BREAKING: SCOTUS Rejects Appeal Of Texas Supreme Court Ruling Against Public Benefits For Gay Spouses

The Austin Statesman reports:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a Texas ruling that said the right to a marriage license did not entitle same-sex couples to spousal benefits under employee insurance plans.

The city of Houston asked the high court overturn last June’s Texas Supreme Court decision that determined all marriage-related matters were not decided when the U.S. Supreme Court found a right to same-sex marriage.

The federal court’s decision, issued without comment, allows the Texas court’s ruling to stand. Lawyers for Houston argued that the Texas court’s ruling was wrong and short-sighted.

“Equal recognition of same-sex marriage requires more than a marriage license; it requires equal access to the constellation of benefits that the state has linked to marriage,” the city’s lawyers told the court.

The Texas Tribune reports:

In its decision, the Texas Supreme Court noted that Obergefell requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages just as they do opposite-sex marriages but did not hold that “states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.”

That does not mean Houston can “constitutionally deny benefits to its employees’ same-sex spouses,” the court added, but the issue must now be resolved “in light of Obergefell.”

Following the Obergefell ruling, public employers in Texas, including state agencies and public universities, quickly extended marriage benefits to spouses of gay and lesbian employees.

But amid conservative efforts to relitigate that ruling, two Houston taxpayers — represented by same-sex marriage opponents — have moved forward with their case, arguing that the interpretation of Obergefell is too broad and that the right to marry does not “entail any particular package of tax benefits, employee fringe benefits or testimonial privileges.”


UPDATE: GLAAD reacts.

This decision upholds the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court saying there is not a de facto right to government benefits for LGBTQ couples. This decision begins the process to undercut marriage equality by erasing spousal benefits, including health care, for legally married LGBTQ couples in the state of Texas. With all eyes on tomorrow’s oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop religious exemptions case, the Supreme Court has just let an alarming ruling by the Texas Supreme Court stand which plainly undercuts the rights of married same-sex couples. Today’s abnegation by the nation’s highest court opens the door for an onslaught of challenges to the rights of LGBTQ people at every step.

  • bkmn

    Troubling to say the least.

  • Tawreos

    This is all it will take for 9 unelected activist judges to change to divine defenders of the faith

  • How does this work?
    How the FUCK DOES THIS WORK!?

    • Todd20036

      You’re married to another man? Well tough luck on family leave, on vacations, on getting your husband on our health care.

      That’s how it works.

  • Yalma Cuder-Zicci

    How can blatant discrimination ever be overcome if the Supreme Court itself discriminates?

    • canoebum

      Civil war.

      • FAEN

        In a manner of speaking yes.

  • Ugh. This is about to take an ugly turn, especially once Kennedy resigns at the end of this term.

  • crewman

    WT actual F? LGBT can be married, but companies, organizations, and municipalitites can treat them as if they aren’t? For years my conservative relatives said, “Marriage is for man and woman. We don’t think you shouldn’t be ‘married’ in the legal sense, just call it something else. Have the legal rights and protections, just not the word.” This is the opposite of that.

    • Palmer

      Yep.

    • Maybe this is confirmation bias on my part but it seems to me that the vast majority of jobs open in academia are in red states. People are leaving as fast as they can before things get much worse.

      • Tawreos

        Less education will make it easier to snowball the voters, so they will be very happy with this outcome.

      • Leo

        With relatives in academia in red states, I can confirm this.

        • I know that in at least one job opening in Texas the week after the open carry law passed a number of well-known people (in the field, not to the general public) contacted the university to withdraw their application.

      • Sebastian

        but thats horrifying because it means those jobs are going to be taken by red neck loons who will now be the “academic experts”

        • Steverino

          Sounds like what is happening to the federal courts…

          • We are going to suffer from Trump’s court picks for a generation.

          • Stephen Elliot Phillips

            if “we” are still alive to suffer

          • minidriver

            By design 🙁

        • Probably not. There are not that many jobs and plenty of competition for most of them. It means that without a lot of publications and/or other credentials, your chances of getting a job where you want one are pretty slim. SCOTUS just refused to hear the Texas case where the state is claiming it doesn’t have to pay spousal benefits to married gay couples. A lot of us are nervous about what’s about to happen in the cake baker case and even more worried about how Kennedy’s replacement is going to vote. It may not be safe for a lot of us in red states much longer. It’s already legal to discriminate against gay people in half the country, but so far that doesn’t happen most of the time. But it could and I think that’s about to start. I hope I’m wrong.

          • Tawreos

            Folks in the red states put that ignorant asshole in Oval Office, qualifications don’t seem to matter

        • clay

          My college just interviewed for a Dir. of Assessment. One candidate did their undergraduate, graduate, and professional work all at a single right-wing-nutjob institution. They didn’t even get a phone interview.

          • minidriver

            I see the schools where the Koch brothers get their claws into the school administration, then basically require a candidate like that to be seriously considered, or even hired immediately.

          • clay

            They even make curricular changes in the Business programs.

          • jerry

            I quit giving to my business school (still give to the marching band travel fund) after they got a Koch-funded “free market” chair in economics.

      • Christian1234567

        I’ve seen that as well. I was applying for a tenure-track position, and there were almost no jobs open in any blue states. There were quite a few in red states.

    • Buford

      The kicker there is that people frequently cite their faith when discussing what ‘marriage’ is, but being married has NOTHING to do with the church. It’s purely a civl matter. Only the govt says whether you are married or not. The church is moot.

      • David Walker

        Moot, perhaps, but certainly not mute. And boy do I ever wish they’d just be mute.

  • Palmer

    Get ready for the shitstorm. This is only the beginning.

  • Marides48

    Chip, chipping away?

  • another_steve

    Getting theofascist judges on the federal bench: That and that alone is why the evangelical / born again / fundamentalist Christian industry in America has supported Donald Trump since Day One.

    • jonfromcalifornia

      And why they will come out in droves again to vote for the Republican Senate majority to make sure that that happens.

    • Ninja0980

      Yup.
      Too bad our purity side couldn’t do the same.

  • Tawreos

    They found a way to keep gays as second class citizens.

  • SkokieGuy [ChicagoAdjacentGuy]

    So we have the right to equal marriage, but not equal rights as married people?

    Then marriage equality is meaningless.

    • Christian1234567

      The majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges states, “The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.” They are starting to undo their own fucking ruling.

      • SkokieGuy [ChicagoAdjacentGuy]

        Nauseating, but clearly reason place no part of this administration.

        Does anyone know when Scotus declines to hear a case, will dissenting views be published (i.e. what does Sotomayor, Ginsburg, etc. say about it?)

        • Steve Teeter

          I don’t think so. They tend to just announce the decision to hear or not hear the case, and leave it at that. This makes some sense. They’ve just said they don’t want to hear the details of the case, and those details would be the basis of a dissenting opinion. Without them Sotomayor, Ginsberg, or anyone else has no basis for an opinion, dissenting or otherwise, and in that case, it’s probably best to just shut up.

          • Chris Baker

            But certainly they have to review the ruling to determine if the case needs review, before they decide to accept it.

          • gaycuckhubby

            In this case the decision not to hear was probably unanimous. This case was nowhere close to being ready for Supreme Court review

          • Chris Baker

            Ah. I think this was the case that was supposed to go back to a lower court for re-review or something? Then that makes more sense

          • cowboyinbrla

            It doesn’t mean necessarily that it was unanimous. When a party to a case seeks writs from the Supreme Court, at least four justices (of the nine) must agree to grant writs in order for the case to be taken up. What it means is that no more than three justices, at the most, wanted to hear the case.

            From the conservatives’ perspective, hearing the case might result in another sweeping Kennedy opinion that foreclosed any attempts to scale back the reach of same-sex marriage. Not hearing the case means that the situation in Texas remains unchanged.

            From the liberals’ perspective, hearing the case might result in the four conservatives plus Kennedy agreeing with Texas. The best liberal strategy might be to hold off any such cases getting to the court before there’s a better makeup of the court.

          • gaycuckhubby

            no, it certainly doesn’t mean that it was unanimous that was just a guess on my part

        • Robert K Wright

          In this case there will be nothing issued, thus the “without comment” statement in the article.

        • lymis

          It’s actually more rare to get a dissent than just the statement that the court isn’t going to hear the case.

      • JackFknTwist

        And so the conservative backlash begins.

        • Irish856

          This is not a conservative backlash, or at least it does not appear to be.
          It only takes 4 justices to hear a case. It appears that one or more of the four “liberal” justices would not vote to add it to the docket.

          • Shondra

            Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
            On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
            !da115d:
            ➽➽
            ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleHomeHubCashJobsOpportunity/simple/work ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!da115luu

        • Neils Wright

          There are enough Dems on the Court that could of voted to look. It only takes 4 to say yes then they have to look at it. Why didn’t they go for it?

          • gaycuckhubby

            Because it’s not a case that’s worth their time yet. It’s still needs to go through the Texas courts

          • Philip Marks

            Perhaps to avoid a 5-4 decision making it precedent.

      • Will Parkinson

        Oh, but Whore-suck said it was settled law.

    • Stephen Elliot Phillips

      I actually read it that this will chip away at spousal benefits for all couples. By denying us equal benefits then they can deny benefits to other married couples too. This is a workers rights case to them. and in workers rights a conservative court will side with the employer

      • David Walker

        I thought I smelled republican in this. Weasel away, fuckers.

      • lymis

        They can already deny benefits to other married couples, as long as they apply them equally. They just can’t pick and choose which people get the benefits. Until now, married was married, and unmarried was unmarried.

