In what seems like a blatant rebuttal of the USSC decision in Obergefell, the Texas SSC has ordered that same sex married couples are not necessarily entitled to the same marriage benefits as opposite sex married couples. https://www.texastribune.org/2017/0...101212001&mc_cid=b5ca4bda87&mc_eid=c847b3d839 In my opinion Obergefell couldn't be clearer: The Constitution entitles same-sex couples to civil marriage “on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.” In my opinion this will be a slam dunk loss at the Federal court level and Texas will have to pay back all outstanding withheld monies to same-sex married couples along with maybe damages plus all the defense costs. Since Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Paxton stand fully behind this nonsense, don't you think they should have their check books open at the ready to assume these costs and save them being passed onto Texas tax payers? Especially since some of those tax payers will be married Texan same-sex couples. Or have they been granted a tax waiver since they won't be receiving the same financial treatment as their heterosexual counterparts? Yea right!
I don't know, it's a pretty open interpretation whether a man only being able to enter into a marriage partnership with a woman and a woman only being able to enter into partnership with a man constitute "unequal protection of the law". It would seem to me to imply equal, but discriminating, application of the law. But if we go down this road, it could easily start turning into a slippery slope, with children being entitled to "equal" protection as adults.
It seems odd they are so obsessed with this. I can understand laws that protect businesses from discrimination lawsuits, but this makes little sense
Well, I think it's a ploy to eke out votes from social conservatives. The judges are all elected positions too, so that's a recipe for politicizing judgments especially with a very socially conservative legislature breathing down their necks. Every time something like this comes up I think about the costs involved. This won't stand up to Federal scrutiny, Obergefell was very clear on this. There's going to be more State trails, then Federal District and maybe even Appeals. I don't think the USSC would even agree to hear it once an Appeals court strikes it down It's really a "one line" judgment. It's going to cost hundreds of thousands though and guess who's paying? The upside is, I'm seeing this question asked more and more in the comments sections of pieces relating to these kind of actions. More and more people are asking "who exactly is paying for all of this?" About time too in my estimation.
I live in Texas, i don't doubt there are people that think Texas should fight with everything against this. I don't know if it's a majority. And they will definitely vote for people that act as though they are against it. But i think it's a ploy to win elections. I just wonder how long it will take for people not to care about it.
