The Supreme Court yesterday let stand a ruling by the Texas Supreme Court that states and local governments do not have to provide gay married couples the same benefits given to traditional married couples under the SCOTUS ruling that required states to recognize and perform gay marriages. The argument supporting that view basically pointed to abortion and said that the decision granting the right to abortion did not require states to fund those abortions, so the decision granting the right to gay marriage did not require states to subsidize those marriages. The case arose out of a policy in Houston of granting gay couples the same benefits as traditional couples.
The ruling is not a final one in the case. Indeed, the matter will now proceed to trial in Texas, and it may someday be back in front of SCOTUS.
Nevertheless, the ruling is of interest because it would only have taken the votes of four justices for the Court to have decided to take this case. That's a pretty good indicator of which way SCOTUS believes this should come out. Of course, there are other reasons for the Court to decline to take a case, so one can't read too much into it.
The ruling is not a final one in the case. Indeed, the matter will now proceed to trial in Texas, and it may someday be back in front of SCOTUS.
Nevertheless, the ruling is of interest because it would only have taken the votes of four justices for the Court to have decided to take this case. That's a pretty good indicator of which way SCOTUS believes this should come out. Of course, there are other reasons for the Court to decline to take a case, so one can't read too much into it.
No comments:
Post a Comment