A Texas judge tried his damnedest to undermine Obergefell v Hodges, the US Supreme Court case that finally granted country wide marriage equality across the US, but thankfully failed.
His attempt was made during review of Pidgeon and Hicks v. Mayor Sylvester Turner and City of Houston, where the judge argued that anti-LGBT discrimination could be valid where there are benefits involved.
He said, according to Slate: “Marriage is a fundamental right. Spousal benefits are not.”
Judge John Devine argued that the state could deny insurance to same-sex couples, and his reasoning was a simple one – procreation.
Devine said: “…Offering certain benefits to opposite-sex couples would encourage procreation within marriage. After all, benefits such as health insurance provide financial security as couples decide whether to have a child. An opposite-sex marriage is the only marital relationship where children are raised by their biological parents. In any other relationship, the child must be removed from at least one natural parent, perhaps two, before being adopted by her new parent(s).”
“This does not diminish any child’s inherent dignity, a fact the City presumably recognizes by extending benefits to their employees’ children regardless of the employees’ marital status. But it does explain why the State might choose to direct resources to opposite-sex couples.”
However, Devine’s fellow justices found no merit in this argument, and left alone the lower court ruling that states that the government must have compelling reasons to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples.