Texas Senator Ted Cruz says the US Supreme Court should have left the issue of same-sex marriage up to individual states to decide, as it has now done with abortion (Roe v. Wade),
Republican Cruz made the comments to conservative commentator Liz Wheeler. He shared their discussion on his YouTube channel on Saturday.
Wheeler asked him if he felt the landmark Obergefell ruling of 2015, which legalized same-sex marriage across the US, was now vulnerable, following the abortion reversal.
Cruz replied, “Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation’s history. Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
“If you succeeded in convincing your fellow citizens, then your state would change the laws,” he said. “In Obergefell, the court said, ‘No, we know better than you.’”
“And now every state must sanction and permit gay marriage,” he added. “I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided. It was the court overreaching.”
In the recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Judge Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion the court should look again “at Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
Those rulings relate respectively to contraception, sodomy, and same-sex marriage.
Related: Hillary Clinton sums up Clarence Thomas in three words
Last month, Cruz welcomed the reversal of Roe v. Wade, calling it a, “massive victory for life.”
In his talk with Wheeler, however, Cruz went on to say he was unsure whether the Supreme Court would reverse same-sex marriage.
Cruz said he agreed with the notion that Roe v. Wade was different from those other laws as it involved, “the creation of a human life.”
In a later part of the conversation, not included in the clip he shared on YouTube, he said, “You’ve got a ton of people who have entered into gay marriages and it would be more than a little chaotic for the court to do something that somehow disrupted those marriages that have been entered into in accordance with the law.
“I think that would be a factor that would, would counsel restraint, that the court would be concerned about. But to be honest, I don’t think this Court has any appetite for overturning any of these decisions.”
You can watch the longer discussion below.
Noticed you only clipped 18 seconds.
Here’s Sen. Cruz’s full comments: “You’ve got a ton of people who have entered into gay marriages & it would be more than a little chaotic for the court to do something that somehow disrupted those marriages…” https://t.co/O0IbB8ztPr pic.twitter.com/c0khF0N4hW
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) July 17, 2022
Related: Hillary Clinton sums up Clarence Thomas in three words
LumpyPillows
Let’s for a second, hypothetically agree that maybe the court’s legal rationale on gay marriage was flawed. Is the result that allows adults to form their own monogamous, legal relationships using marriage a bad idea? No. No it is not. There is no harm to others. So, why are you so upset about it, Teddy?
At least with abortion there is the negative outcome of an aborted life. There is a reason to not not support abortion because of this countervailing harm. Gay marriage? Nope. Why waste the time, unless you’re just being malicious. (I am pro-choice and this was made as an argument, not a position on abortion rights.)
Kangol2
Except that abortion rights are essentially women’s reproductive health rights. As we’re already seeing, not even a month after Roe v. Wade was overturned and the forced birth lunatics got their way, women and girls in a number of states are already facing health crises because they cannot get badly needed, life-saving care, in large part because such care is now banned by right-wing state statutes OR doctors, nurses and other medical professionals are terrified of being prosecuted, harassed, killed, etc.
Just look at that Indiana doctor, who performed a life-saving abortion for that 10 year old Ohio girl; right-wing fanatics threatened to kidnap that doctor’s daughter, she was doxxed on a right-wing website, the Indiana AG allegedly LIED about her not reporting the abortion to the requisite authorities, etc. Even the supposedly “liberal” Washington Post doubted the story, and at least one “liberal” reporter called that Indiana doctor, who was doing her job saving a 10-year-old child’s life, an “activist” on the abortion side. Abortion should be legal in all 50 states and all US territories. It’s women’s reproductive and comprehensive health that’s now endangered. That’s it.
cuteguy
If they over turn gay marriage then they need to over turn inter racial marriage as well. Same argument . Say buh bye to the mrs Clarence
Den
You will notice that in Thomas’ outrageous opinion he did not mention Loving v. Virginia which pretty much set the precedent for Roe, Obergefell, etc. I’d love to see his face when right wing lawyers bring cases challenging Loving and Brown v. Board of Ed! You know they will.
