U.S. Supreme Court 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.

  • metta

    Posts: 44441

    Dec 04, 2017 9:30 PM GMT
    U.S. Supreme Court 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.


    http://www.statesman.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-rejects-texas-case-gay-marriage-benefits/QWgUz5GV9ktKz1rTC3tIeI/
  • metta

    Posts: 44441

    Dec 04, 2017 9:32 PM GMT
    What a terrible decision they just made!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2017 11:16 PM GMT
    metta saidWhat a terrible decision they just made!


    They didn't actually "make a decision." They just decided not to hear this particular case.
    When the court does not grant cert, the lower decision has no precedential value outside the state it came from.

    The 4 moderate to liberal justices could have voted for cert, and then the court would be hearing the case. They undoubtedly decided not to grant cert, because they knew that if they did, it was certain that the 5 reactionary justices would decide the case in a way that would favor anti-gay discrimination, and then the case would be binding precedent on all other courts for a long time into the future.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 2114

    Dec 04, 2017 11:37 PM GMT
    OK - It's Texas, after all.

    I can't for the life of me understand why any gay man would want to live there, where the government and most citizens actually want to discriminate against them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2017 12:57 AM GMT
    HikerSkier said
    metta saidWhat a terrible decision they just made!


    They didn't actually "make a decision." They just decided not to hear this particular case.
    When the court does not grant cert, the lower decision has no precedential value outside the state it came from.

    The 4 moderate to liberal justices could have voted for cert, and then the court would be hearing the case. They undoubtedly decided not to grant cert, because they knew that if they did, it was certain that the 5 reactionary justices would decide the case in a way that would favor anti-gay discrimination, and then the case would be binding precedent on all other courts for a long time into the future.





    Interesting SCOTUS "made no comment" on their lack of ruling specific to the state of TaxAss, it must be then 'the bigger fish' ..the cake shop icon_idea.gif



    Same-Sex Couples Don't Get the Same Marriage Benefits as Heterosexuals in Texas
    http://www.newsweek.com/same-sex-couples-marriage-benefits-texas-supreme-court-730730



    Despite Houston’s efforts, the Supreme Court allowed the Texas ruling to stand without comment on Monday

    This decision comes just one day before the court is expected to hear one of the most influential LGBT cases of the decade, Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights. Some, like Sarah Kate Ellis, president of GLAAD, worry it could negatively affect LGBT rights from here forward
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2017 1:06 AM GMT
    ANY TaxAss employer listed (or not) on HRC's Corporate Equality Index, that modifies, downgrades its same sex spousal workplace benefits due to this lower court ruling should be immediately downgraded in scoring or removed from the list entirely !

    Corporate Equality Index
    https://www.hrc.org/campaigns/corporate-equality-index
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2017 4:57 AM GMT
    ElnathB saidANY TaxAss employer listed (or not) on HRC's Corporate Equality Index, that modifies, downgrades its same sex spousal workplace benefits due to this lower court ruling should be immediately downgraded in scoring or removed from the list entirely !

    Corporate Equality Index
    https://www.hrc.org/campaigns/corporate-equality-index


    How about Liberal Homophobe, Clinton supporter and frequent Obama White House visitor Warren Buffett whose Berkshire Hathaway only scored 20 and has extensive holdings in Texas.
  • bifocaled

    Posts: 87

    Dec 05, 2017 6:37 AM GMT
    Yes, him too, what's your point? You people literally have no answer to anything besides deflect. We know your life is over anyway, but at least give the next generation of gays a chance!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2017 8:20 AM GMT
    HikerSkier said
    metta saidWhat a terrible decision they just made!


    They didn't actually "make a decision." They just decided not to hear this particular case.
    When the court does not grant cert, the lower decision has no precedential value outside the state it came from.

    The 4 moderate to liberal justices could have voted for cert, and then the court would be hearing the case. They undoubtedly decided not to grant cert, because they knew that if they did, it was certain that the 5 reactionary justices would decide the case in a way that would favor anti-gay discrimination, and then the case would be binding precedent on all other courts for a long time into the future.