        Update: Things are unchanged. Only if the case in progress is decided against us would it change so that they’d allow the employers to decide who is a second-class citizen.

        • gaycuckhubby

          No. Thats not what happened today. The headline is misleading. absolutely no benefits are being denied to anyone straight or gay.

          • lymis

            You’re correct.

          • LarryChemEngr

            What do you mean? Are gay married couples in Houston being denied marriage benefits, or not?

          • gaycuckhubby

            no. They are not

          • What this means is that each and every legal right typically afforded under marriage is going to have to be separately litigated in the courts. If and when there is a conflict under Federal law between districts, then it will be ripe for SCOTUS to take up a case.

          • gaycuckhubby

            No. Not true. All marriage benefits are being afforded in Houston and Texas like every other state and localities. the appeals court in Texas agreed with the city of Houston and there will be no pause in benefits. There will be another trial in a Texas court but benefits will remain throughout

          • I didn’t say privileges were being taken away. But the case continues in court, and if the plaintiffs win, then privileges WILL be taken away, at least for employees of the city of Houston, and by extension, other civil employees throughout Texas by precedent.

          • gaycuckhubby

            Yes, you’re right. If the plaintiffs win and win on appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court. At that point all marriage benefits straight and gay will be up to individual employers or municipalities or something?

          • In that case, yes, every extant benefit would be subject to individual election by the grantors. Now, given existing precedent (in particular, I think Brown v Board and Loving v Virginia are controlling, with relevant input from both Lawrence and Obergefell), the courts would have a hard time crafting a decision that would allow “separate but equal” marriage statuses, so in the end they’d almost have to rule to maintain all rights and privileges of marriage to avoid that – but I have very little faith in any element of our government these days.

    • Steverino

      I would think Windsor would have settled that issue (equal spousal benefits), albeit at the federal level, so SCOTUS declining to hear a case is involving equal spousal benefits at the state level under Obergefell is puzzling.

      • Randy503

        The only possible way I can read this is that SCOTUS is saying the states don’t have to provide the same rights, but the federal government does. It’s a terrible step backwards, but if I am right, at least it would keep our federal rights.

        • gaycuckhubby

          there’s nothing that the Supreme Court could have done today other than what it did. No court has found that gay people should not receive marriage benefits even in the city of Houston. This was confusion in the Texas Supreme Court about what Court ruling to use in a lower court. the Supreme Court will have to wait until there is a ruling in the Texas courts or when gay people are denied benefits. But as of now there is no standing

          • Randy503

            Good point. I hope you are right.

          • Nax

            So, until there are such rulings, in the meantime, states, counties, and cites can go ahead and try deny benefits to same sex couples. We will have to be fighting on thousands of little fronts now, with courts ruling this way and that way for years. It is, after all, unsettled law.

          • gaycuckhubby

            sure, they can try. That’s how our judicial system works. it’s how we were able to gain equality. I fully expect this case to be over quickly in the Texas lower courts, but we will see.

          • Nax

            With the appeals, how quickly is quickly? And with no guarantee that it will go our way. And when it gets back to SCOTUS, there may be 6 or 7 Republican justices.

          • gaycuckhubby

            So currently everyone is getting benefits both gay and straight I’m no expert in this but I assume the lowest court will probably rule within a couple months. I assume that they will rule that marriage benefits must be given to gay couples. But either way no one will lose benefits while it is appealed. It could probably take a year or two before it reaches the Supreme Court again

          • Randy503

            This makes sense. It only takes four votes to take a case on appeal at SCOTUS. If this were a true denial of rights, we would have four votes from our allies. But there must have been less than four, and so I will hope that you are correct and that SCOTUS realized there is no real case or controversy here, and that was the reason for the denial of cert.

          • StuckNtexas

            Retired attorney, so I can’t give legal advice to anyone else, but you concisely stated, exactly, my own personal interpretation of where things currently stand.

          • Ranger One

            You are right. It is a standing issue, or a properly couched issue, a procedural problem, not substantive.

    • 2patricius2

      So separate but equal is back in all its inequality ugliness.

      • Stephen Elliot Phillips

        Plessy v Ferguson is back in style. Vive la 1890’s!

    • Adam Stevens

      ‘Skim Milk Marriage”

      ~Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    • TampaZeke

      Which exactly their goal!

  • Boreal

    Next will come the ruling allowing business to discriminate against us. We better be prepared to fight.

    • AJD

      Fight how, exactly? The whole purpose is to make fighting a pointless exercise.

      • Stephen Elliot Phillips

        actually the whole purpose is to keep our side putting out fires everywhere as they continue to consolidate power and rob us of our assets.

  • liondon#iamnotatraitor

    So will their taxes be lower?

    • Tawreos

      Please, the new tax bill probably has a homosexual surcharge so they can tax us more while giving us less.

      • Ragnar Lothbrok

        Funny, but wouldn’t surprise me a bit

      • Steverino

        Just as with the blue states.

      • clay

        In some ways– no more adoption tax credit, no more state/local tax deduction for high cost coasts.

      • Rambie

        Fewer LGBT couples have children so that’s a tax hike but not a new one.

    • Mine will be going up.

  • GeoffreyPS

    What in the holy fuck!?!

  • Leo

    Doesn’t bode well for cake case. At all.

    • Or maybe they know this is going to be addressed in that case so they don’t need to near both of them. Yeah, that doesn’t even sound convincing to me. :-/

      • nocadrummer

        Let’s hope so.

      • mpatreyu

        I’m going to be an optimist and say you might be on to something here. The Texas case is smaller in scope than the cake case. The resulting opinion in the cake baker case could be far reaching and would most likely include the Texas case in the outcome. Doesn’t mean it will go in our favor but you never know. The makeup of SCOTUS is still the same as it was when marriage equality was passed.

        • Christian1234567

          Yes, the makeup of SCOTUS is the same as when they ruled for marriage equality, but were very, very careful to avoid language that would lead to us being considered a protected class, and were vocal about religious rights in regard to same-sex couples. I’m concerned, especially since this time the DOJ will argue in favor of discrimination.

        • I can’t imagine that Kennedy wants to undermine his own decision, especially on his way out the door.

    • radiofreerome

      The cake case will be addressed by the full court. This decision was made solely by Alito, who doesn’t believe in stare decisis if things don’t go his way.

  • you know what?
    FUCK THIS COUNTRY.
    Ya’ll have irreparably broken this country.
    Ya’ll can fucking have it.

    • easygoingmister

      Been thinking the same. I’m looking for my next consulting gig, and this news this morning makes me think – why not turn my sight outside the states?

      • joeyj1220

        Come to Canada… there is peace and serenity in the light

        • Michael

          You made me think back to the last trip we took to Niagara Falls. A Canadian Evangelical told me that I would burn in hell in such a polite way that I wasn’t even sure if I should be offended. Even the assholes in Canada are kinder than most people in the states.

          I’ll fight until 2020. If the devil wins re-election or manages to add another Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, I’m moving to Toronto.

          • Leo

            I didn’t really think about setting a benchmark for a move until now and I like yours.

        • AmeriCanadian

          Remember the “brain drain” problem Canada had? Had. As in past tense. Drumpf has reversed that!

        • Christian1234567

          I tried, but am too (almost 40) and am “just” a pre-service teacher educator. They are not interested in me.

          • Lumpy Gaga

            Canada’s secret drawback: carousel.

          • radiofreerome

            We should have Carousel for congress critters.

        • GeoffreyPS

          And Mounties!!!

      • Rambie

        I’m also considering looking outside the States for my next career move

    • Sebastian

      Ya its a dumpster fire that Im gladly no longer a part of “O Canada!… true, strong and free”

      • Snarkaholic

        Move up there
        Grab a bear
        And engage in sodomeeeee!

        • TominDC

          I just “heard” that to the tune of that “come with me and you’ll be in a land of pure imagination” song…

          • Snarkaholic

            Or the Chump version:
            Come with me
            And you’ll be
            In a world of lowered expectations!

    • geoffalnutt

      Compared to us Somalia is a respected superpower..

      • David Walker

        So is Nambia, one of the world’s chief producers of covfefe.

    • Anastasia Beaverhousen

      Well that property in Toronto, Canada is looking better all the time.

    • Mike Solo

      I saw the writing on the wall years ago and left for the UK. Much happier here

  • Javier Barrero

    WTF, come on! Canada is looking better and better.

    • Karl Dubhe 2

      Unfortunately, colds in the USA turn into nasty pneumonias up here. 🙁

      I fear what’s going to happen when we elect a fuckwit like your Shitgibbon.

      • Tawreos

        Please don’t destroy our belief that you folks seem to be better than us Americans in just about all the good categories.

        • Sebastian

          Oh believe me it is in fact better in all categories, your dumpster fire of a country is just putting us on alert to make sure we dont end up like you

          • Tawreos

            At least someone will learn from our mistake, because everyone knows we won’t.

        • Karl Dubhe 2

          Sorry. 🙁

          Anyways, the only people that you can really be better than is yourselves. Sorta like how you can only be a better person than yourself, you cannot be better than anyone else; you don’t know everyone. 🙂

  • TexasBoy

    So, married, but not really…*wink, wink* Praise Jeebus

    • Steverino

      Skim milk marriage.

      Or perhaps, skim milk turned to sour milk.

  • Blake Paine

    I wonder who President Clinton would have gotten on the court and if this would have still been denied?

