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.