect the district court to take. Indeed, that step is just a formality. I can’t see the district court deciding to “grant full rights” to marriages that happen to have same sex spouses under that direction.

          • FormerMainer

            I don’t see the animus you do, but I agree with the likely outcome of the district court.

            It is unlikely that any of these courts will interpret Obergefell broadly.

          • The_Wretched

            The snippets of Obergefell that others have been posting show that State benefits incident to marriage rights are part of the decision. that’s not ‘broadly’ that’s on the face of the case.

          • FormerMainer

            My broadly comment spoke to the “incidents” of marriage and whether spousal employee benefits are included in those or if the incidence of marriage relate to marital rights. One can go either way depending upon the agenda and I anticipate the courts will take a very narrow reading.

          • The_Wretched

            You’re erasing the issue here. Marriage is Marriage and gay and straight couples must be under the same laws inre marriage. The TX sct got it wrong as a matter of law.

          • FormerMainer

            I’m not erasing the issue – I’m simply explaining the Court’s reasoning and its approach.

          • The_Wretched

            “I’m simply” …

            yeah right

            Courts are not correct merely for having said something. When a decision flies directly against the controlling legal authority, it’s bad law.

          • FormerMainer

            whether is it a good decision or not is besides the point – as I said, I was explaining the court’s reasoning and approach. I was not defending it. Simply trying to help you understand.

          • The_Wretched

            Don’t patronize. I understood just fine.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            Of course not. That is why I used the word “telegraphing”

          • FormerMainer

            And I don’t think they were explicit enough to justify the use of that term. It requires too much substitution of their motivation.

  • LSMC1987

    A new, harder right SCOTUS. I see our rights being taken away. This gives Neil Gorsuch an even shot of getting marriage overturned. I don’t want to be a pollyanna pearl clutching school marm, but this concerns me greatly. Mississippi and Texas.

    • Makes you feel marginalized doesn’t it? BTW do you really think Neil Gorsuch is up at night thinking about overturning same-sex marriage? I doubt it. My guess is he is thinking more about loosening the power of governmental control over corporations and regulations and this stuff — classic country club republican issues. He was put in power to make the 1% even richer. He is a insider. He is a Catholic convert to Episcopalian, and went to Columbia College, Harvard, and Oxford. He has establishment and money written all over him.

  • Perhaps the most dangerous portion of this is the dicta, “Relying on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby… Pidgeon replies that he and Hicks have in fact suffered a particularized injury ‘because they are devout Christians who have been compelled by the mayor’s unlawful edict to subsidize homosexual relationships that they regard as immoral and sinful.’” The court couldn’t rule one this for reasons but said that it is interesting.

    • Daveed_WOW

      I have my own list of what I think is immoral and sinful. Does anyone in Texas want to see it?

      • William

        Polyester is a deadly sin.

        • Daveed_WOW

          Polyester the clothing, not Polyester the movie. Of course.

    • FormerMainer

      Well, you are taking that a bit out of context. The court also found the complete opposite argument (the Mayor’s) interesting. The court was stating that the topic of standing raised by the parties is interesting and important (which I think we would all agree with), not that Pidgeon’s position is interesting and important.

  • JWC

    congratulations Texas a page right out of Ramzan Kadyrov’s play book CHECYNA would be proud

    • Mention Ramzan Kadyrov to an average Trump voter in East Texas and they will think its a new Tex-Mex chain out of Texarkana.

      • JWC

        if not “WHO?”

  • joe ho

    They know they have a friend in Gorsuch!

    But that war-mongering, corporate whore Hillary! Burn the witch!

    Right, Green Partiers and Bernie or Busters? You’re the ultimate fucktards.

    How Putin played the Far-left.

    • Challenges to moderate Democratic Senators in states like Indiana, Missouri, and Montana — and Democratic Senatorial candidates in Arizona, Texas, and Nevada (where they stand a chance of winning seats from sitting Republicans) from the left — by running Green party or other left party candidates — funded by secret Russian or right-wing money — can see to it that the Republicans make 2018 a great year in Senate races. All a left party candidate would have to do is win 1-2% of the vote in tight races to throw the election. Not only that, expect left wing challengers — hopefully not endorsed by Bernie Sanders — to make sure that sitting Senators like Claire McCaskill from Missouri — are not massively handicapped in their quest for reelection. She is going to have to win in a state that Trump won by a wide margin in 2016 and is still much more popular than he is, lets say, then in Bernie’s Vermont.