    • Tawreos

      She wouldn’t have gotten them on the course since all of the big GOP senators were promising to block any pick she made.

      • Blake Paine

        We’ll never know I guess since we elected Trump.

  • safari

    It could be that until there is actual harm, the court is reserving action.

    • Blake Paine

      That could be – there should have been enough supporters to take the case, but since there is no demonstrated harm yet, even the liberals might wanted to wait for a case with a concrete example of discrimination.

    • Reality.Bites

      There ruling is that Obergefell didn’t settle the issue and it must be separately litigated.

  • Lumpy Gaga

    Nice. My borg’s entire benefits package is, for all intents and purposes, based out of Texas, including my insurance (literally BC/BS of Texas. I don’t know how that works because I have not used it since the switch). I realize this doesn’t seem to extend to private employers, but this is a close haircut. Too close.

  • kipper

    wait .. i truly dont understand. You are married – but , employers get to pick and choose which marriages to recognize ? I did not even have this case on my radar, all focus on tomorrow….

    • Todd20036

      This is minor compared to the baker case, but it’s a harbinger.

      It’s a really bad omen

  • SkokieGuy [ChicagoAdjacentGuy]

    This does not bode well for us the cake baker case.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      Honey! you look in distress!

      • SkokieGuy [ChicagoAdjacentGuy]

        I have decided that Trump and his organized crime ring have turned things upside down in this country – so I am displaying my feelings…

        • Lumpy Gaga

          Why don’t you greyscale and color-reverse? Then you’ll match Melania’s Hallway of Holiday Horrors.

          • SkokieGuy [ChicagoAdjacentGuy]

            I don’t want to frighten the children. There’s too many already doing that.

            If I could get a good photo of my elderly & adorable, but not photogenic wiener dog, that would be my avatar, but have been yet to properly capture her weiner-y essence.

  • ErikDC

    Is this merely a ruling that allows the case on the merits to go forward? The Texas court did not deem it constitutional to deny married same sex couples benefits, just that the issue was not decided by Obergefell, correct?

    • Sebastian

      you are correct as to what the case says… however, SCOTUS should have stopped the issue here and could have clarified that no, of course the decision was wrong and all marriages are equal. SCOTUS instead ruled that “its possible marriages could be unequal, another court will decide”

    • Steverino

      That is my understanding, at this point.

  • Rebecca Gardner

    And so it begins.

  • LookielouE1707

    That makes no sense. Kennedy went along with this?

    • Sebastian

      only need 4 votes to hear the appeal… so it means we had no support on this one.

    • Todd20036

      He’s not our friend.

  • Boreal
  • Leo

    Alright, I’m gonna go out on a limb.

    I said when I first starting visiting this board to quite a bit of consternation that the movement should have worked on the Equality Act in the first two years of the Obama administration PRIOR to marriage.

    This ‘you can marriage in symbolism but not in law’ is exactly why I’m revisiting this. Just for the point of argumentation/devil’s advocate I bring this back up.

  • safari
    • easygoingmister

      They’re great.

    • M Jackson

      Yes every one of those right there.

    • AmeriCanadian

      I like the calm black one on the left.

    • Joe in PA

      An example of GOOD pussy grabbers.

    • tomfromthenews

      I’m in the market for a kitten right now, and this has only strengthened my resolve.

    • glass

      I’ll see your cute kitties, and raise you dogz in shooz!
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcMYcKhfbbo

  • William

    A little voice in my head is screaming ‘Get out now!’.

    • safari

      The nation is dying. The ruling party is going after high education and tech, too.

    • Todd20036

      My boss knows I have contingency plans. I can run to another country on an “extended vacation” while teleworking.

      Since I won’t be giving up my citizenship, I should be able to live in Montreal for awhile.

      The SCOTUS baker case is key.

      If we lose, there IS no turning back.

      • William

        I hope you don’t get the same guy at Montreal airport that I did. He thought ‘American on vacation’ was the most suspicious story ever. The woman in the holding pen was only marginally better.

  • Yalma Cuder-Zicci

    I feel like the blame for this lies with one person, Mitch McConnell, for scuttling the Merrick Garland nomination. Wasn’t McConnell kicked out of the Army for sodomy?

    • Tawreos

      Just because he asked the people in his barracks to run a train on him every weekend doesn’t necessarily mean he engaged in sodomy. =)

    • Boreal

      Mitch is just symptomatic of the entire repig agenda. They have focused on the courts for decades for good reason, while progressives focus on candidate purity. We now see why their strategy is the winning one.

    • FAEN

      And the fucking morons who didn’t vote or protest voted. Had she won Garland would be on the SC. Instead we have one of the most anti gay Justices on there deciding on our lives. OUR LIVES!

  • Todd20036

    Guys, this is how concentration camps are built.

    First, take away civil rights.

    Second, make discrimination illegal

    Third, put us in “reeducation camps”

    Marriage equality is supposed to mean equality in marriage.

    • safari

      At least with brown people, Donald is doubling down to save his ass.

    • Menergy

      did you mean to write “legal” there, Todd?

  • gaycuckhubby

    I’m waiting to hear more in-depth analysis. Did the Supreme Court just say that heterosexual married couples can get benefits from the city of Houston but not homosexual couples? I thought it sounded like they said Houston doesn’t have to get marriage benefits to any couples.

  • Ragnar Lothbrok

    Our recent ancestors left their countries for a good reason.
    It’s time we consider the same.

  • GayOldLady

    Which of the SCOTUS Judges declined to hear this case?

    • Leo

      Guess.

      • GayOldLady

        I can’t find it in the article.

        • gaycuckhubby

          The Supreme Court does not automatically say who voted for or against hearing a case

          • GayOldLady

            I believe what usually happens is that a single justice or a panel of justices makes the determination on whether or not to take up a case. And SCOTUS has to be transparent so we should know who made this decision.

          • GayOldLady

            Here’s how it happens. “Your file will then go to a pool of Supreme Court clerks, who will review all of the documents, summarize them for the justices, and include a recommendation on whether to take the case. The justices then make a final decision. If they decide to hear a case, they will issue a “writ of certiorari.” “

          • GayOldLady

            This is a better explanation of what happened this morning:

            “On Monday, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the case would be better suited for Supreme Court review after the lower courts completed their work.”

            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/voter-id-case-texas-supreme-court.html

    • Acronym Jim

      This was the Texas Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court.

      Edit: Never mind, not enough coffee and under the weather today.

      • Boreal

        No this was the SCOTUS.

        • GayOldLady

          Do you know which of the Judges or panel of Judges rejected this case?

          • Boreal

            No I don’t.

          • UrsusArctos 🐻

            Granting cert would take 4 judges who think there’s something constitutional to address with the case that’s likely to succeed or alter standing law.
            Alito is assigned the 5th Circuit. “For the Fifth Circuit – Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice (Lousiana, Mississippi, Texas)” per https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitAssignments.aspx

          • GayOldLady

            Thank you. 🙂

  • Leo

    I’ve looked at internet comments crying ‘this is the beginning of the end’ in the last year as hyperbole.

    As of right now (maybe because it hits home) I don’t any longer. Honestly.

    • fuow

      Well, better late than never. Pity we were so unpersuasive that you and so many others didn’t see the writing on the wall back when it could have done some good.

  • joeyj1220

    And now I’m back to being pissed off that Obama didn’t fight harder to INSIST his supreme court nominee get a hearing

    • Paul

      Eisenhower made three recess appointments to the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Earl Warren. Obama should’ve done the same.

  • gaycuckhubby

    Before we get to upset let’s wait for some analysis from organizations like Lambda and reporters like Chris geidner. I seem to recall this case when it first came up and thought there was an issue on standing that it was premature and based on a hypothetical and no one could prove they have been harmed yet. The Supreme Court doesn’t take up cases like that.

    • SFBruce

      I certainly hope you’re right, or that there’s some reason for this, apart from the one that seems obvious at the moment.

  • Gigi

    “Obergefell did not address right to publicly funded benefits to all married couples…” If that’s the case then in the Declaration of Independence where it says “all men are created equal” it didn’t address the right of women to treated equally to men. Please get the word out to Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Nikki Haley, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, etc. [Edited.]

    • Steven H

      The Constitution definitely didn’t say that!

      • Gigi

        Ya ya ya, I corrected it. I’m Canadian. Gimme a break. 😉

        • Steven H

          No problem.

        • AmeriCanadian

          Count your lucky stars! I’m beginning to wish I didn’t have to enter the U.S. on a daily basis to go to work.

          • Gigi

            You might not be allowed to for much longer. A client of mine lives in Windsor and goes into the U.S. every day for work but was told that her work visa might not be renewed next year. Apparently this is happening to others at her work.

          • AmeriCanadian

            It is happening…to Canadians. I have a friend who is in the same position. Her U.S. work visa was not renewed. I have U.S. citizenship which still has a few perks, at least in this regard.

  • TJay229

    And for all you that Voted for HIM, Who have friends that voted for HIM and thought SHE was just as bad, This is what you have done.

    HE is now trying to appoint the same HEAD TEXAS Judge, that ruled in favor against US to that Federal Circuit.. Judge Williet.

    ***A overwhelmingly majority of White people voted for Him***

    • No one who voted for Trump is my friend. Acquaintance, coworker and relative, yes, but friend? No one who would do that can be a friend.

