Plaintiffs Again Ask Judge to Halt Same-Sex Benefits in Houston

[TexasTowelie]

Anti-LGBTQ activists are again asking a Harris County judge to halt benefits for the same-sex spouses of Houston city employees, according to a recently filed motion.

The motion for summary judgment in Pidgeon v. Turner, a five-year-old lawsuit challenging the benefits, states that the city should not subsidize same-sex marriages because gay couples cannot produce offspring, “which are needed to ensure economic growth and the survival of the human race.”

The motion also asks Republican Judge Lisa Millard, of the 310th District Family Court, to order the city to “claw back” taxpayer funds spent on the benefits since November 2013, when former Mayor Annise Parker first extended health and life insurance coverage to same-sex spouses. And the court filing suggests that to comply with both state and federal law, the city should eliminate all spousal benefits, including for opposite-sex couples.

The motion for summary judgment was filed July 2 by Jared Woodfill, an attorney for Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks, two Houston taxpayers who initially brought their lawsuit in December 2013. Woodfill, a former chair of the Harris County Republican Party, is president of the Conservative Republicans of Texas, which is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-LGBTQ hate group.

Read more: http://www.outsmartmagazine.com/2018/08/plaintiffs-again-ask-judge-to-halt-same-sex-benefits-in-houston/

[Turbineguy]

1. It's a slippery slope.

That they fail to notice. Once you start carving groups of people out, who knows where it ends?

[TexasBushwhacker]

2. It seems to me that the City of Houston

offered these benefits because they wanted to hire the best and brightest, regardless of sexual preference. I doubt it costs the city much if anything. Making benefits available for spouses usually means the employee pays all or most of the premium for their spouse. It's just that premiums for a big employer are going to be lower than they'll be for a person to buy an individual policy. It's all about access.

[AlexSFCA]

3. this claim has zero basis and should be rejected

[J_William_Ryan]

4. More bigotry and hate directed against gay Americans.

‘The motion for summary judgment in Pidgeon v. Turner, a five-year-old lawsuit challenging the benefits, states that the city should not subsidize same-sex marriages because gay couples cannot produce offspring, “which are needed to ensure economic growth and the survival of the human race.”’

Wrong.

There are opposite-sex marriages that cannot produce offspring due to infertility, marriages that are nonetheless afforded benefits.

This is clearly a violation of the 14th Amendment.

[Phoenix61]

5. So when a couple passes "breeding age"

are they suggesting they shouldn't be eligible for benefits?

[Gothmog]

6. Jared Woodfill is an asshole

The idiot is really scared of non-whites and LGBT voters