Ted Cruz says Supreme Court was 'clearly wrong' about 2015 same-sex marriage ruling | CNN Politics

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  3 weeks ago  •  75 comments

By:   Daniella Diaz (CNN)

Ted Cruz says Supreme Court was 'clearly wrong' about 2015 same-sex marriage ruling | CNN Politics
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.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



220131125408-sen-ted-cruz-0105.jpg?c=16x9&q=h_270,w_480,c_fill 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

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    3 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @1    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1    3 weeks ago

Removed for context - sandy

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.2  arkpdx  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

Removed for context - sandy

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

Removed for context - sandy

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  JBB @1    3 weeks ago

the odds on ted getting caught with a same sex partner sometime just doubled.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Split Personality  replied to  devangelical @1.2    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.2  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

my uncle gave cruz an AR to auction off for his 2016 POTUS run. he can't distinguish between the bible and constitution either.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.2.3  arkpdx  replied to  devangelical @1.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.2.4  arkpdx  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.1    3 weeks ago
Well he has lots of competition for the biggest moron politician in Texas,

The biggest and the runner up spot are already taken. See comment 1.3 to find out who they are. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.2.5  seeder  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @1.2.3    3 weeks ago

Instead of lameass potshots why don't you tell us why you would outlaw same sex marriage and undo equal rights for LGTB people?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @1    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.3.1  cjcold  replied to  arkpdx @1.3    3 weeks ago

Only those who can't spell or use punctuation correctly.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.2  arkpdx  replied to  cjcold @1.3.1    3 weeks ago

The only ones who care about spelling or punctuation are those who know they have lost the argument and have nothing else.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1    3 weeks ago

He has such a punchable face!

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2  Ender    3 weeks ago

Who didn't think they were lying when they said this would not come up.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1  devangelical  replied to  Ender @2    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  devangelical @2.1    3 weeks ago

both, not soon enough.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.2  devangelical  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

both groups put the cult in culture...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3  Tacos!    3 weeks ago
Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states.

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 

marriage is "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

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.

now every state must, must sanction and permit gay marriage.'"

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3    3 weeks ago
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.

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. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1    3 weeks ago

what imagined threat?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

The disolution of America families now in legal gay marriages!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

no one has done anything regarding gay marriage. I think you're panicking for no reason.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.4  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    3 weeks ago

That is what you said about the court reversing Roe VS Wade!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.1.4    3 weeks ago

gee. that is like me saying Democrats want to outlaw separate restrooms for males and females.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.6  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    3 weeks ago

What do you think Cruz is proposing? Are youi incapable of understanding what the topic is or just intent on trolling?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.1.6    3 weeks ago

piss off with your trolling nonsense.

wtf can Cruz do all by his lonesome that has you so scared?

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
3.1.8  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.7    3 weeks ago
wtf can Cruz do all by his lonesome that has you so scared?

Cruz isn't all by his lonesome.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

Yeah, Cruz missed the "it's popular therefore its a Constitutional right" clause of the Constitution. 

Justice Roberts provides a nice summary:

This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).

 Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

 Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

  The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.”   Ante , at 11, 23 .   As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?

 It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.”   Lochner   v.   New York ,   198 U. S. 45 , 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned with the wisdom or policy of legislation.”   Id. , at 69 (Harlan, J., dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.”   Ante , at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.

 Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    3 weeks ago

Equality under the law is so popular it's enshrined in the Constitution!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @4.1    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

No, you tell us how you figure LGTB people are unequal...

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
4.1.3  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @4.1.2    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @4.1.2    3 weeks ago

 how you figure LGTB people are unequal...

They aren't. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.3    3 weeks ago
They have the same right in regards to marriage that I do.

Yes, currently, they do. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.4    3 weeks ago
They aren't. 

For now. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.7  seeder  JBB  replied to  Dulay @4.1.5    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5  Buzz of the Orient    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    3 weeks ago

What is Ted Cruz's attraction to Texas voters? That he is obnoxious?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.1  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @5.1    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

Don't you mean against their own best interest? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

why do so many liberals think they know what is best for voters, even to the point of dismissing their views on things?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.4  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.4    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

is that what you read in his post?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
5.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

How is the marriage of a gay couple of any interest to them?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    3 weeks ago

Canada must be filled with assholes, huh? Cruz wants America to  mimic Canada where gay marriage isn't a Constitutional right either. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2    3 weeks ago
"Cruz wants America to  mimic Canada..."

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?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.1    3 weeks ago

uh, he was pretty specific, not sure how you managed to think he said all that other stuff.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.2.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2    3 weeks ago

Oh, and by the way Sean.....

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/..." > ...
  • In  2003, Ontario and  British   Columbia  became the first two provinces to legalize  the   licensing  of  same-sex  marriage .  On 20 July 2005, the federal  Civil   Marriage   Actcame  into  force making   same-sex   marriage   legal   across   Canada .   This   made  Canada  the fourth country to  permit same-sex  marriages ,   after   the   Netherlands  (…
 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.2.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.2    3 weeks ago

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.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.4    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.3    3 weeks ago

Do you not understand the difference between a legislative act and a constitutional right? 

Would you like me to explain the difference? 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.2.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.5    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.2.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.6    3 weeks ago

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).  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.7    3 weeks ago

grammar is fine, and I know you are smart enough to know what he was talking about.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.8    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.2.11  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.9    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.11    3 weeks ago

wow, that's awesome!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.13  seeder  JBB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.11    3 weeks ago

I'm sorry you got trolled on my seed. Nothing I can do about it.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.2.14  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.10    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.2.15  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JBB @5.2.13    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Expert
5.2.16  Raven Wing  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.7    3 weeks ago

Good grammar is never out of style. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.17  seeder  JBB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.15    3 weeks ago

It is why do many quit participating. It is damn unpleasant!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.2.17    3 weeks ago

You may be right.

Post 1 is a great example!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.19  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.18    3 weeks ago

Yes, Ted Cruz is another low down obnoxious Troll from Texas!

That is the whole point of the article you happen to be trolling...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.20  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.2.19    3 weeks ago

funny to hear someone complain about 'unpleasantness' after posting such filth.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.21  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.20    3 weeks ago

I cannot help it if you think news about Ted Cruz is, um, filth!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.2.21    3 weeks ago
I cannot help

Exactly.

Obtuseness is such a poor look.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.2.19    3 weeks ago
That is the whole point of the article you happen to be trolling...

Fuck off with your ignorant trolling commentary.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.24  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.23    3 weeks ago

I'll take that as a concession. You do know when to give up!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.25  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.2.24    3 weeks ago
I'll take that as a concession.

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.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.26  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.25    3 weeks ago

Your comments are just getting lamer and lamer now...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.2.26    3 weeks ago
Your comments are just getting lamer and lamer now...

While yours have always been that way.

 
 

Who is online




CB
shona1
Hallux


40 visitors