Supreme Court lets stand Texas ruling...

Supreme Court lets stand Texas ruling on gay spouse benefits

There are 28 comments on the Fairfield Citizen-News story from Dec 4, 2017, titled Supreme Court lets stand Texas ruling on gay spouse benefits. In it, Fairfield Citizen-News reports that:

The US Supreme Court is poised to make a potentially historic ruling on the legality of same-sex marriage in America. Take a look back a a brief history of the fight for the right for same-sex couples to marry by clicking through the images in this slideshow.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fairfield Citizen-News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Clyde Gribble

Henderson, TN

#1 Dec 4, 2017
This is great news!!!

Big win for the good team!!!

Thank you U.S. Supreme Court!!!

Judged:

16

15

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Irving

Bridgeport, CT

#2 Dec 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"

WOO HOO!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS WONDERFUL!!!!!!!!!!

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Red Crosse

Wilmington, IL

#3 Dec 4, 2017
No, it is not. A spouse is a spouse, and all deserve the same rights. WTH!!!
Get a Life

Beverly, MA

#5 Dec 4, 2017
Johnny wrote:
<quoted text>

Incorrect. In a real marriage a man's spouse is his wife and a woman's spouse is her husband. Real spouses deserve real benefits. Pervert marriages do not deserve benefits.
Just because a marriage is a man and a woman, does not mean it will meet your narrow definition of nonpervert.

What a married couple’s sexual practices are or assumed is not a good reason to deny any right or opportunity for privilege.

Are you suggesting that a couple prove what their sexual practices are before they can be considered “real”?

What if there is a situation of someone who was born intersexed? You do know that some people are born with no sexual distinction one way or the other?

Must they submit to someone like you to get approval for whom they marry?

It is much easier to live and let live than to try to interfere with the private business of people.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is for everyone: gay, straight, trans, intersexed, and even you, whatever you may be.
Harry

Pomona, CA

#7 Dec 4, 2017
Hooray for the Supreme Court!

Judged:

14

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Magic Utah Uwear

Philadelphia, PA

#8 Dec 4, 2017
The TX Supreme Court ruling which the US Supreme Court let stand was to return the issue to the lower court in TX to be re argued. This was a procedural decision by the US Supreme Court to let the lower ones do their job first. It was not a content based decision...yet, anyway.

Now by the time the issue gets argued fully in the lower courts and returns to the US Supreme Court we may have another Gorsuch or two instead of a Kennedy or Ginsburg or both.

I don't see anyone could possibly argue that when we have marriage equality that some marriages qualify for more benefits than other marriages simply on the basis of the sex of the spouses. But the likes of Thomas or Alito could easily perpetrate nonsense like that, even if they couldn't overrule Obergefell entirely, imo.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#10 Dec 4, 2017
I see this as the state has the right to deny subsidized workplace benefits for married couples which every state does. Once the state targets same sex marriages and gives subsidized to opposite sex couples then the court will hear the case. Texas, in my view, is going to fix it where no married couple wants to work for the state because the cost of married benefits will be high.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#11 Dec 4, 2017
Magic Utah Uwear wrote:
The TX Supreme Court ruling which the US Supreme Court let stand was to return the issue to the lower court in TX to be re argued. This was a procedural decision by the US Supreme Court to let the lower ones do their job first. It was not a content based decision...yet, anyway.

Now by the time the issue gets argued fully in the lower courts and returns to the US Supreme Court we may have another Gorsuch or two instead of a Kennedy or Ginsburg or both.

I don't see anyone could possibly argue that when we have marriage equality that some marriages qualify for more benefits than other marriages simply on the basis of the sex of the spouses. But the likes of Thomas or Alito could easily perpetrate nonsense like that, even if they couldn't overrule Obergefell entirely, imo.
I see it as focused on subsidized workplace benefits for any married couple.
Magic Utah Uwear

Philadelphia, PA

#13 Dec 4, 2017
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
I see it as focused on subsidized workplace benefits for any married couple.
Where did you read that str8 married couples are being denied these marriage benefits that the same sex couples are being denied in TX?

Or are you saying it's a plot to chip away at marriage benefits in the workplace altogether by picking the low hanging "fruit" off first? You haven't really explained.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#14 Dec 4, 2017
Magic Utah Uwear wrote:
<quoted text>

Where did you read that str8 married couples are being denied these marriage benefits that the same sex couples are being denied in TX?

Or are you saying it's a plot to chip away at marriage benefits in the workplace altogether by picking the low hanging "fruit" off first? You haven't really explained.
The state has the right to deny subsidized workplace benefits for any spouse and I believe that is what TX will do. Nowhere has anyone been denied anything however I believe Texas will target only same sex married couples which will cause the SCOUS step in.