    That sounds right. I would also add that the court denies the great majority of cert petitions as its time and resources are limited and they really want to make decisions affecting the whole country and that resolve issues that have been percolating in the lower courts for a while. It sounds like this case mostly involved state law. Additionally, insurance is an area that is specifically left to the states whenever possible (google "McCarran-Ferguson Act").
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 2098

    Dec 05, 2017 5:37 PM GMT
    A very important point here - the U. S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case is by no means the final word. Houston's appeal of the Texas Supreme Court decision was already slated to be argued in a U. S. District Court; that action was delayed when the City of Houston leapfrogged them and appealed directly to the U. S. Supreme Court. If the U. S District Court fails to overturn the decision, then it may be presented once again to the U. S. Supreme Court. And I believe this law can be fairly easily shot down in one court or another, if the right argument is made.

    Essentially they're making a distinction between marriage and same sex marriage, like they're two different things. In order to maintain a legal distinction, they'd need two completely separate systems for granting marriage between opposite sex couples and same sex couples. But if opposite sex couples and same sex couples are issued the exact same kind of marriage license then any distinction between them should be considered an arbitrary act of discrimination, and therefore unconstitutional.

    The problem here is that people who support same sex marriage have yet to get past the idea that it's something different than opposite sex marriage. At this point it's just marriage, and their legal arguments should reflect that.

  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 18236

    Dec 05, 2017 6:37 PM GMT
    bro4bro saidA very important point here - the U. S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case is by no means the final word. Houston's appeal of the Texas Supreme Court decision was already slated to be argued in a U. S. District Court; that action was delayed when the City of Houston leapfrogged them and appealed directly to the U. S. Supreme Court. If the U. S District Court fails to overturn the decision, then it may be presented once again to the U. S. Supreme Court. And I believe this law can be fairly easily shot down in one court or another, if the right argument is made.

    Essentially they're making a distinction between marriage and same sex marriage, like they're two different things. In order to maintain a legal distinction, they'd need two completely separate systems for granting marriage between opposite sex couples and same sex couples. But if opposite sex couples and same sex couples are issued the exact same kind of marriage license then any distinction between them should be considered an arbitrary act of discrimination, and therefore unconstitutional.

    The problem here is that people who support same sex marriage have yet to get past the idea that it's something different than opposite sex marriage. At this point it's just marriage, and their legal arguments should reflect that.

    I wouldn't get my hopes too high because it is ultra conservative Texas where the narrow minded bible thumping screwballs reign supreme and anything outside their archaic line of thinking is way too alien for them to accept and understand. icon_neutral.gif
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 2098

    Dec 05, 2017 9:21 PM GMT
    I'm completely aware of deeply entrenched homophobia in Texas.

    My point was that this case is still scheduled to be presented before a Federal judge - and in the event of a bad decision, can be appealed once again to the U. S. Supreme Court. The fat lady has far from sung.
  • rip12

    Posts: 95

    Dec 06, 2017 1:16 AM GMT
    "Essentially they're making a distinction between marriage and same sex marriage, like they're two different things. In order to maintain a legal distinction, they'd need two completely separate systems for granting marriage between opposite sex couples and same sex couples. But if opposite sex couples and same sex couples are issued the exact same kind of marriage license then any distinction between them should be considered an arbitrary act of discrimination, and therefore unconstitutional."

    this has piqued my interest - my understanding was that if a company (or entity of any kind) offers benefits to one person in the organization it must offer THE EXACT SAME COVERAGE to all persons in the organization

    i recall years ago, while working for a large corporation, being told my health insurance was changing because the company had apparently been covering executives with different coverage than regular employees - i specifically remember sitting in the meeting when it was explained that was not lawful

    so if i understand what youre saying the state can essentially issue a "different" kind of marriage license to get around this?? doesnt that go against the original supreme court ruling?

    sorry im not a lawyer but i do recognize how entities skirt laws with tricks like this
  • Jeepguy2

    Posts: 284

    Dec 06, 2017 7:05 AM GMT
    The ACA does not require employers to cover spouses. Under the ACA, an employer can choose to offer medical insurance benefits only to employees and their dependent children, not to employees' spouses, but it must apply the rules consistently.

    If the courts rule that same sex spouses must be covered under employee health plans that cover spouses I strongly suspect that lot of employers will use their "deeply held religious beliefs" as an excuse to stop covering spouses under their employee health plans altogether which will save them a great deal of money.




  • bro4bro

    Posts: 2098

    Dec 06, 2017 6:20 PM GMT
    rip12 said
    so if i understand what youre saying the state can essentially issue a "different" kind of marriage license to get around this?? doesnt that go against the original supreme court ruling?


    I don't know if it's legal for a state to issue two kinds of marriage licenses. I'm guessing the US Supreme Court decision would prohibit that.