  • FormerMainer

    Lots of comments on how this may lead to overturning Obergefell.

    What exactly do folks see as a grounds for overturning the decision?

    • MPJZ

      I don’t think Obergefell will be overturned, but I could see the conservatives on the court limiting it as much as possible if Kennedy retires or RBG dies.

      • FormerMainer

        That is more plausible outcome.

  • William Hamilton

    EVERY TAX PAYER has the inherent right to government-provided spousal benefits. Unlike most straight couples, in Gay (same-sex) marriages both pay Taxes. Both pay taxes to support the government, the infrastructure and all public utilities. On average Gay couples pay MORE TAXES and get less benefits.

    • FormerMainer

      “Unlike most straight couples, in Gay (same-sex) marriages both pay Taxes.”

      – I don’t understand what you mean by this.

      • ZRAinSWVA

        Agreed. We file jointly, or married filing separately, just as any opposite-sex married couple does.

  • Turtle73

    Proof that under no circumstances should Texans be allowed to govern themselves.

  • MPJZ

    I think state Supreme Court decisions are appealed directly to SCOTUS, so let’s hope that they reverse the decision before that Neanderthal gets another appointment.

  • Ross





  • FAEN

    See you in court assholes.

    • FormerMainer

      Well, yes, the court did remand so there will of course be more litigation on this question. more litigation was sort of the point of the decision.

  • Tom G

    WTF? Am I reading that the court changed their decision because of an outpouring of letters opposing the decision?! That’s not how this court thing works!!

  • The current configuration of SCOTUS is going to slap the Texas Supreme Court down faster than you can say (well, I am not sure what but it normally has two syllables in places that speak English) if this manages to survive the 5th appeals circuit.
    If they had brains in Texas, they would wait a year or two until Kennedy retires or another vacancy on SCOTUS opens and they have a chance of challenging Obergefell.
    Kennedy, and perhaps Roberts, will not put up with this if it manages to get to SCOTUS. This is an insult to Roberts —

    • Talisman

      Roberts dissented in both Windsor and Obergfell. He is unlikely to change his opinion.

      • Yeah, but his court made a decision. And this Texas ruling flies right in the face of it. Maybe that would mean something. I am hoping.

  • Dot Beech

    Skim Milk Marriage rides again.

  • Belthazar

    Having just read the opinion, while it’s a setback (remanded back to trial court), it will still end up where it was eventually headed, the SCOTUS. However, the truly onerous part is the limbo it places on affected couples through no fault of their own.

  • FormerMainer

    After reading the decision, I’m not sure the title is correct.

    “Texas Supreme Court Rules Married Gays Have No Inherent Right To Government Benefits”

    – Where did they say this? The decision reads that they haven’t made their mind up yet and thus want further litigation on this question.

  • Rebecca Denham

    I think someone got a picture of the Texas Supreme Court official carpool headed to work.

    • TuuxKabin

      That is so funny. What and where the ‘F’?

  • StraightGrandmother

    What I shouted into my computer monitor is not printable in nice company.

    • agcons

      It’s OK, we’re not “nice”. 😀

  • Alexander Stallwitz
    • StraightGrandmother

      Okay that was me when I read this but not comfortable posting same. Glad you did it for me, now I can give it an up vote.

  • StraightGrandmother

    All right, all right, the shock has worn off, I’m ready to rumble. I can tell you what is coming, I know this book like the back of my hand, what is coming is a Supreme Court court case and Texas is going to claim that having gay parents is dangerous to children. They are going to pull out the bogus pay to publish research of that sociologist Catholic Priest out of Catholic University. The fight will be that Texas doesn’t want to honor LGBT marriages because they are harmful to children. Just wait, wait and see, this is what is coming.

    • FormerMainer

      perhaps, but i’m not sure how that is relevant to the questions presented.

      • William

        Relevancy doesn’t matter. The AG will bring every bad thing he can find about gays and have a panel of ‘expert’ witnesses.

    • William

      I’m glad we have you on the case!

  • Sam_Handwich

    that’s not what i make of the opinion. it’s more of a procedural scold than a ruling on merits. the case was sent back to trial court with instructions for further consideration.


