Texas will Revoke Some Homosexual Marriage issues

U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Texas Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider a case about whether married homosexual city employees should be given spousal benefits. The briefs urge the court to resist the U.S. Supreme Court’s incorrect homosexual marriage decision by reading it narrowly to say that homosexual people have a fundamental right to marry but no right to equal benefits. This is a good argument.

The case, Pidgeon v. Turner, arose from a lawsuit trying to block the benefits that the city of Houston affords to the homosexual spouses of city employees. The case has a legal chance of success because the U.S. Supreme Court incorrectly approved homosexual marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges) based on the false position of the immutability of homosexuality or the incorrect thesies of 'born gay' which has since been refuted. 

The Texas lower courts rejected the attack on the Houston benefits and, in September, the Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the case by a vote of 8-1. Only one justice, John Devine, dissented. The essence of his position was: Marriage is a fundamental right. Spousal benefits are not. Thus, the two issues are distinct.

The plaintiffs in the case filed for rehearing. Their brief openly argued that the Obergefell case should be read “narrowly” because “the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell imposes a ‘right’ that cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution.” 

They plaintiffs were buttressed by friend of the court briefs from Texas Governor Greg Abbott and by a group of state legislators.