In Texas I'm a second class citizen

[jp1]

For whatever reason the US Supreme Court has decided to let stand a TX supreme court ruling that says that just because gay people can get married it doesn't mean that they automatically should get the same government benefits that straight married people get.

http://www.newsweek.com/same-sex-cou...e-court-730730

Republicans mock and dislike the "identity politics" of the democratic party. But they ignore the fact that the reason those identity groups even exist, and gravitate to the democrats, is because the republicans specifically create policies targeted to harm the people who are in those groups.

[bae]

That seems...wrong.

[iris lilies]

What does it mean when SCOTUS passes on a case? It doesnt mean that they necessarily agree with the ruling of the lower court, right? Aren't they getting ready for CakeCase?

I have always wondered what causes SCOTUS to take up a case. It seems to me that there are hundreds of cases to hear and they have limited time.

[jp1]

What does it mean when SCOTUS passes on a case? It doesnt mean that they necessarily agree with the ruling of the lower court, right? Aren't they getting ready for CakeCase?

I have always wondered what causes SCOTUS to take up a case. It seems to me that there are hundreds of cases to hear and they have limited time.

It probably means different things in every case. In this particular case it means that they've decided not to defend a previous decision that they made. The result will undoubtedly be more cases coming their way. This case involved selfish, anti-gay tax payers that didn't want their taxes going towards providing gay married people the same benefits that their taxes pay towards straight married people. Next up will be gay married people who work for the city of houston suing the city for not providing them the same benefits their straight cis-gendered counterparts receive. Perhaps by then the US supremes will realize that they can't just punt on this issue forever. In the meantime years of unequal treatment will happen. Remind me again why gay people shouldn't be anti-republican?

[Chicken lady]

Because it’s better to define yourself as “pro-(something)”?

jp1, that sucks, And i’m Sorry.

[Zoe Girl]

Oh man, this is crap. I am always amazed at how persistant and creative people can be when they are trying to be mean. I actually thought that being able to marry was solving a lot of issues, no matter what this will take years to creep through the crap and fix.

[jp1]

It's not especially surprising that the Roberts court declined to take the case. After all, the chief justice was on the losing side of Obgerfell so why would he want to take a case that will broaden it. A better plan for him is to wait until there are conflicting lower court rulings and then take a case all the while hoping that republicans get to put one or two more conservative justices on the court and then do some Scalia-style jiggery pokery to claim that Obgerfell didn't really mean all of marriage.

[Teacher Terry]

That's terrible!

[bae]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[creaker]

That's an interesting slippery slope - if certain people legally married don't qualify for the same government benefits, I wonder how many others aspects besides gay this could be applied to? This is horrible. It sounds like rulings Loving vs. Virginia could be turned on their head: "yes, you are legally married, but..."

I wonder if we'll be seeing a case go up to see if just because you are a US citizen doesn't mean you automatically get the rights and benefits that other US citizens get.