  • FAEN

    Thank you protest voters. I hope you are happy with the mess you have created.🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼

    • DrRobY

      Go easy on them, they wrestled long and hard with their decision. Their ability to sleep at night with their vote, their ability to not be labeled as a sell out, and their ability to get personal satisfaction at flipping off the DNC leadership weighed too heavy for them. They are at peace with their choice, which really was the only choice after all. The DNC will note that their vote will not be taken for granted. Their conscience is clear. And they ask that you respect their final decision. Thank you.

      Um, what were we talking about now?

      • JRCowles

        “At any cost, we must keep those who have too clear a conscience from living and dying in peace.” — E. M. Cioran

    • I mean could you imagine a terrifying nightmare world where we had a Justice Merrick Garland and Attorney General Don Verrilli. *Shudders*

      • fuow

        I know, and don’t forget HER EMAILS and BENGHAZI!!!!

    • AJD

      I’ll never fucking forgive those people. I’m actually angrier at them than I am at Trump voters because I expected better of them.

      • FAEN

        Yup! But I’ll probably get dressed down by a Bernie supporter for my comment.

  • Steven H

    I think people are going a bit crazy over this. (1) SCOTUS didn’t really permanently decide anything, and (2) one of the harmed parties (there currently aren’t any) is still free to sue in federal court so that the case can be decided on the merits.

    • FAEN

      We shall see where this goes.

      • Steven H

        Exactly. This is far from decided.

        • FAEN

          If they even THINK we don’t deserve equal benefits that’s a problem IMO.

    • gaycuckhubby

      Yes this was an issue of standing not of the merits of the case. But because the justices usually don’t say why they did not decide to hear a case it will be spun in every direction.

    • SFBruce

      I certainly hope you’re right. I haven’t read that much about this case, and I’m no lawyer, but I know standing is critical for a case to proceed, so I’m hoping what you’ve articulated is what I’ve missed.

    • fuow

      I think people are right to be going more than a bit crazy over this. At this point in time, the apologists clearly need to rethink their milk and cookies positions. Including you.

  • John Calendo

    DISGRACE!

  • Michael

    Every Red State will now follow suit.

  • Joe in PA

    And NOM issues money beg (see how good we are doing?) in 3…2…1…

    And you know Tony Perkkkins is prepping that press release. 🙁

    • He’s rubbing one out to kiddie porn first. Priorities.

  • gaycuckhubby

    Everybody breathe. The case was premature and the harm parties are still able to sue in federal court. The Supreme Court Justices are very picky about which cases they take and they need to have run the proper course in the lower court systems

  • SFBruce

    This is so shocking, I keep thinking I misread something. During hearings on the challenge to DOMA, Ginsburg said “There are two kinds of marriage: full marriage and the skim-milk marriage.” With this action, SCOTUS certainly seems to have granted states the power to offer skim-milk marriage, or marriage-lite, to same sex couples. How it is that this comports to the 14th amendment guarantees is beyond me. It only takes four votes to decide to hear a case, so at least one of the 4 reliable liberals on the court stabbed us in the back on this, and I’m suddenly nervous as hell about Masterpiece which the court will hear tomorrow. Again, this seems so indefensible, I keep thinking and hoping there’s something about this I’ve missed.

    • djcoastermark

      It is not even skim milk marriage, it is powdered milk marriage.

      • AmeriCanadian

        Evaporated milk marriage.

    • fuow

      Nope, they hit you right between the eyes. I so wish I could write here my true feelings for my fellow gay men who didn’t vote or voted ‘Green’ or wrote in ‘Bernie’ in November 2016. Last time I did that, a bunch of cucks pestered Joe to take it down.
      I am so furious with those gay men who didn’t vote and who still don’t see where this is headed. We’re in deep, deep trouble.

    • SFBruce

      Steven H and gaychuckhubby both make reasonable points about what I missed, so I’m hopeful this isn’t the last word on this.

  • JoeMyGod
    • Tomcat

      For now.

  • Xaca

    I am ready to dissolve this ‘supreme’ court until legitiimate democracy is restored to the United States.

    Gosuck was illegally placed on the court, and no rulings should be made until he is unseated. Further, there is likely evidence of corruption involving Roberts, Alito, and Thomas; until they are investigated and either cleared of wrongdoing or convicted of treason, there should be no further decisions by this body.

    It is so ordered. Boom.

  • JoeMyGod
    • gaycuckhubby

      Thank u for the update

    • Gay Fordham Prep Grad

      That makes a lot more sense. They did not take it up because it was an appeal of a procedural matter…not the substance of the argument.

      • glass

        That’s what I was thinking, since they skipped an appeals court. So in theory, it may make it to the Supreme Court in the future depending on this outcome in the county court.

  • gaycuckhubby

    The complete lack of reaction from civil rights attorneys makes me think this isn’t everything that the headlines suggest

  • JoeMyGod
  • Reasonoverhate

    Is this just an issue of standing? The TX ruling seems to fly directly in the face of Obergefell but it came from a state court, not a federal court.

  • Michael R

    The 14th amendment states that ALL CITIZENS
    are entitled to the rights ALL CITIZENS have ,
    this needs to go to the Supreme Court . Oh wait .

    • fuow

      Yeah, you have to be regarded as fully human to be a citizen.

      • Michael R

        When they decided Obergefell they didn’t change the constitution , they simply classified homosexuals as citizens of the United States entitled to the rights citizens of the United States have …
        until Gorsuch

  • AJD

    LGBT Trump supporters are one of the stupidest groups of people on the face of the planet.

    • fuow

      I can name an even more stupid group: Gay men who either didn’t vote or voted ‘Green’ or wrote in ‘Bernie’ in November 2016.

      • DJ John Bear

        or even FAR more stupid:
        “HIV-positive-gay-men-on-disability-who-voted-for-Donald” in the 2016 Election

  • Mike in Texas

    The weird thing about this is that I can’t see why Obergefell needed to comment on equal treatment under the law. Windsor established that the feds could not treat married same sex couples differently than mixed sex couples. The supremacy clause established that the states cannot do what the federal government cannot do. Thus there doesn’t seem to be a need for Obergefell to pile on.

    (Added later) Thinking back, I seem to recall that the Texas Supreme Court returned this case to the lower court for clarification of that question. Correct me if I’m wrong about this, but I don’t think the lower court has yet responded.

  • Reasonoverhate

    It only takes 4 justices to grant the writ of certiorari. We definitely have that many on our side. There must be some deeper legal reasoning?

  • Nax

    The fight continues.

  • JoeMyGod

    I’m adding reactions from LGBT groups to this post as they come in. GLAAD was first out with a statement. Refresh to see.

    • fuow

      Of course they were. HRC needed the time to add in a funding beg.

      • DN

        Dear fuow, did you hear the bad news in Texas? Enough about that – we have a cocktail party to plan and we’re in desperate need of money!

        Edited for being too sleepy to spell “fuow” properly

  • Belthazar

    After rereading the ruling, there’s still an equal protection claim to be made when (if) spousal benefits are denied.

    • Friday

      But they’re apparently trying to put the burden on LGBT people (or potentially anyone) to have to sue at length to have equal protection of the law upheld in each case. Even apparently for Fifth Amendment rights.

  • Matt

    Conservatives are terrible people. You can’t even argue that they’re not anymore.

  • nocadrummer

    Just like abortion rights, they plan to chip away until the right to marry has no meaning whatsoever.

  • Halou

    Given more opportunities to stack the SCOTUS and we may well see a reversal of Lawrence v. Texas?

    • fuow

      Yup.

      • JRCowles

        You read my mind. Also “Brown v. Board”, “Katzenbach”, & “Heart of Atlanta”, the latter requiring only “sincerely held religious convictions”.

        JC

    • Ninja0980

      Yup.

  • Gustav2

    FUCK, why did we bother?

    • IDavid

      I see now we weren’t as thorough as maybe we should have been, though bringing up such subjects may have slowed down general progress at the time. Not all is lost, you still get to carry your husband across the threshold!

      • Snarkaholic

        Yes…because Medicaid/Care won’t pay for his wheelchair.

        • IDavid

          Oh please, just a temporary bump in the road. Who was that that said, “don’t get mad, get everything”. I know it starts w an I…..

          • Lumpy Gaga

            Ivana Trump. What a legacy!

          • IDavid

            Truly

        • IDavid

          Uhg

      • Boreal

        “Not all is lost, you still get to carry your husband across the threshold!”
        What does that matter if I am a second class citizen?

  • JoeMyGod
  • Halou

    Gays can have a marriage ceremony, we can even get a sheet of paper with the ‘m’ word written on it, but we can never truly be married. Apparently.

  • Mark

    I fucking hate this country.

  • Christopher
  • Kelly Lape

    Separate but equal didn’t work, so their trying together and unequal.

    With a GOP stacked court they’ll get away with it for a time. But really as long as they can make our lives difficult for having the audacity to live our lives without shame, they will.

  • fuow

    OK all you gay men who either stayed home in November 2016 or voted ‘Green’ or wrote in Bernie to teach us Democrats a ‘lesson’:
    I, a fellow gay man, curse you from the bottom of my very heart and soul. May you suffer the full and unalloyed consequences of your actions for the rest of your lives. May the people whom you love suffer from your elevation of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
    This is only the beginning of the attack on our human status. May all of you who caused this to happen suffer for it.

    • FAEN

      But her emails! 🙄

      • fuow

        BENGHAZI! Bill and Monica!
        Yeah, It just gets worse and worse.

    • JRCowles

      I’m not gay, but I totally concur.

      JC

    • Tread

      But Bernie almost beat her in the primaries! Doesn’t that give them the excuse to throw our country away because their anointed saint wasn’t nominated?