Fahd
I do not like that Senator Cruz
I do not like his far right views
I do not like his stupid chin
I do not like his smarmy grin
I do not like him with a beard
I do not like him freshly sheared
I do not like what he just said
I do not like his boxy head
I do not like him wearing glasses
I do not like him greeting kids in classes
I do not like his stupid suits
I do not like cowboy boots
I do not like him when he sneezes
I do not like him eating cheeses
I do not like him in the leaves
I do not like him when he feeds
I do not like him by a wall
I do not like his tattoo at all
I do not like him in a room
I do not like him in Cancun
I do not like him playing ball
I do not like his face at all
From John Oliver
LumpyPillows
A+
Kangol2
Excellent. Ted Rafael Phony Cruz is one of the GQP Lowlights and grows more foul by the day!
fur_hunter
I watched the show the night John Oliver said this. I LOVED IT!!!!!!
Mister P
Even if it is a matter for the states to decide, it will still end up back at the Supreme Court, because states cannot give special rights to some people. They cannot have marriage for straight couples and not for same sex couples.
There is no logical argument against marriage equality. Just because he and the activist justices don’t like it is not a reason to outlaw it.
LumpyPillows
Except, because we lose elections too often, the Supreme Court is no longer based in law, equality and fairness, but is driven by politics. Rest assured, this court will find excuses to disenfranchise us if these issues come to it. They are not done yet.
The big conundrum for them is sending gay marriage back to the states. One state cannot refuse to honor agreements in another. A marriage in one state should be honored in another. Undoing marriage is a bit trickier than banning abortion. I do believe they will try, however.
Kangol2
The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, so unequal marriage laws, like segregation, etc. violate the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, and the 9th Amendment, which focuses on unenumerated rights that all Americans possess. There is ZERO real Constitutional argument against marriage equality, interracial marriage and most of what the far-right wing theocrats of the GQP want to strip away, but you best believe they are coming for LGBTQ people and all of their dizzy gay, bi and trans supporters need to wake TF up!
prosen8966
Actually a reply to @LumpyPillows. The Supreme Court (so-called at the present moment) is using the notion of honoring agreeing from one state to another in order to ban abortions from taking place in different states that allow it. Of course, one state is giving a right while the other one is taking it away, but while we are left with the most conservative court in the last 100 years, they are not likely to care or even notice the distinction (even though it will be mentioned in dissent). It’s sad that the present court basically resembles the court that allowed individuals to be sterilized a la Buck v Bell (“ three generations of idiots (imbeciles?) are enough”) I don’t wish to google but I’m pretty sure that’s the quote. However, Thomas made it abundantly clear that sodomy and contraceptives were on the chopping block. He notably did NOT mention Loving in his decision, however, since that directly affects him.
What a prick (IMPO.) He’s fine w taking away the rights of women over the autonomy of their own bodies; he has no problem policing the sexual activities of adults who act in a manner w which he disagrees; but since he, personally, is in a interracial relationship, THAT precedent will remain solid. Indeed, he never believed in affirmative action and as he has reached the top of his chosen profession, he is even willing to spit upon other ppl of color. Just not rules and laws that will affect his present way of life.
I honestly do not believe he has any sense whatsoever of what he owes to ppl such as Martin Luther King, Jr and more recently, John Lewis. It’s as if he sprang fully grown into a world where being black was not an issue; where simply one generation before his, people were fighting for the rights that the 14th Amendment supposedly gave them many years back. Indeed, Clarence Thomas taking over the seat of Thurgood Marshall is about as close a horror to that man’s name and reputation as when Amy Coney Barrett took over RBG’s seat very soon following her death. They were both insults to those jurists’ positions and what they had achieved as justices while on the bench.
