Texas Supreme Court Strikes Down Ruling for Homosexual “Marriage” Benefits
On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court struck down a lower court’s ruling that homosexual couples are entitled to marriage benefits.
In the case of Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks v. Mayor Sylvester Turner and the City of Houston, the court said that the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex “marriage” across the country (something that is absolute nonsense since SCOTUS has no authority to legislate per the Constitution). However, the court said that the case did not address issues of government subsidized marriage benefits to homosexual couples.
“We agree with the Mayor [of Houston] that any effort to resolve whether and the extent to which the Constitution requires states or cities to provide tax-funded benefits to same-sex couples without considering Obergefell would simply be erroneous,” Boyd wrote in the court’s opinion.“On the other hand, we agree… that the Supreme Court did not address and resolve that specific issue in Obergefell.”
Well, I don’t see anything in either the US Constitution nor the Texas Constitution that obligates either the state nor the central government to be providing subsidized benefits to married couples, let alone homosexuals.
Pidgeon and Hicks sued the city on the basis that the same-sex “marriage” ruling did not “entail any particular package of tax benefits, employee fringe benefits or testimonial privileges.”
The Texas Tribune reports:
But in an attempt to re-litigate the high court’s decision, two taxpayers — represented by same-sex marriage opponents — are suing Houston over its policy.
They’ve argued that the interpretation of Obergefell is too broad and that the right to marry does not “entail any particular package of tax benefits, employee fringe benefits or testimonial privileges.” (In a separate case against the state’s now-defunct ban on same-sex marriage, the Texas attorney general’s office actually argued that marriage is a right that comes with benefits the state is entitled to control.)
Lawyers for the city of Houston argued, in part, that opponents are without a legal avenue to even pursue their claims because the city’s policy is protected under Obergefell, which they pointed out explicitly addressed “marriage-related benefits.
During a March hearing, Douglas Alexander, the lawyer who defended Houston’s benefits policy, told the court that the case was moot under Obergefell’s guarantee that all marriages be equally regarded.
Jonathan Mitchell, the former solicitor general for the state and the lawyer representing opponents of the Houston policy, argued that marriage benefits are not a fundamental right and that Obergefell did not resolve questions surrounding such policies.
On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court agreed with that argument, noting that Obergefell requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages in the same manner as opposite-sex marriages but did not hold that “states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.”
“The Texas Supreme Court’s decision this morning is a warning shot to all LGBTQ Americans that the war on marriage equality is ever-evolving, and anti-LGBTQ activists will do anything possible to discriminate against our families,” Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, said in a statement.
No, homosexuals pushing for what they call “marriage equality” is a war on God and a war on our country. These people have had the same equal rights to marry members of the opposite sex as anyone else. They are pushing for perverted rights to “marry” members of the same sex. Just as there is no God-given right to worship false gods, there is no God-given right to engage in what God calls an abomination.
The reality is that the central government has nowhere been given authority to legislate marriage. Those that attempt to argue that from the 14th Amendment labor in vain. The Supreme Court’s ruling was not based in law, but rather based in opinion. Claiming that the Supreme Court made it “legal” for homosexuals to pervert the institution of marriage is ludicrous since the Constitution only allows the Congress to legislate.
Our founders would be turning over in their graves at this depravity. They were completely against homosexuality and dealt with it severely as I demonstrated in a previous article. They certainly would never have allowed practicing homosexuals to call something marriage that was not marriage and would have spoken loudly against a court that sought to do so as well.
From that article, I pointed out:
Blackstone’s commentaries were the premiere legal source used by the Founding Fathers in America. So this should carry some weight with those who claim they know what the Founding Fathers knew and wanted concerning the issue of sodomy, but I’m guessing they will dismiss it. In Blackstone’s Book the Fourth of Public Wrongs: Of Offences against the Persons of Individuals, Chapter Fifteen, he writes the following on pages 215-216 (emphasis added):
IV. WHAT has been here observed…, which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast…. But it is an offence of so dark a nature…that the accusation should be clearly made out….
I WILL not act so disagreeable part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it, in it’s very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named; peccatum illud horribile, inter chriftianos non nominandum [“that horrible sin not to be named among Christians”—DM]. A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: ubi fcelus eft id, quod non proficit fcire, jubemus infurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquifitis poenis fubdantur infames, qui funt, vel qui futuri funt, rei [“When that crime is found, which is not profitable to know, we order the law to bring forth, to provide justice by force of arms with an avenging sword, that the infamous men be subjected to the due punishment, those who are found, or those who future will be found, in the deed”—DM]. Which leads me to add a word concerning its punishment.
THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our ancient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burnt to death; though Fleta
says they should be buried alive: either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the ancient Goths. But now the general punishment of all felonies is the fame, namely, by hanging: and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made single felony by the statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6. and felony without benefit of clergy by statute 5 Eliz. c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that, if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et confentientes pari poena plectantur.
As I’ve said before, if we would deal with homosexuality as our forefathers did, we would not be dealing with the issue of the perversion of marriage to include those who practice this wickedness, and thus, we would not be talking of government subsidized benefits going to those who commit crimes against nature.