      • Snarkaholic

        “B-b-b-ut he was going to give us FREE college!”

    • AJD

      I compare them to the German Communists in the 1930s who refused to work with the Social Democrats to stop Hitler and the Nazis and were later among the first to go to the camps. If it ever comes down to that in this country, I hope these stupid fucks are the first ones to go, starting with Susan fucking Sarandon.

  • JoeMyGod
  • I HATE EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS REPUBLICAN. IT IS NO CONSOLATION TO SAY THEIR GOD WILL SEND THEIR @SSES STRAIGHT TO H3LL. Which means they must pay for their selfish judgment while there is still life in them. This also means that hets marriage licenses do not provide benefits. Let’s kick ’em all off the roles.

  • LSMC1987

    I think depending on the cake case, we could see Trump reverse Federal gay marriage benefits citing Texas supreme court and SCOTUS’s refusal reverse that opinion.

  • JRCowles

    How is this consistent with “equal protection” and “due process”? I’d also be interested in the denial-of-cert question asked by another commenter.

    JC

  • Gustav2

    As the hubby’s retirement nears….

    • Steverino

      I was going to begin collecting Social Security this past August when I turned 62, figuring that thanks to the Windsor decision, if god forbid something happened to hubby, at least like any other spousal survivor, I could just switch to collecting his SSA benefits since his are greater. But since the election last year, I decided to wait until my benefits max out at age 70 (at which age my benefits will be closer in value to hubby’s, anyway) since one more fascist justice appointed to SCOTUS combined with Congress and the presidency firmly in GOP hands could lead to a resurrection of DOMA and a reversal of Windsor. Then we SSM spouses and survivors would be back on our own again at the federal level.

      • Gustav2

        I have signed up to start collecting SS in January. The hubby’s state government retirement rules seem to change every year, now spouses cannot be on his health insurance in retirement, a new change.

      • stevenj

        What will SS look like in 8 years? Suppose your spouse dies before then? Or, more likely, Congress starts chipping away at SS benefits to pay for their corporate tax cut? If you have a financial planner or investment counselor have you asked them for an opinion on this?

        • stevenj

          Also, have you figured out how much SS you will lose between now and age 70? That’s 8 years of benefits.

          If your husband is already getting SS benefits and you apply now you may be eligible for more than you think based on spousal benefits available to you now. My husband applied for and got his benefits to start last Aug at age 62. I am older, already getting SS (less than he) and based on his SS benefit was eligible for an extra $101/month which I applied for last summer and started receiving in Sept. (!!The decision was made in of all places a SS office in Birmingham, Alabama!!).

        • Steverino

          Good points, and I take them into consideration as this could likely be a fluid situation over the next eight years, especially under the current regime. If Windsor were to be overturned, I almost certainly would be compelled to collect off my own SS account regardless of age, as I would need the income. Otherwise under Windsor, I would collect off hubby’s account as a spousal survivor, but if Windsor were to be overturned after that, who knows if SSM spousal survivors would be “grandfathered in,” or if we would have to default back to collecting off our individual accounts, whatever they would be worth at the time. I discussed this issue with one of our oldest friends who is a CPA, and he is of the opinion that I should wait, for now, either until I turn 70 or become a survivor, which ever comes first. I am eligible for a portion of hubby’s VA benefits were I to become a survivor as well, but that also would be subject to a Windsor reversal.

  • Yixing’s Fluffer

    Tired: separate but equal
    Wired: “equal” but not really equal

  • TexasBoy

    The New Colossus – 2017 Edition (Plaque on Statue of Liberty)

    Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
    Mother of Abusers. From her beacon-hand
    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
    “Keep ancient lands, your poor and unwanted!” cries she
    With silent lips. “Give me your Well-Heeled, your Rich,
    Your super wealthy yearning to invest,
    The straight people of your leisure class.
    Send these, the ruthless, cruelest to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the 24 Karat golden door!”

    • Friday

      Hey, this ain’t Lady Liberty’s fault, this is about people disrespecting Her.

  • drtrmiller

    Why was this case not advanced to a federal appeals court instead of directly to SCOTUS? Doesn’t SCOTUS generally only take cases where there’s a break between federal courts of appeal?

    • Appeals from state supreme courts go directly to SCOTUS.

  • Nax

    So, every single right and benefit that gay couples receive by virtue of being married, now has to be litigated individually. Visiting spouses in the hospital? it’s up to the city, or county, or state. Inheriting property? it’s up to the individual state.

    • TampaDink

      That could even be left up to the hospital…..”corporations are people”. This is bullshit!

    • kipper

      This is the question , right ? can anyone with a stronger legal mind than me explain this to us ??

    • Boreal

      Pretty much. We’re back where we started prior to Obergefell where our marriages are the equivalent of Civil Unions.

  • Lumpy Gaga

    Is there any actual discriminatory policy in place at any institution (yet. I’ll ask again in five minutes)?

    Sounds like two “taxpayers” wanted a certification of sorts. Heterosexist privilege: they’re so steeped in it that they don’t get that the HR benefits their “marriage” enjoys is not written in stone anywhere, and the SCOTUS is not in the business of tweaking HR policy. The Free Market may yet make it so that no one can get their spouses covered.

    So as of yet (I believe), no one has published a benefits fee schedule with one column for ‘real’ marriage and another for ‘skim milk’ marriage. I suspect things will change when that happens.

    In the meantime, I hear that Masterpiece Cakes have rodent feces in the frosting. Everyone’s saying it. Sad!

  • gaycuckhubby
  • kipper

    Right now today do same sex couples in Houston have equal spousal benefits ?

    • Leo

      Yes. May not last. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong.

    • Mike in Houston

      Yes and will continue to receive them until and unless a trial court in Texas rules against the City.

      • gaycuckhubby

        And even then they will continue to have rights until the lawsuit gets appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court again. If this goes to the Supreme Court after running its course in the Texas Courts I expect a unanimous vote upholding marriage benefits by the city

        • Al Prazolam

          I wish I could be as sanguine as you. Today’s SCOTUS is as likely as not to ignore precedent. . Marriage equality will be on firmer ground in Australia than in the U.S. I keep hoping that Justice Thomas leaves the court one way or another and someone less extreme replaces him

  • Anastasia Beaverhousen

    Nice to know that the old adage “History repeats itself” is true, welcome to Germany in the 30’s.

    • Snarkaholic

      When they start rounding us up, I’ll “dispatch” as many of them as possible before they shoot me dead.

      • Boreal

        Me too. I’m not going peacefully.

        • Snarkaholic

          I’m not going at all. Bleeding out on the sidewalk is far preferable to the prolonged hell that is the alternative.
          For example, Zyklon B took TWENTY minutes to kill a person.

          • Boreal

            I armed myself after the election.

          • Anastasia Beaverhousen

            I have never owned a gun in my life, but I am seriously thinking about it now. I think they allowed us to get married so they can have a record of who we are and where we live. Scary.

  • j.martindale

    I am second class married now? Please go to the back of the bus, queers.

    • gaycuckhubby

      No, what happened today in the court is not as worrisome as the headlines suggest.

  • jmax

    In other words, “Marriage equality? You may have marriage, but you can’t have equality.”

  • Mike in Houston

    Before everyone gets all riled up on this and misinterprets both the SCOTUS and TXSCOTUS ruling:

    1. The U.S. Supreme Court likely didn’t take up the case because it’s largely a procedural case at this point and not “ripe” enough for the high court. (SCOTUS only takes up ~1% of all appeals.)
    2. The Texas Supreme Court’s ruling (while wrong-headed to be sure) did not rule on the merits of Obergefell, but sent the matter back to a state court to rule on the facts. That case will now proceed.
    3. If the lower court in Texas rules against the City of Houston in light of Obergefell, then the appeals process would likely take this back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    4. Plaintiffs in the Houston case only had standing because of a COH charter amendment that the anti-gay forces put in place in 2001 to keep the city from providing same-sex domestic partnerships.

    We’ll know more about where things stand regarding equal treatment post-Obergefell after the Masterpiece Cake case tomorrow — which should influence any rulings made by the Texas trial courts in the Houston case.

    • Leo

      Was not aware of #4, helps with context. Thank you.

    • Nax

      OK. But doesn’t this mean that if you live in a hostile state or jurisdiction, the floodgates are now open to limit the rights and benefits of gay spouses?

      • Mike in Houston

        No. And this case is even more narrow — it pertains to governments providing equal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

        • Nax

          A state is a government. By jurisdiction I mean city or county. What prevents them from saying gay spouses do not get the same marriage benefits as straight people? (if you work for the state, county, or city)

      • gaycuckhubby

        Highly unlikely, in the sense that this case will almost certainly be overturned in Texas Court

        • Nax

          Time will tell… in Michigan there are a lot of city councilors and county commissioners who would love to not offer benefits to their gay employees. I don’t know how they don’t see this as a green light. With all the inevitable appeals, it will take years to litigate, and a lot of hurt can be inflicted in the meantime.

    • kipper

      Thank you very much for this – some much needed perspective .

    • Friday

      What about the Fifth Amendment, though? The ruling’s saying state courts can deny those rights to LGBT spouses, isn’t it?

      • Mark_in_MN

        There isn’t a ruling. Denial of hearing an appeal isn’t a ruling. It is not setting precedent. They made no determination of law here, and the case is far from complete, especially when the matter on appeal is more on a preliminary or procedural matter than a final substantive ruling in the case.