I think that instead of attempting to satisfy women or people of color or other liberal interests, it would behoove the democrats to look towards the LGBTQ+ community the next time a seat opens up on the Supreme Court. (I say Democrats bc I don’t believe there is a chance in hell that the Republicans would do so.) But giving a voice to the gay community, bringing on a LGBTQ+ judge would show that not only are liberal justices listening to issues brought before the court, but that a member of the actual community is listening to the issues and having a say in what ultimately becomes the outcome. And if that opening occurs bc Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett or Kavanaugh were to suddenly pass away (despite their relatively young ages), like the girl in A Chorus Line, I would feel nothing…
LumpyPillows
Interesting points, prosen.
prosen8966
@Kangol2 At the present moment, the SupCt is not functioning as a true governing body but instead simply as it wishes the Constitution to say (and then finding justification after the fact; see @LumpyPillows “the SupCt is no longer based in law, equality and fairness, but is driven by politics.”) It can basically take most any case and twist the facts to fit their narrative of what they want the law to ultimately be; it’s not even a 5-4 squeaky so-called victory, with the constant worry of one of their members switching over to the other side. It’s a sure fire 6-3 majority that will win almost every single argument unless there is something about the case that strikes at the heart if all justices, causing a unanimous or close to unanimous vote.
For reasons that truly escape me, Americans appear FURIOUS that a 50-50 Democratic “majority” in the Senate is not producing better and more lucrative legislation while the Dems are in power. As if a mere flip by one person (say Manchin) will inevitably result in a loss. There is literally no room for error and instead of seeing the need for perhaps stepping stone progress (gain a little, then a little more, etc etc) lots of Democrats will vote against their own interests bc they wish for everything rather then a little at a time. Indeed, instead of wishing for a President with RAW POWER and a BACKBONE who will likely cause WWIII within taking office for about three months of a second term (assuming he’s back from his second victory lap tour), I simply wish for the Dems to remain in office and remember the poem “FIRST THEY CAME…” which I find difficult to understand how anybody forgets (albeit, I’m Jewish so perhaps it hits me harder than most). But I would have thought that the LGBTQ+ community would be aware of this poem, as it strikes deep into the heart of the community, and, tbh, if he actually had any brains, which I doubted after watching his performance on the bench for his first five years, Thomas should also be aware of this little ditty as so many Americans truly hate him NOT, as I do, for his conservative views but merely for the color of his skin. How a man of color can wear such blinkers on his eyes that he believes that should he visit the south or midwestern states, anything other than Federal Marshalls is keeping him alive is disquieting at the very least and beyond scary at most.
To Kill a Mockingbird came out a bit over half a century ago (the novel, 1960) wherein a colored man had the temerity to touch a white woman – at her express invitation, mind – and was found guilty of rape, even though the evidence was basically nonexistent and relied on the word of an unstable, sexually promiscuous young white female – but the jury, at the time, consisted of 12 white men of the community whose minds were made up basically before they even sat down at their jury seats. Yet another piece of history easily forgotten by Thomas as he dresses in the morning with his right wing, conspiracy-minded white wife before going off to work.
Yes, they WILL be coming for the LGBTQ community; that’s a given. But then again, they first came after 50% of all Americans bc they felt that a bunch of cells, not yet even considered a fetus, had more rights then a living, breathing actual female being who for many and various reasons – yes, including incest and rape – may not wish to become incubators for the next, say, 8 months of their lives. And while religious freedom is enshrined in the Constitution, considering what we have seen with this “new Improved” SupCt, they will come for the Jews, bc for thousands of years people have done so, and we don’t expect anything different at this point in time.
Do not become complacent bc you were given rights seven years ago. If they are comfortable overturning Roe, with 50 years of precedent, and the first time a ruling with that much precedent has been overturned that GAVE a right, rather than denying one, do not allow statutory agreement with the Obergefell ruling to stop these new activist judges from stripping away the laws they dislike.
