Ultimately, even if you do not have a formal agreement and are not legally married, if you have presented your partner as a spouse, or if you have signed a legal form in which your partner appears as a spouse, these are considered proof of a marriage under the Common Law. In June 1999, an activist of the gay rights officers of bexar district called for the creation of a legal register for those who wish to declare themselves same-sex domestic partners. District officials sought a ruling from Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, who responded that such statements constituted an attempt to establish a legal relationship similar to marriage, a violation of Texas law. Bexar County rejected the request in December.  On November 6, 2001, 52 percent of Houston`s Proposition 2 voters agreed to an amendment to the Urban Charter that prohibits the city from providing national partner services to city staff.  However, the amendment expressly allows for pension provision for the “legitimate spouses” of workers. On November 20, 2013, Mayor Annise Parker announced that the city would offer national partnerships to all legally married spouses of municipal employees. This is the case for same-sex couples married in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. The mayor`s decision is based on the interpretation of recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and other relevant jurisdictions across the country by the city`s legal department.
 On December 17, 22, 2013, District Judge Lisa Millard issued an order to freeze the implementation of the Houston National Partnership Act in response to a complaint filed by Harris County Gop President Jared Woodfill on behalf of plaintiffs Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks. A hearing is underway on January 6, 2014.  In April 2013, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott stated that Article I, Section 32 of the Texas Constitution prohibited a political subdivision of the state from “creating a legal status of national partnership and recognizing that status by providing public services based on it.” Senator Dan Patrick`s request for an opinion questioned the political subdivisions that “provide some form of insurance benefits for national partnerships” as part of their employee benefit programs. Article I, Section 32, states that “its State or political subdivision shall not create or recognize a legal status identical or similar to marriage.” The Attorney General has stated that an independent city, county or school district is a “political subdivision” for this purpose. . . .