    • StraightGrandmother

      Hey Sam thanks, I actually hadn’t read the opinion before I posted so based on your comment I’ll go read it.

    • FormerMainer

      Yes. The title of this article is very misleading. The court held no such thing.

    • Phillip in L.A.

      Legal ‘reporting’ from non-lawyers has ALWAYS been notoriously poor, Sam!

  • Nelson

    Yet another reason “states’ rights” needs to be tossed out the window.

    • FormerMainer

      This decision has nothing to do with states’ rights.

  • Everyone needs to calm down on this. The Court vacated the injunction and remanded. They seemed very careful in the remand. They also refused to instruct the trial court to narrowly construe Obergefell. The opinion is here:

    • coram nobis

      It’s a warning shot across our bow, but not a torpedo. Not yet. It’s worth remembering that Brown v. Board of Education was only the start of 30 years of conflict to make it stick.

      • That’s a good way to put it. This is going to end up back at the TX. Supreme Court. I am much more concerned over the fate of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado. Even there, I think there is the potential to establish a confirmation of precedent (Employment Division v. Smith). I mean it was fucking Scalia who said that there are not religious exemptions to otherwise valid laws.

        Masterpiece will determine how the TX SC rules on this case when it makes its way back to them.

        • coram nobis

          Yes, and the implications may be greater with Masterpiece, that is, if the Free Exercise clause will trump anything else in the Bill of Rights, if the Establishment Clause still means anything, and whether businesses will be free to inflict their beliefs on customers, clients and tenants using “religious freedom” as an excuse.

          What the cakeshop guy is arguing is that he should personally be free to the uninhibited infliction of his beliefs on passersby, while Texas could use the cakeshop case to argue that the State of Texas should be free to inflict its religious beliefs on its citizens, visitors and local governments.

    • The_Wretched

      I will not calm down. The instructions to that lower court were clear and an abrogation of Obergefell. See coram nobi’s post for the explicit controlling language that’s 100% the opposite of what the TX SCT said.

  • John Calendo

    Could the illegality be any more baldly obvious?. What the fuck is up with Texas!

  • Hanwi

    How in the hell does that compute?!?!

  • coram nobis

    US Supreme Court, as of last Monday:

    As this Court explained in Obergefell v. Hodges, … the Constitution entitles same-sex couples to civil marriage “on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.”

    … The Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision, we conclude, denied married same-sex couples access to the “constellation of benefits that the Stat[e] ha[s] linked to marriage.”

    … Obergefell proscribes such disparate treatment. As we explained there, a State may not “exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.” … Indeed, in listing those terms and conditions—the “rights, benefits, and responsibilities” to which same-sex couples, no less than opposite-sex couples, must have access—we expressly identified “birth and death certificates.”
    — Per Curiam opinion, Pavan v. Smith, 16-992 (June 26, 2017)

    Translation: When we decided Obergefell, we meant something more than white lace and promises, goddamn it. Till death do you part, all of it.

    • Chris Gardner

      Well stated. There are not same-sex versus opposite-sex marriages. There is just civil marriage which both gay and straight people have the right to partake in.

    • Phillip in L.A.

      ty, coram nobis–I had a passing thought about this case, and then promptly forgot about it!

  • SFBruce

    Texas Tribune:
    “…the Texas Supreme Court…declined to take it up last year…But the state’s highest civil court reversed course in January after receiving an outpouring of letters opposing the decision.”
    “The Justices of the Supreme Court are elected to staggered six-year terms in state-wide elections.”

    So much for an independent judiciary. I hope this is taken to the federal courts ASAP.

  • What hate filled people.

  • 14th Amendment, motherfucker. Equal protection under the law, otherwise there’s nothing to say a state can’t just declare Jewish, Muslim, or even Catholic marriages ‘ineligible’ for civil rights protection.

  • TheSeer

    This is depraved decision. But almost everything related to GOP today is depraved.

    • JWC

      these people do not even know what the constitutiobn says Just make some inane statement Throw it out there , a bunch of rednecks will swallow it hook line and sinker remarking “Hot damn Jim Bob there got hisself a good idear”

  • GanymedeRenard

    No benefits? Then what’s the point of signing a binding legal contract, i.e., marriage, before the State? What is wrong with this Court?

