Ted Cruz says Supreme Court was 'clearly wrong' about 2015 same-sex marriage ruling | CNN Politics
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz speaks during a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on January 5, 2022. Tom Williams/Pool/Getty Images CNN —
Sen. Ted Cruz believes the US Supreme Court was "clearly wrong" in its landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, the Texas Republican said Saturday.
"Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," Cruz said in a clip posted on his YouTube channel for his podcast. "Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states. We saw states before Obergefell, some states were moving to allow gay marriage, other states were moving to allow civil partnerships. There were different standards that the states were adopting."
He added: "The way the Constitution set up for you to advance that position is convince your fellow citizens, that if you succeeded in convincing your fellow citizens, then your state would change the laws to reflect those views. In Obergefell, the court said, 'No, we know better than you guys do, and now every state must, must sanction and permit gay marriage.'"
"I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided," Cruz said. 'It was the court overreaching."
His remarks come weeks after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ruling there was no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion.
Cruz, a longtime opponent of same-sex marriage who believes the issue should be left to the states, echoed views expressed by many conservatives, including Justice Clarence Thomas, that the Supreme Court should revisit past rulings such as Obergefell v. Hodges.
In a separate opinion on last month's abortion decision, Thomas explicitly called for the court to reconsider its earlier rulings striking down state restrictions on contraceptives, state sodomy bans and state prohibitions on same-sex marriage.
"Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,'" Thomas wrote, "we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."
CNN's Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.
Tags
Who is online
90 visitors
[Deleted]
Removed for context - sandy
Removed for context - sandy
Removed for context - sandy
the odds on ted getting caught with a same sex partner sometime just doubled.
Well he has lots of competition for the biggest moron politician in Texas,
Babin, Paxton, Patrick and Gohmert are right up there with Cruz.,
One of many that cannot distinguish between the Constitution and the Bible
my uncle gave cruz an AR to auction off for his 2016 POTUS run. he can't distinguish between the bible and constitution either.
[deleted]
The biggest and the runner up spot are already taken. See comment 1.3 to find out who they are.
Instead of lameass potshots why don't you tell us why you would outlaw same sex marriage and undo equal rights for LGTB people?
That may be true. After all Beto is from there as is Sheila Jackson Lee. There aren't any bigger moron from Texas that I know of
Only those who can't spell or use punctuation correctly.
The only ones who care about spelling or punctuation are those who know they have lost the argument and have nothing else.
He has such a punchable face!
Who didn't think they were lying when they said this would not come up.
it's going to be a morality based domino effect now that SCOTUS is tilted towards christo-fascism. personally, I couldn't be happier that thumpers and trumpsters are joined at the hip. they can both go down the cultural shitter together.
both, not soon enough.
both groups put the cult in culture...
Not without limits, though.
Notwithstanding the general state jurisdiction over marriage, the SCOTUS has repeatedly moved to prevent denying the right to marry to certain people. The Court’s approach has consistently been to say that marriage is a fundamental human right (one that predates even the Bill of Rights) and that it can’t be denied to certain classes of people without a damned good reason.
So, in Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Court held that people couldn’t be denied the right to marry on the basis of race, declaring that
In Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), the Court again held that marriage was a fundamental right and couldn’t be denied to men just because they had failed to pay child support to a previous spouse.
Additionally, in Turner v. Safley (1987) the Court held that states could not prevent prison inmates from marrying.
They would have to anyway, after a fashion. Both the states and the federal government have to respect marriages that are legal in other states.
That’s my legal analysis. More personally, I think it’s pretty sick and twisted the way some conservatives are now frothing at the mouth to deny freedom, liberty, and dignity to as many people as they can. No one is harmed by gay marriage and many are helped. Opposing it is, in my opinion, pure evil - especially now that we have had it for a few years and the harmlessness of it has been demonstrated.
If only they did. When states individually and other countries legalized SS marriages, many states and the federal government refused to recognize them. It was a years long process. Windsor cracked that nut.
Now the threat returns from Cruz and his cohorts. They set themselves up as arborators of what constitutes a family.
what imagined threat?
The disolution of America families now in legal gay marriages!
no one has done anything regarding gay marriage. I think you're panicking for no reason.
That is what you said about the court reversing Roe VS Wade!
gee. that is like me saying Democrats want to outlaw separate restrooms for males and females.
