Annise Parker | Houston | News | Texas

BigGayDeal.com

Harris County Republicans Suing Houston Over Annise Parker's Extension of Benefits to Gay Couples

Jared Woodfill, the chairman of the Harris County Republican party, is suing the city of Houston over Mayor Annise Parker's decision to extend health and life insurance benefits to gay married spouses, the Houston Chronicle reports:

Jwoodfill"This is one of the most egregious acts by an elected official I've ever seen," said Jared Woodfill, chairman the Harris County Republican party. Woodfill, is the lead lawyer on the lawsuit. "They just decided to, unilaterally, as a lame duck, thumb their nose at the will of the people and just spit on the U.S. Constitution."

Woodfill said state District Judge Lisa Millard signed a temporary restraining order late Tuesday, putting the new policy on hold until the matter goes before a judge on Jan. 6.

The lawsuit, filed late Tuesday in state District court, alleges that the mechanism that Parker used to enact benefits for same-sex couples violates the Houston's city charter, the state Defense of Marriage Act and the Texas Constitution.

Attorneys for the city said the lawsuit will likely be thrown out because the two men who filed it do not appear to have legal standing.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Bigots really need to get a hobby other than filing frivolous lawsuits and jerking it to old pics of Anita Bryant.

    Posted by: The Milkman | Dec 18, 2013 7:50:36 AM


  2. As a counterpoint, can we now sue specific politicians for voting to withhold our benefits?

    Posted by: Hey Darlin' | Dec 18, 2013 8:16:50 AM


  3. Someone doesn't understand the concept of the US Constitution... or for that matter, "standing."

    Posted by: unruly | Dec 18, 2013 8:33:21 AM


  4. GOPer haters keep on hating...here...there...and everywhere. Merry F**cking Christmas to 'em!

    Posted by: HadenoughBS | Dec 18, 2013 8:39:04 AM


  5. GOP = Growing Old & Pathetic

    Posted by: johnny | Dec 18, 2013 8:49:00 AM


  6. Where in the US Constitution does it say that municipalities cannot extend benefits to anyone for any reason? It doesn't. It's not a violation of state law because it's not a recognition of marriage in the technical sense. It's a relationship recognition. Nothing in the policy causes the actual marriage to be legally enforceable.

    Posted by: WOLF | Dec 18, 2013 9:11:48 AM


  7. During the runup to these laws going on the ballot, they always stress how this is just to protect heterosexual marriage, that no rights are going to be kept from gay people, and that legal arrangements short of marriage are not going to be affected. They say that the phrasing is just to keep "marriage in all but name" to be created as an end-around, but that it's not to discriminate.

    The instant they pass, what we all knew was true becomes obvious - suddenly, they use the law to prevent any recognition in any form for even the smallest and most unobjectionable issues, even when by no standard whatsoever could what's being given remotely compare to the full range of legal rights for married couples - whether that's refusing to allow a clerk to process federal ID paperwork, or a city extending domestic partners healthcare coverage.

    These are the things that should make it transparently obvious that we are long overdue for being recognized as a suspect class. There is NO reason for this other than pure desire to harm same-sex couples.

    Posted by: Lymis | Dec 18, 2013 9:16:33 AM


  8. From yesterday's story in the Houston Chronicle:

    "Attorneys for the city said the lawsuit will likely be thrown out because the two men who filed it do not appear to have legal standing. 'They don't appear to have any particular state to complain about this,' said City Attorney David Feldman. 'Just being a taxpayer isn't enough.'"

    I certainly hope this belief is proven true in court.

    Posted by: HadenoughBS | Dec 18, 2013 9:26:52 AM


  9. For a group that complains of big government, they are always willing to waste the government's money by filing frivolous lawsuits.

    Posted by: Mitch | Dec 18, 2013 9:55:50 AM


  10. They don't have standing. End of story. Plus this so-called lawyer apparently does not understand the 10th Amendment.

    Posted by: GLAW2014 | Dec 18, 2013 9:59:53 AM


  11. I will not be surprised when this lawsuit gets thrown out because this guy has no standing to bring the lawsuit.

    Posted by: Garst | Dec 18, 2013 3:25:26 PM


  12. Who would have thought that the Harris County REPUBLICANS would be anti-gay? Nationwide the Republican Party is such a supporter of LGBT equality. It's not? Oh, never mind.

    Posted by: andrew | Dec 18, 2013 4:17:55 PM


  13. Some misguided gay people vote republican, why? They're just trash.

    Posted by: Reality | Dec 19, 2013 12:58:10 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Watch The Trailer For Gregg Araki's New Film 'White Bird In A Blizzard': VIDEO« «