    • Texas is what’s the matter with them.

      • GanymedeRenard

        Sigh… I think you’re correct.

  • narutomania


    Why is it always the hard way with these fucking assholes !?

  • It looks like it is time for the courts and elected officials in Texas to be held accountable for their actions. But how?

    • Canadian Observer

      As attractive as the idea of an angry mob seizing them and burning them at the stake might be, a comprehensive boycott seems a more civil solution.

      • William

        Well aren’t you Mr Buzzkill.

        • Canadian Observer

          I was trying to be mellow… and my initial thought about feeding them into a wood chipper feet first probably would have violated Joe’s guidelines about not overtly wishing harm on people… [In defence of my initial thought, the result would be a boon to any gardener, the equal mixture of mulch and manure that would come out would make ANY garden bloom!]

          • William

            Abbott’s chair might damage the impeller.

  • OhSoGood
  • Friday

    It’s called equal protection of the law, Texas bigots.

  • JohnMyroro

    Texas: the hate state.

  • ColdCountry

    Oh, FFS! I’m going out on a limb here in thinking that the law does not “specifically” grant benefits to opposite sex couples, either. When will the first employer deny those? MOVE ON, already. Read you bibles and follow the teachings, you hateful bigots.

    • Jukesgrrl

      How do you explain the dozens of tax benefits married people, especially people with children, received from the government? They’re getting cold, hard cash that single and childless people are denied.

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    They truly are the State of Hate, aren’t they?

    Just how petty can you get?

    As the owner of the boots they lick would say, “SAD!”

    • Jukesgrrl

      No worse than Arizona, Kansas, Wyoming, Alabama, Mississippi, and a dozen other states that codify discrimination and take more from the Federal government than they contribute to the nation.

  • Nowhereman

    Haven’t they already been sued for this crap?

  • Hello SCOTUS? They’re at it again!

  • DuaneBidoux

    Does anyone know if, very specifically, it has ever been ruled on that ANY person who is a spouse of another has an INHERENT right to the spouses benefits. I dont know so I’m asking.

    I know too many bigots to pretend that there is not an incredible degree of anti-gay bigotry in these people.

    But I also know enough conservatives to say that in general few would say that anybody has any INHERENT right to any benefit. That’s just the way they are.

    Please don’t troll me on this-just give some thoughts.

    • Great question! Here’s my take on it, law that isn’t spelled out in exact language when brought to court usually adheres to the concept of “usual and traditional” to settle any issues that pop up.

      In my personal opinion, the Texass courts ruled through bigotry, not using “usual and traditional” views of marriage law. With the RWNJ’s in power we are going to see more and more of these bigot laws voted in and courts that rule against us.

      Not only did Russia saddle us with an insane clown fool for a president, they crippled the LGBTQ and POC communities, and women’s rights.

    • FormerMainer

      Excellent question. I am not aware of any such decisions.

      • DuaneBidoux

        Well it seems this specific ruling was related only to government benefits. It may well be that giving opppsite sex spouses benefits prior to the marriage equality ruling was simply a matter of policy unrelated to specifically determined constitutional rights-in other words simply done by tradition but never specifically spelled out or challenged in court.

        Because it was simply traditional policy and all government carried out this policy it has never been challenged.

        If a county or state government suddenly decided to stop providing spousal benefits I wouldn’t be totally surprised if conservatives didn’t argue that there is no inherent right for ANY spouse to receive spousal benefits.

        That’s why I asked.

    • Jukesgrrl

      I agree that at this point we should re-examine govt. benefits to ALL married people. In my understanding these laws and tax codes were all based on the generally accepted ASSUMPTION that it benefits “society” for people to be married and to procreate. The bigots are now complaining that it’s not beneficial for non-straights to be married, therefore they are undeserving of these benefits. It’s an absurd position, given non-straight married couples are raising children in record numbers and they are as much (if not more) an asset to society as any children. Legal families are either a valued asset or they aren’t and we need to decide. To apply financial benefits to some and not others is prejudicial. Maybe in these days of over-population we should question whether or not ANYONE deserves to be financially assisted just because they choose to procreate. (At least we’d have fewer Duggars.)

