[The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriages are not entitled to the same governmental benefits as opposite-sex marriages.]

SFBruce:
Since the Obergefell decision is based on the guarantee of equal protection under the law, it's not hard to understand that SCOTUS did, indeed, intend for same sex marriages to be treated exactly as opposite sex marriages, including all the rights and responsibilities. I hope this is taken to federal court, where I think Pidgeon and Hicks are likely to prevail.

Amos Moses:
no one was denied any equal protection ..... so that is a lie ..... any male regardless of his proclivities could marry any person of the opposite sex ..... and nothing else was ever promised by the law ............ fallacious argument ..........

Ambulance Chaser:
Of course there's an equal protection violation. You're just ignoring the two groups being treated unequally. It's not about who can marry who; that issue has been decided for two years (spoiler: it does violate EP to offer marriage to opposite sex couples but not same sex couples.)

The issue here is, now that same sex couples can get married, do those marriages have to confer the same governmental benefits as opposite sex marriages? Since the Texas Supreme Court has apparently never heard of Brown v. Board of Education, they ruled that the answer is "no" and that "separate but unequal" is just fine.

Amos Moses:
"it does violate EP to offer marriage to opposite sex couples but not same sex couples"

its not a violation if it applies equally .......... fail .... and you are spreading more lies ..........

Ambulance Chaser:
Dude, I've already told you...that part is settled law and is NOT what this article is about.

Amos Moses:
sure .... settled ... until it is NOT settled ..... as i have TOLD YOU ............

Ambulance Chaser:
Why do you keep changing the subject? Are you going to defend your comments or not?

Amos Moses:
you made the claim of "settled law" .... but you ... as a supposed "attorney" .............. KNOW that anything in law is NEVER settled as long as there is a client to challenge it ....... so defend your own "claim" ......... marriage was "settled law" .... no homomarriage ...... until it was not .... slavery was "settled law" ..... until it was not ....... there .... SUCCESSFULLY defended ...... care to try for some more ............

Ambulance Chaser:
"Settled law" means nothing has overturned it. Once Obergefell was handed down, it became the law, and every case that follows it has to take it into account. Courts don't rule "Well Smith v. Jones held X, but that may be overturned someday so we'll have to consider it unsettled when making this ruling..." Rulings don't work that way. Once an issue has been ruled on, THAT is the precedent lower courts follow.

Now, are we going to discuss the matter at hand, or are you going to keep throwing red herrings?

Amos Moses:
hehehehe ......... SO WHAT ........ it is settled ... UNTIL IT IS NOT ............

Ambulance Chaser:
All right, so clearly, we're not actually going to discuss this issue. You've made that abundantly clear. I give up.