Should Taxpayers be Forced to Fund 'Same Sex' Benefits?
The Supreme Court’s pro-same-sex marriage decision is having far-reaching implications. Not only a people of the same-sex having their marriages legitimized but anyone who opposes same-sex marriages can be severely punished as has happened in a number of high-profile cases.
Not only are people being discriminated against in their personal beliefs and businesses but taxpayers are being required to pay for “same-sex” marital benefits. Whatever happened to the claim that same-sex marriage will not affect people who oppose it?
I’ll let my good friend Dr. Stephen F. Hotze explain what’s going on:
Today [March 1, 2017], in a historic lawsuit, Pidgeon v Parker, the “Same-Sex” benefits case, attorneys for the plaintiffs appeared before the Texas Supreme Court this morning, representing Houston taxpayers, Pastor Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks, who are plaintiffs against the mayor of the City of Houston. The plaintiff attorneys argued that Houston taxpayers cannot be required to pay for “same-sex” marital benefits. Just because the U.S. Supreme Court wrongly granted the right to marry to homosexuals, society is not required to fund their insurance and other benefits.
The justices seemed very engaged in this case which was indicated by their insightful questioning of the attorneys on both sides of the case. The justices appear to appreciate the significance of their pending opinion.
The lead attorney for the plaintiffs in this case is Jared Woodfill, President of Conservative Republicans of Texas PAC and Editor-in-Chief of CRTX News. Jonathan Saenz, President of Texas Values, serves as co-counsel. Appellate attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, presented the arguments before the Texas Supreme Court today. Mitchell is a visiting professor at Stanford Law School. He previously clerked for the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and served as Solicitor General for the Texas Attorney General’s office for 4 years under then Attorney General, Greg Abbott.
The case arose in 2013 because of the actions of then Mayor of Houston, Annise Parker, who instructed the city financial officer to give legal status and recognition to so-called same-sex “marriages” for city employees and to provide benefits to same-sex “spouses” of employees at the expense of Houston taxpayers. This was in clear violation of the Texas Marriage Amendment in the Texas Constitution.
Mayor Parker’s edict occurred before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision allowed homosexuals to be legally “married.” The Court’s decision was an exercise of raw judicial power in order to advance the homosexual agenda of creating moral anarchy in society. It had no legal basis in the U.S. Constitution. The concept of homosexual “marriage” is a mirage because it is a lie, foisted upon the American society by five unelected justices.
Marriage was established by God. “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Jesus reaffirmed this in Matthew 19:4-5. The Obergefell ruling is in direct violation of God’s law and standard for marriage and as such must be opposed by elected officials in lower positions of authority, as they interpose themselves between the citizens from wicked rulings by higher authorities in order to prevent the citizens from being forced to violate God’s law. The Obergefell decision is a perversion of God’s standard for marriage.
This Pidgeon v Parker case was won initially in state district court in Harris County. The City of Houston appealed the decision to the 14th Court of Appeals, comprised of all Republican judges. The initial trial court decision in favor of Woodfill’s plaintiffs, Pastor Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks, was reversed by the appellate court. This reversal effectively expanded Obergefell to include taxpayer-funded benefits. This led to Woodfill’s appeal for a rehearing before the Texas Supreme Court on the grounds that the appellate court’s ruling infringed upon taxpayers’ religious liberties and upon Tenth Amendment State’s Rights.
It was the well-reasoned dissent by Supreme Court Justice John Devine, to the initial denial of the Texas Supreme Court, which caused a public outcry over this denial, that led Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton to file an Amicus Brief with the Supreme Court which was signed by Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.
Additionally, I filed an Amicus Brief which was signed by 70 Republican legislators, statewide officials, and leaders of various Texas conservative organizations.
Subsequently, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to grant the motion for rehearing. The hearing in this case occurred this morning [March 1].
The written opinion in Pidgeon v Parker is expected to be issued by June of this year.
Jared Woodfill is to be commended for pressing this case to the Texas Supreme Court. He had been advised to drop the case after the 14th Court of Appeals overruled the state district court’s favorable ruling. Jared knew that this case had the potential to limit the scope of the Obergefell “same-sex” marriage decision and even lead to Obergefell being overturned on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jared Woodfill has proven that he has a lion’s heart: “The righteous are as bold as a lion” (Proverbs 28:1).