Texas Supreme Court hears gay marriage case

[TexasTowelie]

Seeking to stop government-paid benefits to same-sex spouses, opponents of gay marriage told the Texas Supreme Court on Wednesday that there is no fundamental right to insurance coverage.

Although a landmark 2015 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that same-sex couples have a right to wed, the ruling didn’t require lower courts to grant similar protection to insurance benefits for same-sex spouses, lawyer Jonathan Mitchell told the state’s highest civil court.

The opposing lawyer, however, dismissed that argument as a red herring during oral arguments Wednesday in Austin.

While the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hughes didn’t create a right to benefits, it recognized a far more important and sweeping standard — the right for same-sex marriages to be treated equally, lawyer Douglas Alexander told the state court.

Read more: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/texas-supreme-court-hears-gay-marriage-case/4jcfKZ5XMziXXyE90FRZ8M/

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. Some years back a conservative

acquaintance of mine said that among the reasons she opposed same sex marriage because in the long run it would cost more, for things like Social Security and all the other benefits heterosexual couples get. I should have suggested that in that case she strongly discourage all of her children from marrying, because the cost of such things has nothing to do with the genders involved.