SCOTUS lets stand Texas ruling on gay spouse benefits

Associated Press

AUSTIN, Texas (December 4, 2017) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a Texas ruling that gay spouses may not be entitled to government-subsidized workplace benefits — a potential victory for social conservatives hoping to chip away at 2015′s legalization of same-sex marriage.

An early Christmas present

Saenz, Jonathan (Texas Values)"... This is a tremendous victory for Houston taxpayers. To us, it's an early Christmas present from the U.S. Supreme Court on the rule of law .... For the city of Houston to lose again on this issue [makes you] wonder how much more tax dollars they're going to waste."

"The only controlling law is Texas law – and so the state [law] of Texas ... and local law in Houston is you can't use tax dollars to pay for same-sex benefits, so that's the law the government should be following."

Jonathan Saenz, president
Texas Values

In June, the Texas Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s decision favoring spousal benefits for gay city employees in Houston, ordering the issue back to trial. That was a major reversal for the all-Republican state high court, which previously refused to even consider the benefits case after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision that the Constitution grants gay couples who want to marry “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

The Texas court changed its mind and heard the case amid intense pressure from Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton, as well as dozens of other conservative elected officials, church leaders and grassroots activists. They argued that the case may help Texas limit the scope of the Supreme Court ruling, especially in how it is applied to states.

Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision to reject Houston’s appeal of the Texas court decision came without dissent or comment. The case began with a coalition of religious and socially conservative groups suing America’s fourth-largest city in 2013 to block a move to offer same-sex spousal benefits to municipal employees.

Houston has been paying same-sex benefits amid the case’s developments and will continue to do so while it progresses through lower Texas courts. The city argues that the 2015 legalization of gay marriage meant all marriages are equal, so anything offered to opposite-sex couples must be offered to same-sex ones.

Conservative groups counter that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t declare spousal benefits a fundamental right of marriage two years ago, and that it should be up to states to decide. They also see a chance for Texas to defend religious liberty under a state gay marriage ban that voters approved in 2005.

Jared Woodfill, a Houston attorney and conservative activist at the center of the case, called Monday’s action by the nation’s high court, “A nice early Christmas present.”

“The U.S. Supreme court could have taken the case and used it to further expand Obergefell. They chose not to,” he said. “It’s confirmation that the Texas Supreme Court got it right.”

Woodfill said that religious liberty groups in two other states had contacted him in years past, seeking information about Texas’ legal challenge.

“It obviously has precedential value, not just for Texas but the entire country,” Woodfill said. However, the court has said on several occasions that the denial of such petitions “without more has no significance as a ruling.”

In August, three Houston city employees and their spouses sued the city in federal court, concerned that the civil case could force the city to stop paying same-sex benefits. A federal judge dismissed that case last month, saying it was too early since the civil case was still proceeding. Upton, who represented the city employees, said they were ready to sue again depending on what happens in Texas courts.

Consider Supporting Us?

The staff at strives daily to bring you news from a biblical perspective. If you benefit from this platform and want others to know about it please consider a generous gift today.



We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details




What are important takeaways following the special Senate election in Alabama on Tuesday?





  GOP says it's got a deal on taxes; cuts coming for next year
  GOP’s not all that sad; party grapples with Alabama fallout
  Ky. lawmaker accused of assault dies in apparent suicide
  UN chief: Iran may be defying UN on missiles, OK on nukes
Sources say deal reached on tax overhaul
GOP questions political leaning of Mueller team
FBI agent removed from Russia probe called Trump an 'idiot'


Breitbart News daily callers explain Alabama GOP Senate loss: 'Mitch McConnell is a snake'
Republicans see silver lining in Doug Jones victory in Alabama
Trump: 'I was right,' knew Moore couldn't win
Disney's not safe for kids – but you knew that
Let's free blacks from left-wing politics


Cartoon of the Day
GOP’s not all that sad; party grapples with Alabama fallout

WASHINGTON (December 13, 2017) — Weary national Republicans breathed a collective sigh of relief on Wednesday, a day after voters knocked out their own party’s scandal-plagued candidate in deep-red Alabama. Yet all is not well in a party confronted with new rounds of infighting and a suddenly shrinking Senate majority heading into next year’s midterm elections.