U.S. court halts Labor Department same-sex couple protections

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Reuters

BY JON HERSKOVITZ

(Reuters) - A U.S. district judge in Texas on Thursday issued a stay to halt the U.S. Labor Department from implementing a rule that would expand medical leave protections for same-sex couples, saying the move impinges on the rights of states that ban gay marriage.

The state of Texas, which has a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, last week sued the Labor Department over the rule that would grant family medical leave protections to all married same-sex couples.

"The public maintains an abiding interest in preserving the rule of law and enforcing the states’ duly enacted laws from federal encroachment," wrote Reed O'Connor, a district judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Texas was the first challenge to the department's rule, which is set to take effect on Friday. Arkansas, Louisiana and Nebraska also joined the suit.

FULL story at link.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/26/us-gaymarriage-texas-leave-idUSKBN0MM31T20150326

[MNBrewer]

1. SCOTUS needs to rule on this now

Don't wait until Summer.

[blackspade]

2. I hate Texas politics.

Some of the most hateful assholes seem to come out of there.

[Fred Sanders]

10. And most corrupt, religious zealotry infused judges who mix religion and law like gin and tonic.

[vlyons]

11. blame it on the damn Southern Baptists

I live in texas, and they are very self-righteous and judgemental.

[blkmusclmachine]

13. +1

[Dont call me Shirley]

15. They are crazy.

I married into a SoBap minister's family, they were all nuts beyond belief. Happy to be divorced from that!

[FiveGoodMen]

16. Absolutely

They are at least a candidate for the root cause of most all evils in the US.

They are the reason the southerners vote so horribly.

[vlyons]

17. I have SoBaptist relatives

I live in east TX, and it's not uncommon to see billboards in Spanish, about which my SoBaptist cousin rants abuot it should be against the law to have billboards in any language but English. So much for free speech, eh? The Baptists here are quite successful in keeping blue laws on the books and no wine, beer, or liquor sales on Sundays before noon. Like a can of beer is what's keeping folks away from going to Church on Sundays??? Haha it ain't the beer that keeps me away from their stupid church, it's their blatant stupid religion.

[shenmue]

3. Pricks

[TexasTowelie]

4. They couldn't find a district court in Austin that would issue a stay

so they had to go to the Northern District instead, I guess? What pricks.

ETA: Yes, he is a Republican prick appointed by W.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

5. It's Texass

'Nuff said.

[weissmam]

6. there wasting tax payer money to fede their hate

[Major Nikon]

8. $4.25 million so far

Out of the 31 cases filed by the shitstain, Abbott, Texas lost 10 and withdrew 7. 10 are still pending. Only 5 won. This is the record this asshole is "proud" of.

[procon]

7. The SCOTUS already settled this.

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand an appeals court decision finding it unconstitutional to enforce an Illinois state law that makes it a felony to videotape police officers working in public, since then "... it’s perfectly legal to take photos and videos of police officers everywhere in the United States."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/filming-police-officers_n_5676940.html




Until Texas actually figures out how to secede from the union, they are not exempt.

[Ms. Toad]

9. Unfortunately, not the same issue.

That is a question of state law v. First Amendment. The First Amendment trumps.

Marriage is an issue constitutionally reserved for state control. Unless the laws established by the state are unconstitutional (as many of the post-Windsor cases have held), a marriage is only a marriage if the state says it is so.

Prior to DOMA, virtually every federal marriage benefit was determined based on whether the couple's marriage was legally recognized when and where it was entered into. That is now how the federal agencies are interpreting the Windsor decision - even though Windsor did not go that far. All that has formally been decided at the Supreme Court is that if the state has chosen to allow (or recognize) marriage, the federal government must respect that for the current residents of that state.

In order to avoid a patchwork where I (with a legally recognized marriage in Canada) could be married and unmarried several times a day, if I went traveling through multiple states which either did or did not recognize marriage, Federal agencies - for the most part have adopted rules adopting the standard prior to Windsor for same gender marriages. They have made federal recognition of a same gender marriage dependent on the status on the date the marriage was created. Those rules are not even consistent with Windsor (which inexplicably used a different point in time an location than the couple's marriage - the later recognition by a state other than the one which created it).

The bottom line, short answer, is that until the current marriage cases are decided and marriage discrimination declared unconstitutional once and for all, it is legally unclear whether Texas is violating the law.

(And, FWIW, this not only affects me personally, I'm an attorney who has spent a considerable amount of time both before and after Windsor looking at all the possible permutations.)

[procon]

12. Dang... wrong thread. nt

[world wide wally]

14. I think this "right to discriminate" for religious reasons is a new American disease, just when we

thought we eradicated it.