    My point is if they don't issue different kinds of marriage licenses, there is simply no legal basis for making a distinction.
  • Apparition

    Posts: 4049

    Dec 17, 2017 7:15 PM GMT
    Jeepguy2 saidThe ACA does not require employers to cover spouses. Under the ACA, an employer can choose to offer medical insurance benefits only to employees and their dependent children, not to employees' spouses, but it must apply the rules consistently.

    If the courts rule that same sex spouses must be covered under employee health plans that cover spouses I strongly suspect that lot of employers will use their "deeply held religious beliefs" as an excuse to stop covering spouses under their employee health plans altogether which will save them a great deal of money.






    what an awesome reason for universal healthcare...
  • blasko1992

    Posts: 16

    Dec 17, 2017 11:09 PM GMT
    metta saidU.S. Supreme Court 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.


    http://www.statesman.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-rejects-texas-case-gay-marriage-benefits/QWgUz5GV9ktKz1rTC3tIeI/


    Fuck. I hurt for my American brothers man. Your president and politics down there is insane.

    It's insane to me as a Canadian because our social values (embedded in our political sphere and subsequent legislation throughout the country) are so vastly different; yet we share a border.

    Gay marriage has existed here for a decade. Universal healthcare even longer. And I do appreciate the fact once a government has set a precedent that gives way to social progress, those rights have thus far, always been left alone.

    What your dip-shit President is doing is... incredibly disheartening. To undo all the social progress, rights and such afforded to minority populations over the Obama era, and completely shifting it back into the dark ages... It's scary that can be done so easily.

    Hopefully your next government will ensure such moves, while democratically could be achieved to undo prior legislation, should make it very, VERY hard.
    Trans banned in the military. CDC banned terms. Scrapping net neutrality. WW3 with North Korea around the corner. Gosh what is next down there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2017 11:40 PM GMT
    Sorry if this is repeating something already said. Apparently the case started before the decision making gay marriage legal. Basically the mayor of Houston had ordered that same-sex couples married in other states should get spousal health benefits. Someone filed suit to stop it and in the meantime the Constitutional right of same-sex people to marry was established. The mayor of Houston then argued that this trumped (sorry, no pun intended) everything, but the Texas Supreme Court said there first had to be a trial in a state court (the case had earlier been dismissed on procedural grounds due to the change in law). So the mayor of Houston appealed to the SCOTUS, and I think it was this appeal that was not accepted. So now the case goes on but it has to first be tried in the state court and then climb it's way back up the ladder of the state courts before it can jump to the SCOTUS. I also think that someone else said there is a similar case in a federal trial court in Texas as well. So eventually it will probably make its way back up to SCOTUS, but as often happens they want to have all of the arguments and evidence on the record before they act.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2017 5:55 PM GMT
    blasko1992 said
    metta saidU.S. Supreme Court 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.


    http://www.statesman.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-rejects-texas-case-gay-marriage-benefits/QWgUz5GV9ktKz1rTC3tIeI/


    Fuck. I hurt for my American brothers man. Your president and politics down there is insane.

    It's insane to me as a Canadian because our social values (embedded in our political sphere and subsequent legislation throughout the country) are so vastly different; yet we share a border.

    Gay marriage has existed here for a decade. Universal healthcare even longer. And I do appreciate the fact once a government has set a precedent that gives way to social progress, those rights have thus far, always been left alone.

    What your dip-shit President is doing is... incredibly disheartening. To undo all the social progress, rights and such afforded to minority populations over the Obama era, and completely shifting it back into the dark ages... It's scary that can be done so easily.

    Hopefully your next government will ensure such moves, while democratically could be achieved to undo prior legislation, should make it very, VERY hard.
    Trans banned in the military. CDC banned terms. Scrapping net neutrality. WW3 with North Korea around the corner. Gosh what is next down there.






    Yes, the right wing nut jobs and their republiCON taliban party in the USA have divided the country so badly now, I think "uniting" will be un-repairable going into the future. This is why liberal progressive hubs that match Canadian values, will either have to take over the entire country or secede on their own.

