Why 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 are 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:

take our poll - story continues below

What is your top alternative to Facebook? - FIXED

  • What is your top alternative to Facebook?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Eagle Rising updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: The Federalist: James Comey Lies “Like Roadkill”

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 Te…

Read the rest of the story at Gary DeMar

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com


About the author

Gary DeMar

Gary DeMar

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to a friend