    • Nax

      I live in Michigan. Snyder, his first Christmas in office, signed the bill preventing gay spouses who worked for any jurisdiction in the state, even jurisdictions which had approved to offer benefits to their employees, from receiving benefits. Doesn’t this give permission to each government jurisdiction that is hostile to same sex marriage to pass its own laws to prevent same sex benefits (to its employees)?

      • ECarpenter

        Not yet, it doesn’t. The Texas case is not yet decided, it has been sent back to the lower court to be re-tried.

        • Nax

          Right. So, until the case is decided, which is, with appeals, 2, 3, 4 years out, I in the meantime have permission to deny same sex benefits to my city, county, or state employees. Because, with the ruling, SCOTUS agrees that it’s undecided law.

          • Mark_in_MN

            This isn’t a ruling from SCOTUS. No precedent is set here. I think Mike is right above; this case is not yet ripe for review by the court.

          • Nax

            When Joe starts posting articles about city councils, county commissions, and state legislators, who have no qualms spending tax payer dollars on court cases to protect discriminatory laws, you will understand my argument. In Michigan, it is at the local and state levels that the discrimination was codified, and the laws are still on the books. By saying there is no precedent, no ruling, and that it is unsettled law, they will again be enforced. And with the tide of judicial appointments decidedly going against us, the discrimination will become the precedent.

          • Mark_in_MN

            Your getting ahead of the legal procedure here, and your mixing the legal procedure and political sides of the matter. Even if SCOTUS summarily ruled here (which would be premature) those local jurisdictions could still seek to discriminate. It would be litigated if they try. That is how it works. Courts rule on specific matters and cases, not general abstract questions. They react to existing situations, not future hypotheticals. That is as it should be, even if it is sometimes frustrating.

          • Nax

            I am fully aware of this. Legal procedures and political sides are intimately intertwined. That’s why Republicans want Republicans appointed to the judiciary and Democrats want Democrats appointed to the judiciary. And my point, that I guess I’m not making, is that this give impetus to those who would want to, and are looking for ways, to discriminate against us. And the line between hypotheticals and existing situations is up to the court to decide. Listen to the questioning at the SCOTUS. Only originalists argue, when it’s convenient for them, that courts don’t deal with hypotheticals.

          • Mark_in_MN

            Courts certain look at the potential consequences of lines of thinking, as they should. But they don’t take up questions in the abstract because it might come up in the future. They don’t rule on questions that are not at issue in a specific case based on what has happened. The law is no different today than it was last week. There is no ruling here. There is no green light, because there is no light from this at all. If someone with a jones to misconstrue this as a light, green or otherwise, wants to do so nothing is really going to stop them. SCOTUS declined to address a procedural and preliminary question in a pending case. It was probably right and appropriate for them to do so. The appropriate time for the court to take this up is after the trial court has ruled on the merits.

  • Friday

    How they Hel can they claim that equal protection of the law doesn’t apply to *testimony,* ( ie, Federal Fifth Amendment) rights?

    They’re trying to say the same legal contract counts for less depending if a minority their religion disfavors is involved, to once again deny civil rights, not to mention prosecute economic warfare against LGBT families, especially since they’re making health care (now being called a ‘fringe benefit’ again?) so hard to afford and obtain on other fronts.

  • j.martindale

    Reading this more carefully, I would say that perhaps it isn’t as grim a situation as it appears. It may be that the court does not want to take on the matter because the legal issues are just not set forth in such a way as to provide clarity. It might also be that the liberals wanted to save their fire for the bakery case. We may be overreacting a bit.

    • Friday

      I think it does show the Right’s angle of attack here, and it’s probably inviting people and states to commence discriminating in hopes a Fundie-activist SCOTUS will back them up.

    • Nicholas Reed

      I think you might be right. The courts liberals clearly agree that marriage equality means equality in marriage, and none of them dissented from this writ. It explicitly stated that it was not affirming the idea that the constitution allows differential treatment, merely that the trial court would have to determine if there is a rational basis to treat same-sex married couples and opposite-sex married couples differently based on the facts of the case (hint: there isn’t, and if the SCOTUS follows its own precedent, it will overturn a lower court that rules otherwise). It’s a cowardly, but strategic decision as far as I can tell.

      • Steve Teeter

        If they’re saying, “This case is not yet ready for us to rule on it. Try again.” then it’s probably the correct decision. And from what you say, that’s what it looks like.

      • Al Prazolam

        It takes four justices to vote in favor of hearing a case. There are four liberal justices who could have voted to hear it but they didn’t. They may be waiting for the case to be developed further along. That could take more than a year. If SCOTUS hears the case our only hope is that Justice Kennedy will join the four liberal justice to provide a good outcome. However, Kennedy may decide to retire next year, and it’s a sure bet that whoever succeeds him won’t be in our corner.

      • j.martindale

        Yes. I have heard the term “Not ripe” come up about cases like this. They may just be holding off while the process completes itself.

    • Nax

      When the water is in full boil, it’ll be too late. Is there overreacting anymore?

  • anne marie in philly

    what the WHAT? FUCK SCOTUS!

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    What the fuck?!?!?!

  • KnownDonorDad

    My initial reaction: who else doesn’t qualify? Interracial couples? I mean, was that specifically dealt with in Loving v. Virginia?

    I’ll digest it later, and hopefully will calm down a bit.

  • Paula

    You want to take away benefits from my spouse and I still work for you?
    Damn! They didn’t call me Havoc for nothing. I’m just sayin’.

  • Mike Solo

    Well, if they are going to refuse my partner benefits, I’m going to refuse them my student loan payments.

  • Dana Chilton

    They also denied review in Floyd v Alabama. With a new ultra conservative justice, who is to the right of former justice Scalia, SCOTUS, with today’s actions, seems to be signaling their eagerness to chart new courses and their intention to ignore precedent in that endeavor. We should all prepare for years of citizens-united style actions by a newly invigorated right wing court.

  • UrsusArctos 🐻

    Looks like the Roberts court plans to have Texas mess with EVERYONE. Another TX court case that’s “not ripe” but can potentially screw voters everywhere was sent back to lower courts to solidify case law for awfulness.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/voter-id-case-texas-supreme-court.html

  • Lars Littlefield

    🙁

  • Jim Maloney

    Good to read this post at Equality Case Files and it’s comments section in conjunction with post by Joe. Texas Supreme Court had remanded to lower court. SCOTUS may be waiting for their decision first.

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1493303174038206&id=219402328094970

    • ECarpenter

      Thanks! That’s not mentioned in the post. If the court case continues in the lower courts, with the results of those proceedings also appealable to the Supreme Court, this is not so serious.

      • Can you explain please why — in layman’ terms it is not so serious then? I am trying to follow the logic but it is a bit confusing for me — thanks. I think i get the gist — upon appeal to SCOTUS there will be more of a key constitutional issue directly related to Obergefell maybe?

        • gaycuckhubby

          Because no court has found that gay couples should not receive benefits there has just been some confusion on what exactly the Obergefell ruling entails. And scotus won’t hear the cases until there’s a final ruling or until people are actually injured by this.

          • Thanks, perhaps from a tactical standpoint Roberts does not want Obergefell turning into another Roe vs. Wade — with annual challenges having to be ruled on in an attempt to dismember the ruling piecemeal — over the rest of his tenure as Chief Justice which looks like it might be the case. I am just wondering. Roberts is probably going to be with us for a long time, and the right is fretting that he is turning into a liberal https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-chief-justice-roberts-a-secret-liberal/

        • ECarpenter

          The Texas Supreme Court did not make a final judgement, it made some comments and sent the case back to a lower court. The lower court has not yet re-tried the case with the Texas Supreme Court comments in mind.

          It had also been appealed to the federal Supreme Court. That court just said they won’t hear the case. This lets the Texas Supreme Court ruling (which sent it back to the lower court) stand.

          But no final decision has been made.

          The next step is to re-try the case in the lower state court taking the Texas Supreme Court instructions into account. Once that is done, whatever the verdict is can be appealed.

          Which means that if it’s decided against us again, it can be appealed again, and the federal Supreme Court may rule on it then.

      • Jim Maloney

        The Pavan case earlier this year from the Arkansas Supreme Court had not been remanded I believe and SCOTUS reversed it possibly because it was the state’s final word. This is speculation but it seems SCOTUS normally prefers cases go through all the channels before reaching them.

    • John L

      Thanks for this. I thought as much since it takes of four of the nine Justices to grant a writ of certiorari–meaning that “one of ours” had to have turned on us which only seems probable if the case wasn’t ready for review in the first place (e.i. hadn’t exhausted the State courts)

  • TexasBoy

    Next up: SCOTUS lets stand a ruling by Kentucky, Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida and Texas that slavery of people with darker skin is a State Right, and to say otherwise is prejudice against Freedom of Religion.

    • m_lp_ql_m

      You can be free, but you can’t get a job without written permission from your Master.

  • narutomania

    Translation of this legal “logic”: as a person of colour, you can sit at the lunch counter and I have to take your order, but I don’t actually have to bring any food to you.

  • gaycuckhubby

    I’m disappointed in GLAADs statement. It’s fear-mongering and not representative of what happened in court today

  • TimCA

    This allows to stand a policy of deliberate state sponsored discrimination against gay men and women. Let’s not fool ourselves. The process is now underway to strip us of our rights and protections and convert us into dejure second class citizens. First, you demonize the minority group. Then you take away the ability of that minority group to legally defend themselves. Finally when the despised minority is rendered entirely helpless, you move in for the final kill. This is beyond troubling.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      This allows to stand a policy of deliberate state sponsored
      discrimination against gay men and women. Let’s not fool ourselves. The
      process is now underway to strip us of our rights and protections and
      convert us into dejure second class citizens.

