Flummoxed (Update)

I have to admit to being taken aback at this:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a Texas ruling that said the right to a marriage license did not entitle same-sex couples to spousal benefits under employee insurance plans.

The city of Houston had asked the high court to overturn last June’s Texas Supreme Court decision, which determined that all marriage-related matters were not decided when the U.S. Supreme Court established a right to same-sex unions in 2015, leaving room for state courts to explore the limits of gay marriage.

The federal court’s decision, issued without comment, allowed the Texas ruling to stand.

I find it hard to believe that four justices did not vote to hear this one.

Here's what I think it the big flaw in the Texas decision:

The Texas court merely said that the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, while acknowledging the right of same-sex couples to marry, did not answer or resolve all marriage-related questions, including whether governments must provide the same benefits to same-sex couples that are provided to opposite-sex couples, they argued.

From the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (p. 28):

Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.

(Emphasis added.)

That seems to me to be pretty conclusive: if you offer benefits to married opposite-sex couples, you must offer the same benefits to married same-sex couples.

Am I missing something?

Via Joe.My.God.

Update: A possible explanation:

• In Turner v. Pidgeon (City of Houston appeals Texas Supreme Court holding that Obergefell didn’t settle question whether married same-sex couples must receive same spousal benefits as different-sex couples), Case Number 17-424, the court DENIES CERT, i.e., will not hear the case.

While speculation is just that - only speculative - it's possible the justices think it's premature to take up the case given that the Texas Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings in lower court.