We’ve seen some really, really, really stupid arguments against marriage equality in the last few years. But a group of nut jobs from Texas may have proffered the dumbest argument ever. They want the Texas Supreme Court to declare that legally married same-sex couples don’t have the right to any spousal benefits–including the right to live under the same roof.
Back in 2013, then-Houston mayor Annise Parker extended spousal benefits to the same-sex spouses of city employees. Last week, the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court refused to hear a case brought by a group of right-wingers seeking to overrule Parker. However, on Tuesday, the social conservative group Texas Values joined forces with former Harris County Republican chairman Jared Woodfill to seek a rehearing.
On Friday, a number of Texas elected officials and right-wing activists filed a friend of the court brief supporting this latest attempt to resurrect the case. Among the signatories were Ryan Sitton, a member of the Texas Railroad Commission (which, despite its name, primarily regulates the oil and gas industry), 50 members of the Texas Legislature, and a number of prominent pastors.
Read the brief here. The first paragraph tells you all you need to know about what these nut jobs want to do.
“The primary question before the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell was whether or not same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry. The Court did not create other rights, such as rights to spousal benefits or even the right to live with your spouse.”
Translation–these nut jobs want to effectively neuter marriage equality by closing off the most basic rights couples have.
I seem to recall that for the better part of two decades, the religious right whined that the LGBT community was out for “special rights.” With this brief, these nut jobs have officially gone on record as declaring that basic spousal benefits are “special rights.” In so doing, they have spat in the faces of Texas’ LGBT community.
The brief urges the Texas Supreme Court to take a stand and “diminish federal tyranny and re-establish Texas Sovereignty.” Uh huh. By trampling on the basic dignity of LGBT Texans?
Until reading this, the dumbest argument I’d ever heard in a gay rights case came from Kentucky. The state tried to argue that since gays can’t have babies, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. A federal judge essentially wadded that argument up and threw it back at the Commonwealth’s lawyers, saying that “these arguments are not those of serious people.” If Texas Values and Woodfill’s case bears even passing resemblance to this brief, then the velocity with which it should be thrown out ought to create quite a breeze. And while they’re at it, they should seriously consider levying sanctions. If this isn’t a frivolous argument, I don’t know what is.
