Denying the city of Houston鈥檚 request, the U.S. Supreme Court will not review a June decision by the Texas Supreme Court in which it ruled that the landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage does not fully address the right to marriage benefits.
The high court on Monday announced it would not take up the case 鈥� which centers on Houston鈥檚 policy to provide spouses of gay and lesbian employees the same government-subsidized marriage benefits provides to opposite-sex spouses 鈥� just months after the city of Houston filed its appeal, arguing the state court鈥檚 June decision 鈥渄isregarded鈥� precedent.
In that decision, the Texas Supreme Court threw out a lower court ruling that said spouses of gay and lesbian public employees are entitled to government-subsidized marriage benefits, and it unanimously ordered a trial court to reconsider the case. The 鈥渢he reach and ramifications鈥� of marriage-related issues that resulted from the legalization of same-sex marriage.
That鈥檚 despite the U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015 and noted that now-defunct marriage laws were unequal in how they denied same-sex couples the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples.
In its decision, the Texas Supreme Court noted that Obergefell requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages just as they do opposite-sex marriages but did not hold that 鈥渟tates must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.鈥�
That does not mean Houston can 鈥渃onstitutionally deny benefits to its employees鈥� same-sex spouses,鈥� the court added, but the issue must now be resolved 鈥渋n light of 翱产别谤驳别蹿别濒濒.鈥�
Following the Obergefell ruling, public employers in Texas, including state agencies and public universities, marriage benefits to spouses of gay and lesbian employees.
But amid conservative efforts to relitigate that ruling, two Houston taxpayers 鈥� represented by same-sex marriage opponents 鈥� have moved forward with their case, arguing that the interpretation of Obergefell is too broad and that the right to marry does not 鈥渆ntail any particular package of tax benefits, employee fringe benefits or testimonial privileges.鈥� (In a separate case against the state鈥檚 now-defunct ban on same-sex marriage, the Texas attorney general鈥檚 office actually the state is entitled to control.)
Lawyers for the city of Houston have argued, in part, that opponents are without a legal avenue to even pursue their claims because the city鈥檚 policy is protected under Obergefell, which they pointed out explicitly addressed 鈥渕arriage-related benefits."
Amid the litigation, Houston has continued to provide benefits to all of its married employees.
________________________________________