      • DuaneBidoux

        The problem is that these idiots are so fanatical and hateful that they’d cut off their noses to spite OUR face meaning if they thought it would keep gay people from getting the benefits I can easily see them fighting to have ALL spousal benefits taken away.

        You know, fucking scum that they are.

        • Trump is attacking……benefits will be ‘too costly’ and the money needs to go to the rich.

    • I’ve heard Americans say that health care is NOT a right. As a Canadian I can’t understand it and neither can most of Europe, Australia and N.Z.

  • Sean

    Then the government has no inherent right to tax married gay couples.

  • sword

    Next will come a Texas SC judgement that LGBTQ and ‘colored’ people are only equivalent to 3/5s of white person.

    • Military wages will be higher for straight white

  • netxtown

    Texas – raising the bar on fucking stupid every chance they get.

  • netxtown

    This is one of those times in which we need to go their way. We need to see the ACLU take up the case that NO marriage – gay or straight – has inherent rights to govt bennies. We NEED to shove this down their throats and up their ass – and then listen to them wail as they try to defend their bigotry. All them Texas missy stay-at-home, Chevy-suburban-soccer-Mom’s and their little kiddies would get kicked to the curb.

  • kaydenpat

    Disgusting but thankfully it will be appealed and most likely overturned by the 5th Circuit court.

  • Aaron Caisse

    READ THIS (Matthew 6:5/6:6) . if you going to QUOTE A BIBLE Chapter do it RIGHT! Just Because they (Don’t! like! the way of life!) (Don’t Not Mean IT IS WRONG!!!)and number three and everybody can Quit expecting! that everybody is going to Be! straight /LIKE not ..once in a while there will be a 30% probably even more gay men so when we don”T flirting with every man that he sees and that straight man……. Can!! (Get! Over themselves) with the redneck straight heterosexual (lifestyle). IF!? THAT WHAT! YOU WANT CALL IT.! (can get over their selves) and!! The religious people who got the bible/BOOK say? that God hates! Gays and homosexuals (BACK OFF!!) I Hope! this Message comes Clear! to most of the (SOME) of People on my Facebook and just people who don’t understand! what Homosexual life is about…….Your OPINION is Just an Opinion O-K!!…………….LIKE IT OR NOT THIS IS LIFE ….(UNDERSTOOD!!!.)……………..GET OVER IT SOME PEOPLE ARE GAY…….HOMOSEXUAL……….FACE! THE! (FACTS)

  • Aaron Caisse

    Here’s a (wish) for a gay person every day of their lives. wish they wish that 20%to 40% of women who are straight what S-t-o-p! hitting on them Gay! men . another one number too they wish that straight men would Not!! Act So Stupid! about! gay man. (Oh my gosh!) .and gets around a straight man and they need Get! Over! It is and Not that (important) and for another thing that religious people with (their religious Bible/BOOK) with the religious Faith Can! just! Quit!!! Trying to Change everybody! Just Because they (Don’t! like! the way of life!) (Don’t Not Mean IT IS WRONG!!!)and number three and everybody can Quit expecting! that everybody is going to Be! straight /LIKE not ..once in a while there will be a 30% probably even more gay men so when we don”T flirting with every man that he sees and that straight man……. Can!! (Get! Over themselves) with the redneck straight heterosexual (lifestyle). IF!? THAT WHAT! YOU WANT CALL IT.! (can get over their selves) and!! The religious people who got the bible/BOOK say? that God hates! Gays and homosexuals (BACK OFF!!) I Hope! this Message comes Clear! to most of the (SOME) of People on my Facebook and just people who don’t understand! what Homosexual life is about…….Your OPINION is Just an Opinion O-K!!…………….LIKE IT OR NOT THIS IS LIFE ….(UNDERSTOOD!!!.)……………..GET OVER IT SOME PEOPLE ARE GAY…….HOMOSEXUAL……….FACE! THE! (FACTS)

  • LeeToo

    wtf texas? stick to fried food and big hair!

  • stvnc44

    To all the people of Earth, I am sorry for the elected government in Texas.
    As a native Texan who cannot afford to leave, I must hide down here quietly and
    You know the strangest part of all of this is, I cannot find anyone who voted for any
    of the fools in office. How did they get there?

    • Jukesgrrl

      I live in Arizona and have the same experience.

    • Circ09

      Because they don’t vote. That’s the biggest problem.

