Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Republicans join Woodfill’s ridiculous anti-spousal benefits crusade

Shoveling sand against the tide.

RedEquality

Fifty Republican members of the Texas Legislature have signed a court brief arguing that the same-sex spouses of government employees shouldn’t be entitled to health insurance and other benefits.

The “friend-of-the-court” brief was submitted Friday in a lawsuit brought by anti-LGBT activists against the city of Houston in response to then-Mayor Annise Parker’s decision to extend benefits to the same-sex spouses of city employees in 2013.

Last month, the Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the case, Pidgeon v. Parker, with only Justice John Devine dissenting. But Jonathan Saenz, president of the anti-LGBT group Texas Values, and former Harris County GOP chair Jared Woodfill have petitioned the nine-member court for a rehearing.

[…]

The brief argues that while the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples have a right to marry, “nothing in that ruling compelled the taxpayers of Texas to pay for a vast array of benefits for same-sex spouses.”

“This Court has the opportunity to diminish federal tyranny and re-establish Texas Sovereignty,” the brief states. “The people have already spoken on the issue through the Texas Legislature. It would be a detriment to their constituents if this elected Court were to remain silent.”

LGBT advocates have said that under Obergefell, if a government employer offers any spousal benefits, it must offer them equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. They’ve also said they believe it is unlikely the state’s highest court will reconsider its decision.

See here for the background. The list of Republicans who signed on mostly includes the usual suspects, but there were a few names that disappointed me. Putting that aside, I have to ask, how does this even make sense? Does anyone really think that Obergefell will be interpreted as “OK, fine, you can get married, but you can’t get health insurance or be named the primary beneficiary of a retirement fund unless you get hetero married”? Forget about any cockamamie legal theory for this, what kind of person thinks this makes sense? (By the way, that cockamamie legal theory, as espoused by the one Supreme Court Justice out of nine that originally voted to rehear the appeal, is that hetero marriage counts for more and can be privileged by the state because of procreation; this argument was explicitly rejected by the federal courts and SCOTUS in the Obergefell case. So you can see what kind of a future this would have if it somehow got accepted here.) The Statesman has more.

Related Posts:

3 Comments

  1. Keep houston working, keep jared woodfill weird.

  2. Bill Daniels says:

    *sigh*

    What part of “equal treatment under the law” is so complicated for the (R)’s? I certainly support the right of private employers to offer or not offer whatever benefits they want to their employees, but government must treat its citizens equally, and that includes its employees.

    Of course, offering spousal benefits isn’t fair to city and state employees that are single, so maybe the best thing to do would be to stop offering spousal benefits completely. THAT would be fair to all.

  3. Steve Houston says:

    Bill, it’s fair to the single employees since they could potentially partake as well. Sure, the city offering a spousal continuation of the same pension benefit as a single person costs more, the county/state retirement system actually lowering the benefit for such a case, but most people get married or have children at some point in their lives. Otherwise, I agree with you, either offer such benefits to all employees or none, none of the selective stuff earning any points for the GOP.