Texas Successfully Blocks New Federal Rights for Gay Couples

A federal judge ensures the Family and Medical Leave Act will not apply to legally-wed same-sex couples who lives in states without marriage equality.

Neal Broverman

Neal Broverman is the Editorial Director, Print of Pride Media, publishers of The Advocate, Out, Out Traveler, and Plus, spending more than 20 years in journalism. He indulges his interest in transportation and urban planning with regular contributions to Los Angeles magazine, and his work has also appeared in the Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He lives in the City of Angels with his husband, children, and their chiweenie.

Read Full Bio

Neal Broverman

March 26 2015 10:17 PM EST

November 17 2015 5:28 AM EST

Nbroverman

Sorry to interrupt...
But we wanted to take a moment to thank you for reading. Your support makes original LGBTQ+ reporting possible. Help us hold Trump accountable.

One-time Monthly

$19.67 $50 Other

$5 $19.67 $50

Federal judge Reed O'Connor, an appointee of George W. Bush, blocked the Family and Medical Leave Act from applying to all legally-married couples regardless if they live in states that don't recognize their marriage, the Washington Blade reports.

The decision was prompted by a lawsuit from Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, a marriage equality opponent. The FMLA guarantees 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for an employee who has a serious illness or needs to care for a spouse, child, or parent (26 weeks if the family member is in the military and has a serious illness or injury). Both public and private employers have to provide the leave, with the exception of those that have fewer than 50 employees.

The FMLA, enacted in 1993, has historically recognized spouses on the basis of whether the couple's state of residence recognizes their marriage. The proposed Labor Department rule, which O'Connor blocked, would have changed that. The rule was to take effect Friday.

O'Connor's 24-page ruling included the following passage: "The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that irreparable injury would occur. For example, the Final Rule would require Texas agencies to recognize out-of-state same-sex unions as marriages in violation of Texas Family Code SS 6.204(c)(2), which expressly prohibits state agencies from 'giving effect to a . . . right or claim to any legal protection, benefit, or responsibility asserted as a result of a marriage between persons of the same sex or a civil union in this state or in any other jurisdiction.'...Defendants' argument that the Final Rule only affects the states in their capacity as employers does not take into account the clear and expansive language of the text. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have met their burden under this factor."