What do you think Cruz is proposing? Are youi incapable of understanding what the topic is or just intent on trolling?
piss off with your trolling nonsense.
wtf can Cruz do all by his lonesome that has you so scared?
Cruz isn't all by his lonesome.
Yeah, Cruz missed the "it's popular therefore its a Constitutional right" clause of the Constitution.
Justice Roberts provides a nice summary:
Equality under the law is so popular it's enshrined in the Constitution!
[deleted]
No, you tell us how you figure LGTB people are unequal...
They have the same right in regards to marriage that I do. I can get married to any woman I please just like any gay man can. Any gay woman can marry any man she chooses just like any other woman.
how you figure LGTB people are unequal...
They aren't.
Yes, currently, they do.
For now.
It remains legal to discriminate against LGTB persons in housing and or employment in about half the states and in over half the American land mass.
Don't worry, Ted, the Trump SCOTUS will reverse it. Wow, is it ever an embarrassment to Canadians that that asshole was born in Canada. Thank heaven he moved to Texas where he can be appreciated.
What is Ted Cruz's attraction to Texas voters? That he is obnoxious?
He is right on the issues that are important to them. You know they are doing just what liberals keep saying people should do. Voting for their own interests.
Don't you mean against their own best interest?
why do so many liberals think they know what is best for voters, even to the point of dismissing their views on things?
[deleted]
[deleted]
is that what you read in his post?
How is the marriage of a gay couple of any interest to them?
Canada must be filled with assholes, huh? Cruz wants America to mimic Canada where gay marriage isn't a Constitutional right either.
You mean he wants universal single-payer healthcare, strict gun controls, an unbiased Supreme Court, paper ballots marked by pencils to prevent lawsuits and people to be polite?
uh, he was pretty specific, not sure how you managed to think he said all that other stuff.
Oh, and by the way Sean.....
If so he should have said "with respect to" instead of "where" if the intent were to be specific. He could have said "where there are 10 provinces" and it makes no difference to the fact that my response to what he said was correct.
you should have read his post and understood what he wrote and meant, it is pretty clear.
I am not a grammar Nazi, so I don't care about that trivial bullshit.
Do you not understand the difference between a legislative act and a constitutional right?
Would you like me to explain the difference?
My reply was to Sean's comment - I differentiate between lawmakers and lawblockers so I don't pay much attention to the latter. It's no surprise to me that grammer is not that important to you. It was extremely important to me in my profession, and thereafter for the purpose of teaching English to high school students, so it's a habit that's hard for me to break.
Different strokes for different folks, Sean. Canada doesn't give a shit about whether it's consitutional or legislative in the manner that Americans consider their constitution to be like the God-given 10 commandments. The fact that Canada's governmental system differs from America's doesn't mean it isn't just as good (if not better, taking into consideration all the battles going on in the USA over what's constitutional and what's not and what can be thrown out even if it's good law).
grammar is fine, and I know you are smart enough to know what he was talking about.
[deleted]
Well, Tex, of course I knew what he was talking about, but since I get provoked a lot on this site I just like to have a little fun doing payback. However this whole thing is starting to bore me and I'm trying to finish preparing a new movie quiz right now, which is a more enjoyable and more productive use of my time.
wow, that's awesome!
I'm sorry you got trolled on my seed. Nothing I can do about it.
What I meant is that Canadians don't give a shit whether gay marriage rights are constitutional or legislative - good law is good law. Canadian courts will not show a bias by reversing legislated GOOD LAW with some constitutional argument. Any continuation of this will do nothing more but earn an IMPASSE.
Not your fault and no reason to apologize. It's just one of the reasons why we're having so much trouble getting active new members here.
Good grammar is never out of style.
It is why do many quit participating. It is damn unpleasant!
You may be right.
Post 1 is a great example!
Yes, Ted Cruz is another low down obnoxious Troll from Texas!
That is the whole point of the article you happen to be trolling...
funny to hear someone complain about 'unpleasantness' after posting such filth.
I cannot help it if you think news about Ted Cruz is, um, filth!
Exactly.
Obtuseness is such a poor look.
Fuck off with your ignorant trolling commentary.
I'll take that as a concession. You do know when to give up!
Take it however you wish. The best part for you is it doesn't even have to make any sense!
Just rather hypocritical and stupid to whine about others doing EXACTLY what you bitch about.
Your comments are just getting lamer and lamer now...
While yours have always been that way.