It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So it begins: Texas Has the Right to Deny Gay Spousal Benefits

page: 1
42
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:57 AM
link   
So I thought it was recognized across the land that gay and lesbians have the same rights to marry as straight people, and access to the same benefits.
Thanks to our new conservative activist Supreme Court this is not the case. In what may be seen as the thin end of the wedge, the Supreme Court is allowing the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling to stand.

www.dallasnews.com...


AUSTIN — The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a Texas Supreme Court ruling that prevented same-sex spouses from having the same workplace insurance benefits as heterosexual couples.

In a unanimous ruling in June, the Texas court acknowledged that same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 with Obergefell vs. Hodges, but the justices said the decision did not make clear the additional rights of gay couples, in this case those who work for the government.


So why do they not have the same rights as straight couples. It is not clear, but it surely is discriminatory; you can marry, but don't expect equal treatment in the eyes of the law.

It was argued that city employees did not have a "fundamental right" to receive government-subsidized spousal benefits and that it was "perfectly constitutional" to extend benefits to some married couples and deny them to others.

It seems the argument boils down to this little bit of pedantry.


Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton applauded the decision to let Texas' ruling stand, also arguing that the former Houston mayor acted while gay marriage was still illegal in Texas.

"We're pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the Texas Supreme Court ruling that the right to a marriage license does not entitle same-sex couples to employee benefits at the expense of Texas taxpayers," Paxton said in a news release.


I'm sure the Dominionist Christians are pleased about this, I mean those gays are damned to hell, so let's make their journey as unpleasant as we can.

Over at the Daily Beast


Monday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court was handed down quietly, with no comment or explanation. The move quickly triggered condemnation by activists. “Today’s abnegation by the nation’s highest court opens the door for an onslaught of challenges to the rights of LGBTQ people at every step,” Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of the civil rights group GLAAD, said in a statement after the decision.



+3 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Well, this thread is about to get wildly derogatory.....but what the hell?

Let's Play Justify your Hatred!

And here's today's contestants....let's see how they fare.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Hopefully this will force a change in Texas law. Never should have been an issue to start with.
I know..."State's Rights" and all that, but wrong is wrong.


+9 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:23 AM
link   
I don't see how discrimination like this is a Christian value. This is blatantly punishing and discriminating against gay couples. What if Hispanics weren't allowed the same benefits as whites?


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: bgerbger

all men are equal... except for Adam and 'steve' (or eve and Samantha)


(post by musicismagic removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)
+8 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: musicismagic

Top 7 answers on the board.

What's the most derogatory way to define marriage between same sex couples?

Survey says...

#4 = Bone him like I own him!

DING!



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thorneblood
a reply to: musicismagic

Top 7 answers on the board.

What's the most derogatory way to define marriage between same sex couples?

Survey says...

#4 = Bone him like I own him!

DING!


I never thought you'd agree with me
but the fact of life is what i stated
man loves man, none of my business
woman loves woman, adopts a child
what is wrong with that thinking
marriage in my time frame is between man and woman
marriage between the same sex, who gives a fk


+20 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: musicismagic




marriage between the same sex, who gives a fk?


Off hand?

Same Sex Couples

Ya know, American citizens?

They also Go to work, Fight in wars, Protect our streets, Pay their taxes, Get sick, Build a life together, Grieve when the other dies.




edit on 5-12-2017 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Thorneblood

well...to be honest...and I may be wrong..I always felt that this gay thing is almost entirely a sexual thing. Can a man really love another man...as in...romantic love...not buddies, not friends...but I wanna marry you and have children with you kinda love...?

I dont know. I'm not against being gay...I just wonder if that 's mostly about sex.

I'll take myself as an example...I could imagine myself having sex with a man...but I could not ever imagine to "love" him romantically.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:53 AM
link   
a reply to: musicismagic

It doesn't really matter how you feel about it, the law says that members of the same sex can be married.

That is the law of the land.

For the Supreme Court to say they cannot receive the same benefits as other married people starts to undermine the whole foundation of what same sex marriage is.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

still...putting love aside, I'm not against gay people getting married...if they so choose. And if they indeed get married in the eyes of the law...then they should have the same benefits.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Easiest way to answer that question is to ask a gay man whose spouse has just died if it was just about the sex and see how they react, or ask any children they might have how it feels to have lost a parent who couldn't possibly have loved the other parent and again gauge the reaction.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: musicismagic




lets say a man wants to be "legally" attached to another man, give it a new name like "bond for the penis" or something like that, that way it will be known that they want recognition of


.....being in love? Wanting a life together? Care for each other? Raise a family together?

Or, in your mind, it just comes down to wanting to hump another man ass? Just because it's not your kinda thing, doesn't make it wrong.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thorneblood
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Easiest way to answer that question is to ask a gay man whose spouse has just died if it was just about the sex and see how they react, or ask any children they might have how it feels to have lost a parent who couldn't possibly have loved the other parent and again gauge the reaction.



the unknown of life is in your question



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thorneblood
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Easiest way to answer that question is to ask a gay man whose spouse has just died if it was just about the sex and see how they react, or ask any children they might have how it feels to have lost a parent who couldn't possibly have loved the other parent and again gauge the reaction.



i dont think that would be very scientific. It boils down to how one wants to answer that...or doesnt even. Children's opinion would hardly matter.

But to take your example...people cry when their cats die...and more often then not...one would state that this cat meant the world to her/him. But what does that prove ? We attach ourselves to almost anything...even inanimate objects.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Marriage is a contract basically, denying such between adults is discriminatory, it's culture wars like these that will cause conservatives to loose ground.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

By that rationale you can't prove that a man romantically loves a woman either....



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Thorneblood

i dont need to...it's a natural relationship...one upon which this entire civilization depends. Man...and a woman. Without that...there is nothing.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Top 7 answers on the board.

What's the most derogatory way to define marriage between same sex couples?

Survey says...

#2 - Unnatural

DING!




top topics



 
42
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join