Gay Marriage Case, Texas Supreme Court Overwhelmed With Inputs
Mar 01, 2017 11:56 AM EST
As judges prepare to hear arguments on efforts to limit the federal ruling allowing gay marriage, the Texas Supreme Court receives a wave of unsolicited inputs and advice from politicians, legal scholars, religious groups and human rights activists. With oral arguments set for Wednesday, they seek to re-establish the legitimacy of gay marriage in their own ways.
The public's contact with the court began when the U.S. Supreme Court first tossed out gay marriage bans in 2015, ruling that same-sex couples were entitled to "equal dignity in the eyes of the law." According to the Supreme Court's Appellate Briefs, the everyday citizens come into contact with the state's highest civil court through emails, letters, and postcards.
Let's begin with the general opponents of same-sex marriage. These are the people who are constantly seeking opportunities to limit the impact of that gay marriage ruling with a case that involves a long-running lawsuit, in order to abolish employee benefits the city of Houston provides to married same-sex couples.
Then you have the Republican leaders, religious groups and social conservatives who are pushing the Texas court to confine to giving no fundamental right to spousal benefits. They insist that the rule applies even if there is a constitutional right to gay marriage.
Law professors, activists, and others, on the other side, argue that the Texas court has no scope for negotiation to disallow gay marriage. They claim that the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, clearly and emphatically, that same-sex couples have a right to marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples, according to MyStatesman.
The Texas Supreme Court, overwhelmed by the appreciable amount of inputs on gay marriage, says that the 14th Amendment, retains its core purpose to protect the civil rights of freed slaves. It further says that the rule was not intended to create a mock form of marriage to legitimize perversity and in the process, trample on the rights of the states to self-government.