1 00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:03,960 Speaker 1: Gay marriage opponents aren't giving up even after the Supreme 2 00:00:03,960 --> 00:00:07,880 Speaker 1: Court decision that legalized same sex weddings nationwide. Ta Tas 3 00:00:08,000 --> 00:00:11,479 Speaker 1: take Texas where On Wednesday, the States Supreme Court weighed 4 00:00:11,480 --> 00:00:14,760 Speaker 1: a challenge to Houston's policy of offering the same sex 5 00:00:14,800 --> 00:00:18,400 Speaker 1: spouses of city employees the same benefits it provides two 6 00:00:18,400 --> 00:00:22,160 Speaker 1: opposite sex spouses. The case is being pressed by two 7 00:00:22,239 --> 00:00:26,200 Speaker 1: Houston taxpayers who say the policy violates their religious rights. 8 00:00:26,880 --> 00:00:29,720 Speaker 1: With us to discuss the case is Katherine Frankie, the 9 00:00:29,760 --> 00:00:32,519 Speaker 1: director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at 10 00:00:32,560 --> 00:00:37,320 Speaker 1: Columbia University Law School. Catherine, thanks for joining us. Some 11 00:00:37,479 --> 00:00:40,000 Speaker 1: of us thought the Supreme Court settled all this in 12 00:00:40,080 --> 00:00:43,919 Speaker 1: the Albergia Fell case, in the courts said gay couples 13 00:00:43,920 --> 00:00:46,400 Speaker 1: have the right to marriage on the same terms as 14 00:00:46,520 --> 00:00:49,880 Speaker 1: heterosexual couples. So what is the argument these two people 15 00:00:49,880 --> 00:00:53,680 Speaker 1: are making for why Houston shouldn't be providing benefits to 16 00:00:53,760 --> 00:00:57,520 Speaker 1: same sex spouses. Well, thanks so much for having me 17 00:00:57,560 --> 00:00:59,560 Speaker 1: on the program, and I think you're right that O. 18 00:00:59,680 --> 00:01:02,520 Speaker 1: Burke Felt did put this issue to bed um. But 19 00:01:02,600 --> 00:01:05,080 Speaker 1: what we see from those who don't agree with the 20 00:01:05,160 --> 00:01:09,279 Speaker 1: opinion is the is an effort to make same sex 21 00:01:09,280 --> 00:01:12,680 Speaker 1: marriages a kind of second class marriage that if you're 22 00:01:12,680 --> 00:01:15,040 Speaker 1: in a different sex marriage, you get the full range 23 00:01:15,040 --> 00:01:17,640 Speaker 1: of benefits that attached to it um, but if you're 24 00:01:17,680 --> 00:01:19,240 Speaker 1: in the same sex marriage, all you get is a 25 00:01:19,280 --> 00:01:22,640 Speaker 1: civil license um, but none of the other benefits. And 26 00:01:23,040 --> 00:01:25,400 Speaker 1: that clearly flies in the face of what the Supreme 27 00:01:25,400 --> 00:01:27,679 Speaker 1: Court ruled in Obergha Fell, is that you've got to 28 00:01:27,680 --> 00:01:30,440 Speaker 1: treat same sex couples on the same level and in 29 00:01:30,480 --> 00:01:33,360 Speaker 1: the same way as different sex couples. So I would 30 00:01:33,360 --> 00:01:37,720 Speaker 1: be very surprised if the Texas Supreme Court finds otherwise, 31 00:01:37,760 --> 00:01:39,720 Speaker 1: and certainly the case will end up in several courts 32 00:01:39,720 --> 00:01:42,960 Speaker 1: if they do well. Catherine, One of the things that 33 00:01:43,040 --> 00:01:46,200 Speaker 1: was surprising about this is that the Court initially said 34 00:01:46,240 --> 00:01:47,920 Speaker 1: in Texas that it wasn't going to hear the case 35 00:01:47,960 --> 00:01:50,120 Speaker 1: at all, and everybody thought that was because Obert Fell 36 00:01:50,760 --> 00:01:54,440 Speaker 1: had settled it um. And then they changed their minds 37 00:01:54,480 --> 00:01:56,520 Speaker 1: and said that they would hear the case. Is there 38 00:01:56,560 --> 00:02:01,160 Speaker 1: any way they can avoid facing this issue? They can, 39 00:02:01,320 --> 00:02:05,880 Speaker 1: and courts often have mechanisms through procedural issues and other 40 00:02:05,960 --> 00:02:09,240 Speaker 1: technical legal questions where they can resolve the question in 41 00:02:09,280 --> 00:02:12,280 Speaker 1: a way that that dodges if you will the real 42 00:02:12,360 --> 00:02:15,960 Speaker 1: political question, um, framed by the case. And in this case, 43 00:02:16,000 --> 00:02:19,880 Speaker 1: you have two taxpayers were opposed to same sex marriage 44 00:02:20,280 --> 00:02:23,480 Speaker 1: bringing the case saying I don't want my taxes being 45 00:02:23,520 --> 00:02:27,560 Speaker 1: spent on this issue. UM. Historically, these kinds of cases 46 00:02:27,680 --> 00:02:30,760 Speaker 1: always fail. During the Vietnam War, there were plenty of 47 00:02:30,760 --> 00:02:33,320 Speaker 1: people who