Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has stated that the Supreme Court should never have authorised gay marriage and labelled the ruling as “obviously incorrect.”
The Texas senator spoke on the “vulnerability” of the Obergefell v. Hodges judgement on his show Verdict with Ted Cruz in the wake of the Supreme Court’s historic decision to overrule its precedent-setting decision extending abortion rights nationwide.
In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court held in 2015 that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protect the right to marriage, ensuring that homosexual couples everywhere in the United States are able to get married.
When conservative pundit Liz Wheeler questioned Cruz on Saturday about the arguments for overturning Obergefell, Cruz responded, “Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation’s history.”
He said, “Marriage was always a matter that was left to the states.” Before Obergefell, we observed that some states were going toward legalising homosexual marriage while others were moving toward legalising civil partnerships. The states were implementing various standards.
The democratic process would have continued to function, he said, if the Supreme Court had not rendered its decision in the manner that it did.
But, he added, “the Court said in Obergefell.” “No, we are wiser than you, and today every state has to approve and legalise gay marriage.
Cruz stated that the court was “overreaching” and that the ruling was “obviously erroneous” at the time it was made.
Nevertheless, he pointed out, Obergefell might receive different treatment in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling invalidating the illustrious Roe v. Wade case.
The Supreme Court stated in Dobbs that “Roe is unique because it’s the sole case in which a person’s life was taken, and it’s also qualitatively distinct,’ he said. “I concur with your statement.”
His comments were made barely one month after the Supreme Court overturned a precedent-setting ruling that gave women the right to an abortion.
Roe v. Wade was incorrectly determined, according to the Supreme Court, which basically left it up to each state to decide whether or not to legalise abortions. At least 18 states currently forbid it.
Nothing in this conclusion could be interpreted as casting doubt on precedents that do not include abortion, Justice Samuel Alito stated in his ruling.
However, his colleague, Justice Clarence Thomas, requested that the other justices “reconsider” and perhaps reverse previous cases that had been decided using the legal justification of “substantive due process.”
The concept of substantive due process—which formed the foundation for a number of significant cases, including Loving v. Virginia—refers to the idea that people have fundamental rights that are not expressly stated in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s substantive due process precedents, such as Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell, should all be taken into consideration in future cases, Thomas wrote.
He was explicitly alluding to two court rulings: the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision prohibiting states from outlawing consenting gay sex and the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut ruling allowing married couples access to birth control.
The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling from 2015, which established a constitutional right to gay marriage, was eventually influenced by the judgement.
The Loving decision, in which the Supreme Court stated: “There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause,” served as a precedent for the Obergefell case.