    At least the liberal, US state of CA (6th largest economy in the world) is attempting to fight back against the fascist dictatorship and their oppressive, christian terrorist regime. Its going to be 2018 in the 21st century but the "other half" of the USA is controlled by those right wing terrorists who just refuse to 'get with the times', many of these nut jobs want to bring in their biblical apocalypse and destroy us all, I suppose to 'prove' that their 'god' exists....icon_confused.gif

    Not all of us are this nutty, most of the 'awake' people understand our USA constitution is a secular form of government, what happened in 2016 election, the right wing christian terrorists staged a coup as they saw themselves disappearing into the oblivion if they didn't "do something" drastic in order to stay relevant

    Not sure why the right wing are so unhappy in the USA and want to drag everyone to hell with them. They could always move to Saudi Arabia, they have Sharia Law there, they need to stop shoving their own religion, attempting to force secular principles into theocratic ones, no one is buying their rhetoric anymore, except those still under their mind control programming




    California bans government travel to states believed to discriminate against LGBT people
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-california-bans-government-travel-to-1475011613-htmlstory.html



    California no longer will be able to fund or require public employees to travel to states believed to discriminate against LGBT people under a bill Gov. Jerry Brown signed Tuesday.

    The new law will apply to states that have passed laws after June 26, 2015, that allow "discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.”

    The California attorney general will create and publish a list of those states.

    State agencies, the Legislature and public California universities will be subject to the new law.

    The law exempts trips required for certain purposes, including to enforce California law and to meet contractual obligations made before Jan. 1.




  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 18236

    Jan 14, 2018 3:41 PM GMT
    ElnathB said
    blasko1992 said
    metta saidU.S. Supreme Court 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.


    http://www.statesman.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-rejects-texas-case-gay-marriage-benefits/QWgUz5GV9ktKz1rTC3tIeI/


    Fuck. I hurt for my American brothers man. Your president and politics down there is insane.

    It's insane to me as a Canadian because our social values (embedded in our political sphere and subsequent legislation throughout the country) are so vastly different; yet we share a border.

    Gay marriage has existed here for a decade. Universal healthcare even longer. And I do appreciate the fact once a government has set a precedent that gives way to social progress, those rights have thus far, always been left alone.

    What your dip-shit President is doing is... incredibly disheartening. To undo all the social progress, rights and such afforded to minority populations over the Obama era, and completely shifting it back into the dark ages... It's scary that can be done so easily.

    Hopefully your next government will ensure such moves, while democratically could be achieved to undo prior legislation, should make it very, VERY hard.
    Trans banned in the military. CDC banned terms. Scrapping net neutrality. WW3 with North Korea around the corner. Gosh what is next down there.






    Yes, the right wing nut jobs and their republiCON taliban party in the USA have divided the country so badly now, I think "uniting" will be un-repairable going into the future. This is why liberal progressive hubs that match Canadian values, will either have to take over the entire country or secede on their own.

    At least the liberal, US state of CA (6th largest economy in the world) is attempting to fight back against the fascist dictatorship and their oppressive, christian terrorist regime. Its going to be 2018 in the 21st century but the "other half" of the USA is controlled by those right wing terrorists who just refuse to 'get with the times', many of these nut jobs want to bring in their biblical apocalypse and destroy us all, I suppose to 'prove' that their 'god' exists....icon_confused.gif

    Not all of us are this nutty, most of the 'awake' people understand our USA constitution is a secular form of government, what happened in 2016 election, the right wing christian terrorists staged a coup as they saw themselves disappearing into the oblivion if they didn't "do something" drastic in order to stay relevant

    Not sure why the right wing are so unhappy in the USA and want to drag everyone to hell with them. They could always move to Saudi Arabia, they have Sharia Law there, they need to stop shoving their own religion, attempting to force secular principles into theocratic ones, no one is buying their rhetoric anymore, except those still under their mind control programming




    California bans government travel to states believed to discriminate against LGBT people
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-california-bans-government-travel-to-1475011613-htmlstory.html



    California no longer will be able to fund or require public employees to travel to states believed to discriminate against LGBT people under a bill Gov. Jerry Brown signed Tuesday.

    The new law will apply to states that have passed laws after June 26, 2015, that allow "discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.”

    The California attorney general will create and publish a list of those states.

    State agencies, the Legislature and public California universities will be subject to the new law.

    The law exempts trips required for certain purposes, including to enforce California law and to meet contractual obligations made before Jan. 1.




    I am wondering when Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and Nevada will join California by enacting similar legislation?
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 2026

    Jan 17, 2018 10:07 PM GMT
    One of the many reasons we need to defeat the Republicans and remove them from office, so they cannot appoint more anti-gay bigots to the supreme court.