Texas says same-sex married couples not entitled to benefits
What more can you say about the Texas Supreme Court? Shitheads? Jerks? Whale shit? —nothing lower than that----it sits on the bottom of the ocean.
Next step, US Supreme Court.
Florida is clearly the dong.
It looks like the next step is back with the trial court. They remanded the case back to that lower court. One of our lawyers will probably be along to talk about all the implications of remand and whether/how the case could still continue up to SCOTUS despite it being with the initial court again.
Is California the buttocks?
The article is short on detail, but what it does say about the ruling makes no sense. He wants the lower court to reconsider its support for benefits for gay couples because he says it should be considered in light of Obergefell. If it was decided prior to Obergefell, this would only reinforce the decision now. Maybe an important clue is that Justice Boyd said that “there’s still room for state courts to explore the ‘reach and ramifications’ of [Obergefell]” – i.e. “it sucks, but if we really work at it, we can probably find ways around it.”
This being in Texas and all, I thought it might be interesting to take a slightly closer look at this Justice Jeffrey Boyd and maybe understand his thinking a bit better. And things started coming into focus.
He was chief of staff to Rick Perry until 2011, when Perry put him on the court. Graduate of Abilene Christian University (praise the Lord!). Wife has served as director of Children’s Ministries at the Brentwood Oaks Church of Christ since 2005 (hallelujah, for God is great!). Their twin daughters both graduated from Abilene Christian University (come let us bow down in worship, and sing praises to God!). Oh, and Boyd himself is an ordained minister (for fire and brimstone shall be unleashed upon the gays, from whose evil we beseech the Lord to save us). Pretty much that, I think.
Well Texas is a state of 27 million people. I’m calling them out. You either defend or condemn these fuckers—and not just on a message board. Go out and tell my fellow queers they are useless, or go out and canvas against the bigots.
I am calling out all the Alabama dopers who defended Confederate Memorial Day and Jefferson Davis’s Birthday. (I had a thread on that a few years ago). Do you remember who OK’d a JD birthday holiday for Alabama----It’s a paid holiday for state employees? None other than Sampiro. I don’t even know if he’s still around.
But Hillary was right. There’s a lot of fucking deplorables in the South----not everyone, mind you. But if you are down here, you are probably only a stone’s throw away from one.
Not to mention the assholes I could poison next Thanksgiving.
So they’ve told the “trial court to reconsider the case”. What happens if the trial court reconsiders and decides to stand by their original ruling?
Texas isn’t quite as conservative as people in California think; California’s not quite as liberal as Texans think. They’re basically mirrors of each other, which is why they hate each other’s guts.
I’m pretty hardcore Dem these days but honest to goodness, in a number of ways, Texas is one of my favorite states. Austin’s pretty hip to the game and has been for a long time. Much of the state is Latino and fighting the power like everyone else. It’s probably even a “purple” state, which explains why the white power establishment is going all out to cling to power.
Not a fan of their batshit insane governor, who’s unbelievably even more batshit than the last one, but…don’t mess with Texas.
I’ve hiked the entire South Rim Trail at Big Bend. I’ve hiked Guadalupe national park. Now is not the time to be conciliatory. Texas just said that I should not have rights to healthcare. In my state, my healthcare is through my husband of 21 years----well only 2 years officially. You can understand why I am a little pissed, right?
But I DO like you----and the irony isn’t lost on me.
Pretty much my thought too. What the hell is he trying to say there? Those quotes don’t make any sense.
Eh… I’m a queer Texan, so we’re not all a group mind dedicated to conservative social beliefs. Granted, I’m in Austin, a precious little island of blue in an ocean of red. All the Texan “weirdos” (anyone who fails to meet ‘normal’ standards) come here as a sanctuary.
So, also as a queer Texan, our supreme court can bite me.
This ruling is the worst kind of BS - the justices know it’s crap but did it anyway for internal GOP politics reasons. Originally they refused to hear the case because (in the light of Obergefell) the trial court got it right, with one crackpot dissent. And then the talk radio brigade kicked in and the Governor and other state officials asked the court to reconsider. We elect our Supreme Court in Texas, and they suddenly caught a whiff of primary challengers from their right accusing them of being evil gay-loving liberals. Note especially the cowardice in their decision where they actually fail to take a stand and overrule the trial court, they just say the trial court has to think about it some more. They know that they’re doomed to get overruled by a federal court but they did it to save their own seats and I can only hope they don’t keep them.
As a recovering Texan, I offer my solidarity with our pals and gals in the Bluebonnet of the Beast, and my unflinching support from way up here.
The only tiny faintest glimmer of anything that makes the slightest bit of sense is a line I saw in this report from KHOU, “…Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — who asked the court to clarify that Obergefell does not include a “command” to public employers regarding employee benefits.”
And I guess I technically agree that *Obergefell *does not command public employers to provide benefits to same sex spouses if, and only if those benefits are not already extended to opposite sex spouses of employees.
Obergefell does mandate equal treatment on such benefits.
damn straight :mad:
Maybe you should bite your tongue and read the judgement before making such pronouncements.
Basically.
- Texas has had a defence of marriage Act since 1970’s
- After Windsor the City of Houston began to pay benefits to same sex married couples.
- As Windsor only applied to the Federal DOMA, two people went to State Court to restrain the Mayor of Houston from doing so, claiming a violation of the Texan DOMA. They obtained a Temporary Stay of such payments until final decision of the Trial Court.
- The Mayor appealed. While Appeal was pending, the Supreme Court of the US handed down the decision in Obergefell. As a result, the Court of Appeal dismissed the matter.
- Texas State Supreme Court has
i) Sent the matter back to the Trial Court. Rightly. The only issue before the Appellate Court was the issue of the stay. The effect of Obergefell if any, are to be decided on merits stage, which has not occured yet.
ii) Set aside the stay that the Trial Court had originally granted. This is important. The original injunction restraining same sex married couples from obtaining benefits has not been restored, indeed the Court specifically sets it aside.
The headline in the article which prompted this thread is inaccurate. It’s a narrow decision on technical grounds.
What’s the Federal question here?
An equal protection issue…14th Amendment?