      That’s the message several orgs have sent: no need to rend garments at the moment, on this case necessarily, but make no mistake: we are under attack in the courts. It’s on. Again.

      • It’s the right’s basic strategy when the lose on social issues: keep chipping away.

  • Robert K Wright

    I guess we can surmise what the Masterpiece Bakers case ruling will be. Except they might hold that legally enacted State law would be applicable. As they did in the recent gun restriction case.

  • ted-

    In reference to X-Men, Professor X encouraged the integration of mutants and mankind by slowly introducing the idea that mutants are no different than that of mankind. Magneto, on the other hand, was “Enough is enough! We’re done trying to appease mankind, we will just take our rights or we kill them.”

    When I read these news/articles, the more and more I’m siding with Magneto – just take our civil rights by the balls!

  • gaycuckhubby

    “City of Houston appeals Tx SCt holding that Obergefell didn’t settle question whether married same-sex couples must receive same spousal benefits as different-sex couples”

    They’re right in a way, Obergefell didn’t directly address this. But the 14th Amendment and the Windsor case will do that for the courts. All scotus did was send the case back to the courts. Nothing else they could really do, no one has stopped receiving benefits in Houston so there’s no harm and no way to prove standing

    • drbrentzenobia

      That was my sense as well, that they are kicking the can back to the lower courts to let the process fully play out.

    • canoebum

      I think you are correct. This controversy is a loser for the bigots. An Equal Protection argument will eventually put the question to rest. Same license, same benefits.

    • Actually, Obergefell explicitly states that same-sex couples have a right to marriage on “the same terms and conditions” as opposite-sex couples.

      Doesn’t seem to be a lot of wiggle room there.

  • Mark Cichewicz

    This is the worst news we could get and it stands as a reminder to all the LGBTQ who voted to put Donald in the White House. What the hell were you thinking. Oh that right you weren’t.

    • gaycuckhubby

      Original Texas Court already made this ruling before Trump got into office. This case will almost certainly get overturned quickly in Texas Courts. I am very concerned with Trump’s Court appointees, they will be horrible for us for decades. But this case was not a result of Trumps victory

      • Helen Damnation™

        We need to find out if Gorsucks’ recent addition to the court helped form today’s decision not to review.

    • Helen Damnation™

      There are still many gay folks here in Louisiana who support Trump. They are unbelievably ignorant and like other Trump supporters, are impossible to have an intelligent adult debate with, about ANYTHING.

  • David Kerlick

    Mitch McConnell, Trump enabler, and pillager of non-billionaires, refused to hear Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland. Blame where it belongs.

  • Bud

    “Obergefell declared that the Constitution grants same-sex couples “the constellation” of “rights, benefits, and responsibilities” that “the states have linked to marriage.” Its holding was not limited to marriage licensing. The Arkansas Supreme Court learned this lesson when it attempted to keep same-sex parents off their children’s birth certificates.” ~ Read the full article here at this link: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/06/texas_supreme_court_refuses_to_extend_spousal_benefits_to_same_sex_couples.html

  • N. Holbrook

    The court didn’t take up the case because they already know they’re going to settle the dispute in the Masterpiece Cake litigation. One would hope they’re going to send a clear message to everyone in the US that it is NOT permitted to discriminate against LGBTs in ANY circumstances.

    • gaycuckhubby

      I disagree. Even if they rule against LGBT people in the cake case then marriage rights still exist. all they did today was tell a lower court to use existing laws to find a ruling in their case.

      • N. Holbrook

        Not under the Trump administration, they don’t. If SCOTUS intends to put an end to the wishy-washy interpretation of equal rights then they have no need to take up the ancillary case which would be summarily decided by their decision in the Cake Case.

    • DJMTS

      I want to agree, but, being a cynic, I fear that’s a naive analysis.

      • N. Holbrook

        Pessimism is not a survival trait.

    • Snarky

      Different issues. One is access to public accommodations (Masterpiece) and the other one is equal access to government-funded marriage benefits (Texas). The Supremes would not see these as overlapping cases.

  • tchowski

    Thanks, Bernie Babies – your goddamn whiny insistence on TOTAL SOCIALISM or nothing has led to this. Are you happy now?

    • Hey, some socialism is a good idea. I smell a plant trying to split Democrats/progressives apart here. Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton and CAMPAIGNED for her. The vast majority of Bernie’s supporters voted for Hillary and Democratic party candidates last November and plan to do so next year. Bernie runs as an independent in Vermont with the full backing of the Vermont Democratic Party. Back off already! Unity not Division. (Note — I voted for Hillary and consider myself a moderate Democrat but I am sick of people attacking the left side of my party, back off already we need each other!)

      • Jean-Marc in Canada

        Hang on now, you’re being a bit revisionist and naive with your assertion. Yes, Bernie did campaign for Hillary, but only after months of him and his followers calling her every name in the book, sabotaging every thing she said, pushing the republican narrative of her being a crook and on and on it went. His last minute turnaround was far too little far too late, a “Paul at the crossroads” moment it was not. It’s the height of naivete to think that after all the bullshit spewed that somehow the left would give a damn. Sorry, but no.

        While it is true liberals and leftists must now put aside their animosity for the sake of reigning in the right, the fact remains the rift Bernie, Stein and others helped create will remain for a long time to come…more’s the pity. That intellectual pragmatism was replaced with purity tests and unrealistic expectations. Such is the idiocy of rigid ideology, it always ends up failing in end.

        • Cipher

          I abhor violence, really. This urge to find Susan Sarandon and just give her a mild shake- I will redirect toward year end donations to HRC, etc.. Civil rights depend on courts. No, things would not be the same had the other major candidate been elected.

          This remaking of the federal judiciary, which is comprised of judges appointed for life, was foreseeable. What I foresee next is the crowing of my more leftist friends when the Democrats select their slate of 2018 candidates and the list fails to satisfy those who insist that everyone need tow a certain line.

        • Ninja0980

          Indeed.
          By the time Bernie did anything for Hillary it was too little too late, the well had become too poisoned to drink from.

    • The_Wretched

      Attention moderate Dems – look at the right wing troll running with the infighting line. You may want to skip supporting that argument.

  • ECarpenter

    So, did you all think this would be easy? That Obergefell was a magic wand that would make everything ok for ever and ever?

    Have you not been paying attention to the history of the West since Christianity took over the Roman empire in the fourth century and started demonizing gay men and making gay sex illegal? Our fight here goes all the way back to those days – did you think we could overcome the results of all of that history in a few decades?

    We’ve had a long fight to get to this point, and it will be a long fight to get us to full equality. We’re not there yet, and may not be in the lifetime of anyone reading this. The fundamentalist Christians here (and fundamentalist Muslims elsewhere) are willing to go to extreme lengths to harm us, and where they hold sufficient political power, they will certainly harm us.

  • I admit to being somewhat taken aback at this, particularly since the Texas decision is way out there.

    From the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (p. 28):

    Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.

    That seems pretty plain — if you’re offering benefits to married opposite-sex couples, you have to offer the same benefits to same-sex couples.

  • Hank

    Separate but UNEQUAL….. What Hypocrisy!!!

    • Jean-Marc in Canada

      It’s the Murican way.

  • Paula

    I don’t imagine it will take too long before some case is appealed to SCOTUS and Obergefell is no more. 😖😖

    • Not with the current makeup of SCOTUS. If Kennedy is replaced by a far-right justice maybe. If both Kennedy and Ginsburg are replaced for example, it very well could happen. However, SCOTUS historically does not like to overturn settled social issues with popular majorities such as marriage equality. “Chipping away” though at the edges can occur though (like Roe).

      • Al Prazolam

        Perhaps, but Roe is in jeopardy if Trump appoints another justice. Roe is much older than Obergefell but I can see the court reversing itself. After all, didn’t the court reverse itself on Bowers when it ruled on Lawrence?

    • Reality.Bites

      There needs to be a case of a state enacting a marriage ban in defiance of Obergefel.

      I can guarantee that any state doing that would find the corporate pressure over so-called “bathroom bills” was like a One Million Moms boycott.

  • PAUL SCHINDLER

    We all need to hold our horses here. This was not a final ruling from the Texas Supreme Court, obnoxious as it was. It was sent back to the lower court there, and there was mention of last year’s SCOTUS ruling holding that Arkansas adoption law has to take account of Obergefell, so it’s not even clear that the FINAL ruling out of the Texas Supreme Court will be bad, and there is then a chance to go back to SCOTUS. SCOTUS was not ruling here on the merits of what Texas did, and there’s a lot to play out here. It’s noteworthy that the group that has commented is GLAAD, not GLAD, Lambda, etc…

    • gaycuckhubby

      Amen

    • Mike in Houston

      That and most of the fireworks have been on whether or not the lower court should issue an injunction prohibiting the city from providing benefits in the interim.

      • gaycuckhubby

        Which I can’t imagine they would do. And if they did that would immediately get appealed back to the Supreme Court and I expect they would overturn the injunction immediately. Even Roberts

  • Puckfair52

    Bizzaro world presents yet another chapter in America Fucked

  • JWC

    It just seems weird especially in Texas, when the STR8 world wants something passed its usually done in jig time, Be it something of LGBTQ , women rights or abortion, then it must be held to the highest scrutiny. They know they will ultimately loose but they will not give in willingly . So much for live and let live

  • gaycuckhubby

    Just a reminder that at least six counties in Alabama and I’m assuming others throughout the nation are still refusing to hand out marriage licenses.