  • That_Looks_Delicious


    Sorry for the cities (Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, El Paso) because I know you all did not vote for these creeps, but the rest of the state deserves every insult it gets.

  • sfbob

    Congress and the states have chosen over the years to provide tax advantages and other benefits–as well as some obligations–to married couples. There is nothing “inherent” in any of these benefits or obligations. But Obergefell pretty clearly stated that such benefits as have been provided for by law must be granted to all married couples regardless of the gender of the partners. So the TX Supreme Court has ruled on a matter that is not in question.

  • billbear1961

    So much for justice, since there were lots of letters opposed to gay couples receiving the same benefits as straight couples. Judges–all of them–on a court of law–a court of JUSTICE–basing their rulings not on the law and the Constitution but on the whims of a hateful mob.

    This is exactly what Gorsuch wanted–he said that, as far as he was concerned, the scope of Obergefell had not been decided. When judges like him get finished, the marriage certificate of a same-sex couple will be a meaningless scrap of paper.

    This is an EVIL, SELFISH, LAZY country, a country of bullies and cowards.

    The right is emboldened and is turning this nation into a banana republic, because the majority will fight for NOTHING: not their healthcare, not their right to vote (hell, almost half–sometimes more–won’t even get off their asses to exercise that right when they DO possess it!), not their right to the equal protection of the laws.

    Large and sustained protests in the streets could stop the ongoing coup, but they aren’t going to happen.

    There is a raging, immoral thief and PIG, a pathological LIAR, in the Oval Office. The streets are quiet. There are no loud and daily DEMANDS for the filthy bastard’s TAX RETURNS, knowledge of which would likely lead to his complete undoing.

    The corporate press and the corporate-controlled Democratic party cannot be relied upon to vigorously defend this republic, nor can the PUBLIC, whose ignorance is surpassed only by their supine and suffocating APATHY.

  • PeterC

    I think that right along with Climate Change and the need to clean the air, we need to discuss the extreme growth in population and the need to keep that in balance with the food resources that will remain sufficient for a normal survival.

  • thatotherjean

    Why is it always Texas? Don’t they have any real problems to solve? The ACLU is going to be even busier than usual.

  • fuzzybits

    So much for being equal in this country. The fight continues kids!

  • ‘Til Tuesday

    As I’ve said many times, like the right to choose, LGBT rights will be fought by our opponents for decades to come. Look at everything that’s been done, mostly in the states, over the last 43 years to put up barriers and roadblocks to women accessing abortion. In many states abortion a hollow right because they can’t access it.

    And these are, for the most part, the same people who are now training their legal guns on LGBT rights. They have the same “plans” for us just like they’ve done on abortion rights. We have marriage, but they’ll hollow it out and do everything they can to restrict every single benefit of marriage that they can. Texas is just the beginning. Our opponents are going to replicate Texas in as many states as they can.

    And, while marriage equality was a huge victory, it was just the beginning. I know many of us don’t want to hear it, but the fight is going to be long and drawn out. Our opponents have a million little proposed laws and court challenges up their sleeves that they are going to try and use to hollow out our victory. We can’t quit because they are never going to quit.

  • SDG

    Texas, proving yet AGAIN, it is a SHITPILE!

  • Juliaswood

    my roomate’s mother gets $62 an hour at home and she’s been out of work for 2 months. last month her pay was $19199 just working on the laptop for 3 hours a day.➤ look at ➤ this site

  • Yoden Seetwist

    This isnt about being gay or straight. Its not about marriage or gay rights. Its partially about money, but mostly its about keeping citizens in line.

    When I was dating a guy named Jamie who used to be friends with and throw giant parties with Sharon Needles, he taught me something about our country while listening to him reminisce. They would throw one giant party in a rental space, packing the place, but lo and behold what would happen every single time? Someone would catch on and throw a party right across the street. His wpuld have a great, very popular deejay, so he wouldn’t be so worried. Confident his hired musical specialist would weave up a tune the crowd would appreciate and give with. Having opposition would draw a bigger crowd as well, yes, but this would also split the kept earnings by half. You might think of either party as the Republican Party Goers and Democrat Party Goers. This I’ll come back to. You might also think, however, that my ex was pissed when this would occur without fail every time…you’d be wrong, and not because my ex was a giving, kind person. Quite the opposite, in point of fact. He was happy simply because:

    He was the one throwing both parties.

