Share

Texas Supreme Court Rules Against Benefits For Same-Sex Couples

The box hurdles a fact that Houston's advantages policy, that is taxpayer subsidized, was extended to married same-sex couples.

The box hurdles a fact that Houston's advantages policy, that is taxpayer subsidized, was extended to married same-sex couples.

The Texas Supreme Court Friday sided with same-sex matrimony opponents who argued that a city of Houston should not extended a advantages process to married same-sex couples. The Court threw out a reduce justice statute that had adored a advantages and sent a box behind to a reduce court.

The advantages process was was enacted by Houston’s former, and initial plainly gay, Mayor Annise Parker in 2013.

In 2013, a U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a sovereign supervision contingency extend advantages to married same-sex couples. In 2015, a Supreme Court announced same-sex matrimony authorised in all 50 states. At emanate now is either that statute requires open agencies to yield advantages to same-sex spouses of supervision employees.

The plaintiffs — dual taxpayers represented by same-sex matrimony opponents — contend that Houston’s advantages process goes serve than a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell preference requires. The Texas Supreme Court, in Pidgeon v. Houston, agreed.

As KUT explained, a Texas Supreme Court creatively declined to hear a box that inspected a reduce court’s preference though topsy-turvy march final month “under vigour from tip Texas Republicans:

“Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed an amicus brief in Oct seeking a all-Republican justice to reconsider. They also asked a justice to explain that a U.S. Supreme Court box legalizing same-sex marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges, does not “bind state courts to solve all other claims in preference of a right to same-sex marriage.”