Just sayin’…
Prax07
The US is really headed for another civil (uncivil) war because of morons that vote for morons. How Cruz, Abbott, and all the rest of the hate squad have never been held accountable for what they say and what they do is just unfathomable to me.
smittoons
It’s insane the number of fundamental rights the Republicans want to toss back to the states. Why keep up the pretense of being part of a united republic at all? Oh right, to get the Federal spending they will still complain about as being wasteful.
GlobeTrotter
Justice Clarence Thomas has already given fair warning when he announced the Supreme Court’s upcoming projects: overturning marriage equality, overturning the ban on sodomy and overturning the right to contraception. The one lesson Justice Thomas and his cohorts learned after daring to overturning Roe v. Wade is that democrats are weak, feckless, pronoun obsessed snowflakes. They make a lot of noise, but in the end their bark is far worse than their bite. In other words, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court has every incentive to carry out their radical agenda to completion.
It’s times like these that I envy Trump supporters. Trump would have NEVER in a million years tolerated the slightest whiff of dissent in the ranks. Any GOP politician that failed to fall in line with Trump’s agenda would have been brutally punished by a bitter, vicious and nasty 2 AM tweet. He would have rained tweets like bombs over their heads until they either bowed out of politics or fell meekly in line with his agenda. Then out of pure spite, he would have then summoned the offending politician to Mar-o-Lago to kneel and solemnly kiss the ring.
That’s what we call RAW POWER and Trump knew exactly how to wield it! That cub scout currently occupying the White House could learn a lot from Trump’s brutal example. Under Trump, a Manchin or a Sinema would have already been disappeared by the Secret Service or at the very least blackmailed into obedience. Trump has been out of office for almost 2 years now, yet GOP politicians still tremble at the mere mention of his name.
Is it better to be loved but unfeared, or be feared yet unloved? Right now I’d just settle for a president with a backbone!
mastik8
We should probably continue to argue about pronouns and flags while they organize against us.
Mister P
How about we organize against them while they are crying about pronouns, flags, bathrooms and library books?
CNY1983
thats the way to show them that if they take one more step and i mean even in those stiletto cowboy boots they picked the wrong fight with this community. we organize VOTe THE BITCHES BACK TO THe TRAILER PARK and move on dot org.
James
ted cruz is a sick hate filled piece of shit. May he rot in hell and be forgotten.
scotty
i’m ok with this.
LMG
I’m certain that even those already in Hell have absolutely no desire to allow, much less welcome, Ted Cruz into Hell with them. Imagine the unique foul stench that Lying Ted would bring, exuding it from every orifice. In the meantime, why doesn’t this rejected Canadian go once again to Cancun and stay there until the Grim Reaper appears, albeit holding his nose, to dispatch this Turd with eyeballs into the great beyond. TC=Total Crap; RC=Rotting Crap. Take your pick. They’re both one and the same – PU!
Donald Dork
Why do we even give these right wing nutjobs the time of day, let alone a forum to air their repugnant views?
Mack
So Teddy wants to leave it up to the states. Well you know the fake Christians red states would ban Same Sex Marriages and not recognizing them from other state. What to stop the “blue states” from saying “okay we won’t recognize marriages from the red states and now you have to get married again”. Sounds wild but I do see it happening.
dbmcvey
This is why we need to keep the Dems who are currently in the Senate (not counting Manchin & Sinema) and elect at lease 2 more. Cancun Ted is a moron but these fools are still in control.
fur_hunter
Cancun Cruz is a total LYING, S cu mbag, arrogant, A.S.S. hole, F UC KING Piece of S HIT! He can EAT S H IT and D. IE! To hear he won a Darwin award would have me doing the Snoopy Happy Dance for a week.
GayVeteranOfcr
Supreme Court Justice Kennedy’s written decision on the Court’s Obergefell ruling was a model of legal research.
It said that any law passed with evident animus toward a group of persons and that then treated that group of persons unequally was unconstitutional.