  • fuzzybits

    And it’s only Monday.

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    I would like to say I’m surprised, dismayed or even a bit shocked…but I can’t. I saw this coming before Nov. 8, 2016. The moment Trump won, the losses would begin. Now you have states chipping away at all kinds of LGBTQ rights and protections. This is how it starts, not with sweeping laws and edicts, but like drops of waters filling a bucket…and once full, the deluge. I’m just thankful I live in a country where our rights were enshrined into the constitution itself, thus giving us direct protections. As for those responsible, on the right and the left (you know who you are), I can only hope you wise up before they start coming for you…oh wait, that’s already happening….

  • Welcome to Republican America. This is what voters want, so the conversation to be held is with voters.

  • coram nobis

    It’s a hint the Court may trim back Obergefell. Apparently marriage is “white lace and promises” and not much else.

    • The_Wretched

      “marriage” isn’t marriage unless all status = married couples are treated the same by business, government and other institutions of civilization.

  • EdM01

    So what are the SCOTUS liberals and Kennedy court doing? Just looking the other way as Red States run by Christ-Psychotics make marriage equality utterly meaningless? I should have left for Canada, UK, Australia, NZ or Europe when I was 18!

  • MonochromeMouse

    So the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education doesn’t stand anymore? That’s pretty much what the court is saying.

    • gaycuckhubby

      no. Not even close. But I can see where you can get that interpretation from the Headlines. The truth is There is no case here. Texas and Houston are providing benefits like they should. There is a lawsuit challenging that by two anti-gay activists. but there has been no final decision and no rights being taken away so there’s no need for the Supreme Court to take the case

      • MonochromeMouse

        Ah, it did seem odd that something as bad as the headline sounds wasn’t big national news.

  • Gregory In Seattle

    “[D]id not hold that ‘states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.'”

    Combine this with the claim that corporate entities can have a religion, and laws permitting discrimination in the name of religion…. This means corporations can deny benefits to marriages they disagree with on religious grounds? Like, say, Muslim marriages, or Jewish marriages, or interracial marriages? This means a company can adopt a policy that marriage benefits are payable only to marriages solemnized within a particular denomination?

  • seant426

    If opp sex married couples get state benefits then same sex married couples do too. It’s pretty simple. If not, it’s discrimination. Sorry to dumb this down for the SC.

    • gaycuckhubby

      The Supreme Court doesn’t disagree with you. Houston and Texas are both giving marriage benefits to same-sex couples. There’s no reason for the Supreme Court to weigh in yet

      • The_Wretched

        quisling. The tweet from Steed was right.

        • gaycuckhubby

          Quisling? I was hoping for Nazi or troll or Russian Bot. You disappoint me

  • Welcome to 2nd class status again, folks.

    • gaycuckhubby

      Not yet Becca ️ the reason the court didn’t hear this case is because there is no reason for them to. There have been no rights taken away and until there are there’s no need for them to weigh in.

      • The_Wretched

        BS.

        The harm of second class standing is real. Further, the facts will not change for ‘as applied’ vs ‘on the face’ of the law as it stands. This is justicible now and will not be mooted by the passage of time.

        • gaycuckhubby

          the Supreme Court doesn’t weigh in every time that someone sues to change policy. There would be absolutely no way they could keep up with the workflow. Here’s a case where no one’s rights have been taken away but they are being challenged in court. the Supreme Court merely said that the lower court should have a crack at it first.

          • The_Wretched

            The ‘policy’ in Texas is blatant discrimination and violates Obergefell in exactly the same way that Brown had ripples that changed a bunch of other stuff. “merely” = red flag.

            Lower court? didn’t this come up from the TX supreme court?

          • gaycuckhubby

            there is no anti-gay policy in Texas when it comes to marriage benefits. They have the exact same policy as everyone else in the country. They are all getting benefits.
            in the state of Texas and in the city of Houston gay married couples are treated exactly the same as straight married couples in every legal way including Citywide benefits.

          • The_Wretched

            ““Equal recognition of same-sex marriage requires more than a marriage
            license; it requires equal access to the constellation of benefits that
            the state has linked to marriage,” the city’s lawyers told the court.”

            From the OP.

            The TX SCT has said it’s ok to deny rights to married LGBT folks that het married people get. How long do you think it’ll take for someone to start doing exactly that?

          • gaycuckhubby

            the Texas Court said it might be but the lower Court’s need to decide that. this is all hypothetical which is why the Supreme Court couldn’t take up the case

          • The_Wretched

            I guess it’s also hypothetical if black people are discriminated on the right to vote or if Roy Moore and friends want to curtail our rights.

          • gaycuckhubby

            when it comes to our judicial system you have to show harm and injury. That’s just how it works.

          • The_Wretched

            Oh spare me your Federalist Society lies.

            ‘on it’s face’ unconstitutionality determinations have been around for ever. It’s only right wing nuts jobs intransigence and unwillingness to help all citizens equally that’s led to the increase of ‘as applied’ challenges being more normalized in the court system.

          • BobSF_94117

            Except that they could have ended the entire argument, saving the Texas courts from litigating the issue. And they didn’t.

          • gaycuckhubby

            they could have. But that’s not historically what the court does. Otherwise the Supreme Court would be deciding every single case brought by anybody in any Court. and they simply can’t do that work load and it would be improper for nine justices to decide every single case. Looking at this case, no rights have been denied so there’s no urgency for the court to step in

          • BobSF_94117

            Taking the case is not the only alternative. There are different ways a case can be dismissed.

          • gaycuckhubby

            True. But again its uncommon.
            I have no problem with the Texas courts sorting it out on their own. a reminder that an appeals court in Texas already ruled for the City of Houston and will likely again even with the Texas Supreme Courts further instructions on Obergefell

    • leastyebejudged

      It’s just sad you and your buddies here were so fucking deluded that you actually believed otherwise.

  • Natty Enquirer

    The Court did not say we’re not entitled to those benefits. They said the question was open and not settled by Obergefell. So it’s far from over.

    • gaycuckhubby

      Right. The Texas Supreme Court.

  • lymis

    I’d agree within reason that simply being married doesn’t automatically force employers to offer benefits. But not that they can offer benefits to some employees but not other based solely on the gender of their spouse.

    How does this logic not apply to letting employers give white employees benefits they don’t give non-white employees?

  • Artsy

    “This naked attempt to undermine Obergefell and relegate married lesbian, gay, and bisexual public employees to second-class status cannot be allowed to stand.”

  • CB

    Want to save public money? Make it so benefits are not required for any spouses. People can buy in to a family plan just like they do in most corporations.

  • Ninja0980

    For those who said both parties are the same, once again go fuck yourselves.

    • leastyebejudged

      Straw man much.

  • peterparker

    According the article on The Advocate’s website, what this means is that the case goes back to the Harris County District Court. Given that the Harris County District Court is in Houston, there is a chance it may be decided in our favor.

    • gaycuckhubby

      So a little history on this case. It was first heard by Harris County judge who ruled against this city.
      the city appealed to a Texas appeal court who ruled in the city’s favor.
      Then the opponent’s appealed to the Texas Supreme Court who did not rule on the case but said that the Obergefell ruling was not clear and conclusive when it came to benefits (it obviously is) but they remanded the case back to a Harris County judge.
      Nothing changes and the City of Houston is almost guaranteed a win, at least by the Appeals stage.

      One other part I don’t quite understand, the opponents seem to be saying that this all ties to the domestic partnership benefits that were afforded before marriage equality was reality. So I’m not even sure if they are saying that married couples cannot receive benefits or just domestic partners. that’s the only part I’m confused about. Either way I think the Supreme Court was correct today

  • Kevin Andrews

    Must be that Gorsuch Russian money-laundering rules the treasonous Roberts SCOTUS. The ruling will be revisited as the Christ-O-Fascist’s contempt of everyone not one of them rises.
    Sing Hail, Sing Hail, Sieg Heil, Seig Heil has a historic ring, don’t you think? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6563aca573179ad1a979469ce1a9b0c1d644cacd439115eb9b18b7cb41b0af23.png

  • Brian Webb

    I wouldn’t be surprised if you start to hear about churches being burned as a retaliation for fucking with the wrong people. So, stock up on marshmallows kids!

  • Philip Marks

    Thanks to those of you who felt Trump and Hilary were moral equivalents and there was no reason to accept a flawed candidate in liey of a disastrous one…

    • leastyebejudged

      Your straw man is on fire today.

      • Philip Marks

        No Trump no Gorsuch. Not a straw man.

      • Philip Marks

        Your child molester is going to be a moral victory for immorality.

        • leastyebejudged

          Kill yourself you POS.

  • JCF
  • 3-Star

    It’s Texas. Sigh.

  • Lance Lanier

    I guess big business will no longer be investing in TEXAS. More jobs for the rest of the country. Thank You Texas!

  • Nowhereman

    So separate, and not equal for us, huh?

  • leastyebejudged

    “or testimonial privileges.”

    They will never GIVE us equality; we must actively SEIZE it, and shove it in their fucking faces.

    • DN

      That caught my eye, too. Does that mean that in Texas, a spouse *can* be compelled to testify against their spouse if they’re the same sex?

  • DemocraticRepublic

    This is what Pence, Bannon, and the entire GOP wanted, which is why they outwardly “supported” Meathead for President…power to change the social structure and reverse equality… and probably persecute or imprison every last LGTBQ individual.