said I'm going to challenge the Vietnam War 48 00:02:33,360 --> 00:02:36,240 Speaker 1: because I don't want my taxes spent on war. Um. 49 00:02:36,280 --> 00:02:38,560 Speaker 1: You know, all of us pay taxes, and there are 50 00:02:38,560 --> 00:02:40,520 Speaker 1: plenty of things the government does that we don't agree 51 00:02:40,560 --> 00:02:44,360 Speaker 1: with with that money. Um. But almost always you lose 52 00:02:44,440 --> 00:02:46,840 Speaker 1: these cases so that the court would say that they 53 00:02:46,880 --> 00:02:50,359 Speaker 1: actually don't have what we call standing to raise this 54 00:02:50,520 --> 00:02:52,680 Speaker 1: kind of claim, and they could dismiss the case on 55 00:02:52,760 --> 00:02:58,280 Speaker 1: that ground and really avoid the political question. So, Catherine, Um, 56 00:02:58,400 --> 00:03:02,400 Speaker 1: this case Um. This court is an all Republican court 57 00:03:02,520 --> 00:03:05,560 Speaker 1: in Texas, and it agreed to take up the case 58 00:03:05,600 --> 00:03:09,120 Speaker 1: after getting a lot of pressure from the Republican governor 59 00:03:09,160 --> 00:03:13,440 Speaker 1: Greg Abbott and other folks. There. Um, is there are 60 00:03:13,840 --> 00:03:17,440 Speaker 1: you does this case prompt any concerns on your for 61 00:03:17,600 --> 00:03:21,120 Speaker 1: you about you know, the politicization of the courts, how 62 00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:23,880 Speaker 1: they're handling how they're handling cases like this, is this 63 00:03:23,960 --> 00:03:28,120 Speaker 1: going to be a truly a legal inqueery or something else. Well, 64 00:03:28,160 --> 00:03:31,160 Speaker 1: these questions are always a mixed mixed issue of law 65 00:03:31,280 --> 00:03:33,919 Speaker 1: and of politics. And when the Supreme Court rules in 66 00:03:33,960 --> 00:03:36,200 Speaker 1: ol berga foul, they were certainly looking out the window 67 00:03:36,240 --> 00:03:38,800 Speaker 1: and seeing where the world was going on the question 68 00:03:38,880 --> 00:03:42,240 Speaker 1: of of gay rights and of marriage rights. Uh. And 69 00:03:42,320 --> 00:03:44,760 Speaker 1: the judges in Texas are elected, and they will all 70 00:03:44,760 --> 00:03:46,840 Speaker 1: be up for re election in the next several years, 71 00:03:46,840 --> 00:03:49,280 Speaker 1: and so they're they're quite sensitive to the fact that 72 00:03:49,320 --> 00:03:52,080 Speaker 1: this issue may come back to haunt them, uh if 73 00:03:52,080 --> 00:03:54,520 Speaker 1: they rule in a way that that defies what might 74 00:03:54,560 --> 00:03:59,640 Speaker 1: be a more conservative majority in Texas. UM. So what's interesting, though, 75 00:03:59,680 --> 00:04:02,400 Speaker 1: is it's a right wing that is usually criticizing courts 76 00:04:02,400 --> 00:04:05,400 Speaker 1: for being too political. Many of the right wing folks 77 00:04:05,400 --> 00:04:08,920 Speaker 1: who oppose same sex marriage criticized the Supreme Court for 78 00:04:09,000 --> 00:04:12,520 Speaker 1: acting politically rather than legally in the Obergofal case. But 79 00:04:12,600 --> 00:04:15,600 Speaker 1: here they're doing the same thing on the other side 80 00:04:15,600 --> 00:04:18,000 Speaker 1: of the issue by by um putting a lot of 81 00:04:18,000 --> 00:04:21,159 Speaker 1: political pressure on the Texas Supreme Court. So if I 82 00:04:21,200 --> 00:04:23,039 Speaker 1: were remember that court, I would get rid of this 83 00:04:23,120 --> 00:04:26,640 Speaker 1: case on something other than the core political question, but 84 00:04:26,680 --> 00:04:31,400 Speaker 1: instead bull on standing and on a procedural issue. I 85 00:04:31,440 --> 00:04:33,960 Speaker 1: want to thank our guest Catherine Frankie that she's the 86 00:04:34,000 --> 00:04:36,880 Speaker 1: director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at 87 00:04:36,880 --> 00:04:40,080 Speaker 1: Columbia University Law School. Talking about the Texas Supreme Court 88 00:04:40,120 --> 00:04:43,719 Speaker 1: case having to do with benefits for same sex spouses 89 00:04:44,360 --> 00:04:49,840 Speaker 1: UH of Houston City employees. There's also a case, Michael, 90 00:04:49,880 --> 00:04:52,320 Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court could deal with soon, involving a 91 00:04:52,400 --> 00:04:55,640 Speaker 1: Colorado baker who says he does not want to UH 92 00:04:55,839 --> 00:04:59,360 Speaker 1: does not want to make cakes for gay weddings. The 93 00:04:59,400 --> 00:05:01,760 Speaker 1: Supreme Court, it is being asked to hear his appeal.