That was why the federal DOMA law was cut down.
Under United States Constitution Bill of Rights Amendment 9 and 10, rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution cannot be denied or disparaged. That means that the concept of marriage as a legal topic is a matter of States to regulate. But the DOMA federal law placed marriage per se under scrutiny by the Supreme Court as being “of federal interest” [Article III jurisdiction], and so the Court could rule because DOMA gave it jurisdiction.
That pulled the case of United States v. Windsor out of U.S. Tax Court and into jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and Obergefell v. Hodges case then landed and the Court had to rule. The ruling said that same sex marriage could not be denied by any State. It also gave teeth to U.S. Constitution Article IV Section 1, “Full Faith and Credit”, meaning that persons married legally in one State are married legally in all States.
Were the Obergefell ruling to be overturned, that would leave same sex marriage legal in all States having State laws making that legal, and all States would have to recognize same sex marriages that were entered into legally.
Also note that a State cannot make such marriages illegal, even if they were legally made in that State simply because Obergefell was overturned or that a State passed a law making same sex marriages illegal in that state due to the Constitution prohibiting ex post facto laws under Constitution Article I Section 10 Paragraph 1. Senator Cruz [born in Canada] faces an uphill legal battle against same sex marriage due to the legal inertia that is now in force, and the Supreme Court would have to find that the 14th Amendment’s equal treatment does not apply. Good luck with that, as so many cases depend on equal treatment.
GlobeTrotter
“…and the Supreme Court would have to find that the 14th Amendment’s equal treatment does not apply. Good luck with that, as so many cases depend on equal treatment.”
Ahem…Loving v. Virginia. Nuff said!
UlfRaynor
The main citation against DOMA was easy to prove, that it was state sponsored oppression due to a religious bias, which is unconstitutional.
It was easily proven by showing GOP senators citing Biblical dogma on the senate floor as their justification for DOMA.
I’d suggest if that’s what they want to argue, that the constitution doesn’t exclusively state there is a right for same sex marriages, then the best defense is to point out it doesn’t say anything about approving heterosexual unions either.
CityguyUSA
I’m not sure were heterosexual marriage is enshrined but they’d better be careful or all marriages may end up illegal which might not be a bad thought. Do people really need a piece of paper to say they are monogamous? No. In the end that piece of paper pays for a lot lawyers we could use less of. maybe we should tax lawyers at a higher rate to eliminate the desire to become one.
UlfRaynor
It might interest some, that both Jefferson and Hamilton foresaw a time when it might be necessary to abolish the Supreme Court and left the ability and framework for accomplishing that goal.
Its odd that liberal news media outlets are so inept, that they don’t quote Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton to combat the erroneous assertions of conservative judges, that the constitution is immutable, when all three framers and writers of it, clearly and repeatedly stated in the Federalist papers that it is a “living” document meant to change over time and with each new generation. It’s the very reason there are amendment’s written to it.
missvamp
as usual ted just needs to stfu. i can’t wait for literally anyone to replace him. even a muppet would be better.
legalgal8
THANK YOU… I needed that chuckle! The beard makes him look like his name should be Anton!
Vincent
Who cares what you think, Ted? I don’t remember asking you for your opinion.
andrew.agee
If they had argued the Mirrage Equality case under the 14th Ammendment (below) that actually says the words “equal protection” insted of trying to conjure up something that isn’t there (there is no “right to privacy” stated in the Constitution) we wouldn’t be having this problem.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
GayEGO
Ted Cruzy Woozey should move to Cancun, he is such a dumbo! My husband and I were married on June 10, 2004, for 15 years in Massachusetts before he passed away in June 17, 2019. We were together for 57 years!
johncp56
The blob is a slob, the Republicans are diving deeper into hate and segregation WTF what is the wrong wake-up DEMs!!, I followed the rule they go low we go high! but kids I think it is time for the Dems to fight fire with fire,