    Why throw one party when its not going to appeal to everyone’s aesthetic. I mean, they have to have something to fit the general demeanor, being parties, so in essence they were the same, but look, vibe, demographic was different. So, partygoers would be at one party turning their nose up at the idiots across the way (very often paying the cover charge to “check it out”), to moan to each other about current music and its cookie cutter lack of personality. The other side would do exactly the same, fighting with each other as drunkenness swept through the populous as time passed, telling each other how they’re “doing it wrong”, and essentially just being assholes to each other. Sometimes needing to be persuaded forcibly to leave by bouncers, which would draw even more crowds on both sides to both defend and goad the person at the mercy of the bouncer. Kicked out, and then forced to go back to their own party where they would be celebrated and filled with more booze. All the while both groups calling their polarized opponents unkind judgmental four letter words, my boyfriend would watch from the distance knowing all along that both groups were truly clueless, the whole thing was planned out in his 100% fail proof design. Never knowing that the opinionated participants were all suckers, and actually walked away feeling grest about their own group and their obviously better choice of establishment.

    One side Republican
    One side Democratic
    Both ruled by a single group that is nonpartisan in nature.
    Why? I just told you in metaphor.
    Because people get sucked in, they have opinions, and in groups people convince themselves they’re ‘right’, and others are ‘wrong’, and people not only like to be heard, they like to be in power. Its not about morals, or justice, or right versus wrong. Its about being in power to enforce those ideas asntruth and as law.

    Politicians and Media are the advertisements, each calling out to specific people, pointing a subtle to not so subtle finger of judgment which the person in agreement is then convinced their like minded advertisement is backed by a group of likeminded people who they can be “right” with, and feel accepted and special, and this one ideal is the blanket generalization used to define the group, and divide itself from those of differing, and often times unappreciated nemeses.

    The bouncers are the police, who are paid to discipline, but are still dependant on the arrival of participants to have a job to be paid to do.

    The deejayss are the political nominees. They spin tales of their superiority and control the overall vibe of the people they sell their personalities to. They are the spokesman for the divisive protocols they report must occur to improve our country. They listen to the occasional shout out, but they, for the most part come with their own playlist.

    Dems and Reps are the partygoers. The ones who are clueless to the fact that if they didn’t participate at all, things like “who is allowed rights” or “who gets paid” or, “who is the enemy” wouldn’t ever exist. Its the civilians deciding that a group of people in self proclaimed, group backed power has enough said power, to tell you you’re not good enough, or too different, to deserve something others with a different lifestyle are. It had nothing to do with religion or policy. It had to do with participation and reaction.

    This is what’s going on in our country. These laws that divide, and create self policing masses that watch drama unfold and feel like they’re part of the process of change by reacting to it. This is not so.

    My boyfriend is the elite. Hes the one behind the scenes calling the shots. Hes the one who chooses the music the majority will like, that changes the flow of the party, as people pulse back and forth between the musical (political) spectrum thinking they’re different from the others because of their music likes (political beliefs). When really, their choice is still dictated by my boyfriend, who designed the adverts, hired the bouncers and specific deejay with a pre-planned playlist to create this simple vibe with such complex outcomes, and he is the one, who gladly sweeps up all the cash at the end of the night, thanks the media, police, deejays, and in his mind, those who cluelessly made it all happen. Even the parts they didn’t like. Thanking their “side” not knowing they in doing so, are thanking the same creator of that which they hated so.

    We don’t have to participate. We dont have to live like this. Without is, there is no system because without us cycling the cash the system stops. We’re the ones with the skills, the ones with the knowledge that fixes, educates, heals, serves, and entertains. Without us, there is no them. My boyfriend depended on those he manipulated. So do the elite.

  • This decision is hardly a surprise even from the Texas supreme court, but it has almost no chance of being overturned by the US Supreme Court. Almost the identical issue was raised in Obergefell and then in a later case.The conservatives are trying to peel back Obergefell, but they are faced with precise language affirming ALL BASIC aspects of marriage equality. With Gorsch they get three votes to allow the Texas law. Even Roberts is opposed. There will be a 6-3 decision overruling Texas, and each such affirmation of Obergefell makes is stronger.