On his show Verdict with Ted Cruz, the Texas senator discussed the “vulnerability” of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision following the Supreme Court’s historic decision to overturn its landmark ruling granting abortion rights nationwide.
In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that the right to marry is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Process Clause of the 14th Amendment – thereby guaranteeing gay couples the right to marry in the United States.
“Obergefell, like Roe v Wade, has ignored two centuries of our nation’s history,” Cruz said Saturday when conservative commentator Liz Wheeler asked him what the arguments were to overthrow Obergefell.
“Marriage has always been an issue left to the states,” he continued. “We’ve seen states before Obergefell — some states wanted to allow same-sex marriage, other states wanted to allow civil partnerships. There were different standards that states adopted.’
He then argued that if the Supreme Court had not ruled so, “the democratic process would have continued.”
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz argued Saturday that the Supreme Court’s decision to allow same-sex marriage was “clearly wrong.”
He told conservative commentator Liz Wheeler that the decision should have been left to states
But, he said, in Obergefell, “the court said, ‘No, we know better than you do, and now every state must sanction and allow gay marriage.
“This decision was clearly wrong when it was made,” Cruz said, adding that the court “exaggerated.”
However, he noted that the Supreme Court’s decision overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade case suggested that Obergefell would be treated differently.
“In Dobbs, the Supreme Court said, ‘Roe is different because it’s the only one of the cases involving the killing of a human being and it’s qualitatively different,'” he said. “I agree with that statement.”
In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that the right to marry is guaranteed by the Constitution. After the decision, people celebrate in front of the Supreme Court
His comments come just a month after the Supreme Court overturned its landmark decision guaranteeing women the right to an abortion.
The Supreme Court ruled Roe v Wade wrong last month, leaving it virtually up to each individual state to decide whether to legalize abortion, with at least 18 states now banning it.
The judgment states: “Like the notorious decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was also terribly wrong about Roe and was on a collision course with the Constitution from the day of his decision.
“Those on the losing side – those trying to encourage the state’s interest in fetal life – could no longer try to persuade their elected officials to pursue policies consistent with their views.”
“The court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe,” the ruling added.
However, in his majority decision, Judge Samuel Alito wrote that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as challenging precedents not related to abortion”.
But his colleague, Justice Clarence Thomas urged his fellow judges to “reconsider” and potentially set aside other cases decided on the legal basis of “essential due process”.
Substantive due process refers to the idea that people have fundamental rights not expressly stated in the Constitution – and has been the basis for a number of landmark cases, including Obergefell.
“In future cases, we should consider all of this court’s significant due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote.
“Since every significant due process decision is demonstrably flawed, we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ found in these precedents,” he continued.
Thomas was specifically referring to the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision, which allows married couples access to birth control; and the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, which prohibits states from banning consensual gay sex.
This decision eventually led to the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which established a constitutional right to gay marriage.
But this isn’t the first time