The federal court has already dismissed a case of a same sex couple who believe Texas will specifically target them while giving benefits to opposite sex couples. The federal judge state the case has to develop to that point before a case can be filled. This is just my view.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#15 Dec 4, 2017
Get the White Man wrote:
<quoted text>

Ethnic warfare by the Jewish elite intellectuals.
Such nonsense. How in the world can Jewish people be to blame for everything?
Magic Utah Uwear

Philadelphia, PA

#16 Dec 4, 2017
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
The state has the right to deny subsidized workplace benefits for any spouse and I believe that is what TX will do. Nowhere has anyone been denied anything however I believe Texas will target only same sex married couples which will cause the SCOUS step in.
I don't think you understand how to write or much of anything about this subject.

TX might have a right to deny state workplace benefits for the spouses of _every_ married employee, but that is not what this case is about. This case is about giving some marriages workplace benefits while withholding those benefits from other marriages...on the basis of the sex of the spouses.

The married, same sex couples in TX have already been denied equal rights. What are you talking about?

"The Texas Supreme Court on Friday threw out a lower court ruling that said spouses of gay and lesbian public employees are entitled to government-subsidized same-sex marriage benefits."
June, texastribune.org

As for your last thought, the US Supreme Court has said exactly the opposite of your claim that it will step in if TX does...something TX has already done. The US Supreme Court sent it back to a lower court to be re argued. Let me guess: You don't know what "procedural" ruling means.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#17 Dec 4, 2017
Magic Utah Uwear wrote:
<quoted text>

I don't think you understand how to write or much of anything about this subject.

TX might have a right to deny state workplace benefits for the spouses of _every_ married employee, but that is not what this case is about. This case is about giving some marriages workplace benefits while withholding those benefits from other marriages...on the basis of the sex of the spouses.

The married, same sex couples in TX have already been denied equal rights. What are you talking about?

"The Texas Supreme Court on Friday threw out a lower court ruling that said spouses of gay and lesbian public employees are entitled to government-subsidized same-sex marriage benefits."
June, texastribune.org

As for your last thought, the US Supreme Court has said exactly the opposite of your claim that it will step in if TX does...something TX has already done. The US Supreme Court sent it back to a lower court to be re argued. Let me guess: You don't know what "procedural" ruling means.
I am looking at the case in its totality. Yes I understand procedural ruling means. I am aware it isn't a win for anyone at this point.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#18 Dec 4, 2017
Magic Utah Uwear wrote:
<quoted text>

.
I am enjoying how the media thinks it is a win for the conservative movement.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#20 Dec 4, 2017
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>

Es.
Every problem in the world cannot be due to Jewish people. You have become so redundant I don't think I'll bother responding to you going forward.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#22 Dec 4, 2017
It appears you are going to spam the threads. I believe administration needs to get involved here.
Magic Utah Uwear

Philadelphia, PA

#25 Dec 4, 2017
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
I am looking at the case in its totality. Yes I understand procedural ruling means. I am aware it isn't a win for anyone at this point.
I will repeat it was unclear what you were saying. "I am looking at the case in its totality" does not explain your word salad.

At least some lgbt rights lawyers hoped the Supreme Court would look at the outrageous violation of Obergefell and shoot TX down in a summary judgement, as it were. In this sense they are disappointed...as the articles online mention.
Red Crosse

Wilmington, IL

#26 Dec 5, 2017
Two of our best friends are married to one another. They are no different then any other married couple. We went to their wedding, and reception, same as any other wedding celebration. Get a life.
Rainbow Kid

Ann Arbor, MI

#27 Dec 5, 2017
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>

Such nonsense. How in the world can Jewish people be to blame for everything?
Gay people used to be to blame for everything
.
Perhaps Jewish people are the new gays
.
Ask a fundie
Rainbow Kid

Ann Arbor, MI

#28 Dec 5, 2017
Red Crosse wrote:
Two of our best friends are married to one another. They are no different then any other married couple. We went to their wedding, and reception, same as any other wedding celebration. Get a life.
The fundies ought to be thankful Gays can marry each other
.
Saves Gays from marrying the fundie's 400lb cross-eyed bucktooth daughters with the beehive hairdos

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hennepin County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Cops will not be charged Jul '18 Lawson 1
News 1 dead, another wounded in shooting near U of M... (Jan '18) Jan '18 Walls work 1
News Larger employers in Minneapolis must pay $10 an... (Dec '17) Dec '17 zippok 2
News Minnesota governor defends police shooting inve... (Dec '17) Dec '17 anonymous 1
Lake Independence Music Thread (Oct '17) Oct '17 Musikologist 4
News If sheriff insists on helping Immigration, coun... (Oct '17) Oct '17 spytheweb 1
News Shooting leads to more questions on body cameras (Jul '17) Jul '17 Indict Hillary NOW 2