The U.S. Supreme Court just summarily dismissed an Arkansas case that tested whether the equal treatment conferred upon same-sex couples by the high court's 2015 marriage decision extends to the realm of birth certificates and parenting.
The Texas Supreme Court now seems committed to testing the bounds of that equal treatment in the realm of benefits, writes the Texas Tribune:
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday threw out a lower court ruling that said spouses of gay and lesbian public employees are entitled to government-subsidized same-sex marriage benefits. The state's highest civil court unanimously ordered a trial court to reconsider the case.
As part of a case challenging Houston’s benefits policy, the Supreme Court suggested a landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage does not fully address the right to marriage benefits. Justice Jeffrey Boyd, writing on behalf of the court in a 24-page opinion, said there’s still room for state courts to explore the “reach and ramifications” of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
“We agree with the Mayor [of Houston] that any effort to resolve whether and the extent to which the Constitution requires states or cities to provide tax-funded benefits to same-sex couples without considering Obergefell would simply be erroneous,” Boyd wrote.“On the other hand, we agree… that the Supreme Court did not address and resolve that specific issue in Obergefell.”
The article notes that LGBTQ advocates will probably appeal the ruling to federal courts.
But we are likely to see many more challenges of this sort designed to test the depth and breadth of what the Supreme Court meant in Obergefell. Whether we like it or not, those challenges are coming, which means it's probably better for the LGBTQ movement if they come while Justice Anthony Kennedy still sits on the court. He's more likely than any Trump replacement for him to protect the integrity of the decisions he wrote equalizing treatment for same-sex couples.
In both Obergefell and his 2013 opinion striking down the law that denied federal benefits to same-sex couples (known as the Defense of Marriage Act), Kennedy articulated the fact that the Constitution does not allow for same-sex couples to be treated differently from similarly situated opposite-sex couples. Specifically, in the Windsor ruling gutting DOMA, he wrote:
“The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.”
And in Obergefell, Kennedy wrote that by being excluded from the legal rights afforded to married couples,
“Same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable.”
The benefits that flow from marriage weren't an afterthought for Kennedy, they were in fact integral to his evolution in thinking on the right of same-sex couples to marry.