Posted on 07/18/2022 5:12:23 PM PDT by Ennis85
Last week Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) voiced the commonly held belief that the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage across the country was wrongly decided — yet popular Twitter personalities twisted his words to tell a more sinister story.
Yet that is an oversimplification of the senator’s comments on the subject on his podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1548340766920978434?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1548465411481432065%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fnews%2Fprogressives-twist-ted-cruzs-obergefell-criticism-beyond-recognition%2F
Cruz, asked what the argument would be for overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, replied that the decision, like Roe v. Wade, “ignored two centuries of our nation’s history.”
“Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states,” he said. “We saw states before Obergefell that were moving — some states were moving to allow gay arriage, other states were moving to allow civil partnerships, there were different standards that the states were adopting and had the Court not ruled in Obergefell the democratic process would have continued to operate,” said Cruz.
“If you believe gay marriage is a good idea, the way the Constitution is set up for you to advance that position is to convince your fellow citizens and if you succeeded in convincing your fellow citizens, then your state would change the laws to reflect those views,” he continued. “In Obergefell, the Court said, ‘No, we know better than you guys do,’ and now every state must sanction and permit gay marriage.”
Then Cruz uttered the line that is being cherry-picked by his critics: “I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided. It was the court overreaching.”
https://twitter.com/OccupyDemocrats/status/1548808418080743426?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1548808418080743426%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fnews%2Fprogressives-twist-ted-cruzs-obergefell-criticism-beyond-recognition%2F
Yet the senator then went on to note that when the Court considers overturning precedent, it examines reliance interests, or the question of whether people have relied on previous precedent and acted accordingly.
“In the context of marriage, 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,” he said. “I think that would be a factor that 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.”
However, despite Cruz’s level-headed, nothing-new assessment, New York Times senior political reporter Maggie Haberman took Cruz’s comments as cause to suggest that “The rush to the cultural right in 2024 is going to look very different in this primary than the last two open GOP nomination fights.”
In a poll conducted after the Supreme Court overturned Roe last month, YouGov found that 54 percent of Republicans would like to see Obergefell overturned.
However, despite lack of support for Obergefell, which many Republicans, like Cruz, believe was wrongly decided, gay marriage is overwhelmingly popular with the American public: a May Gallup poll found that a record-high 71 percent of Americans support gay marriage.
The Cruz saga was just one in a series of smear campaigns against conservatives as it relates to the Court last week: a Slate column suggested Justice Amy Coney Barrett is “in over her head” saying she has “floundered on the intellectual sidelines.”
Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern writes that Barrett came “ill-prepared for many aspects of her job” and that “of all the current justices, Barrett had the least amount of preparation and training for the unique requirements of the job.”
However, as NR’s Dan McLaughlin notes, “Justice Elena Kagan had never been a judge, and Barrett spent more time on the bench than Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Clarence Thomas.” Barrett graduated summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School, clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia and went on to become a federal appeals judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in which she participated in 622 cases and wrote 81 majority opinions, as well as four concurrences and seven dissents — just to name a few resume highlights.
Yet despite Barrett’s demonstrable integrity — and that of her conservative colleagues — pundit Tom Nichols suggested Justices Alito, Thomas and Barrett would “invent a constitutional reason” to uphold state laws preventing women from traveling out of state for abortions, adding that the justices would then “see if two others would be weak-minded enough to go along.”
“Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states,” he said.
True. It’s just not in the Constitution. Nothing in there at all about marriage, abortion, contraception. Wanting it to be in there just doesn’t make it so.
Didn’t even California vote against gay “marriage” ?? I don’t know if it was ever that popular of an idea.
Twice.
CA had an election where they defined “Marriage” beteeen a man and a woman. The SCOTUS overruled the Democratic process to legislate from the bench so to Speak.
How would that work having couples and parents being married in some states and mere roommates in others?
I saw one of their headlines say “Cruz decision is wrong.”
Article IV
Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
This means, I believe that same-sex marriages allowed by one state MUST be recognized by the other states. This gives us a sticky problem. Does Senator Cruz deal with this?
You may have a case once Commifornia and NY start recognizing carry permits from other states.
The constitution doesn't exist to list the rights we're allowed to have. It exists to list the rights and powers WE the people have granted to the government. If it aint in there than WE didn't give them authority to regulate it, legislate it, or do anything else about it.
In fact an argument was made that there should be no Bill of Rights (which came shortly after the constition was orginally signed) because it would leave open an argument that government did indeed enumerate our rights and as an ultimate perversion of the intent they would go on to say if it wasn't in the Bill of Rights than it wasn't a right of the people. Well, that fear came true, didn't it? Hell, even if it is in the Bill of Rights they just keep chipping away at certain things.
So yeah, marriage isn't in there. And as a result the FedGov has no right or authority to even have an opinion on it. But SCOTUS just doesn't follow the constitution any more than the other branches do. They just do what they want. Which is very very sad to see. Sometimes we like an arbitrary ruling they make, other times we hate it. But there is absolutely nothing we can do when they seize power to amend the constitution with the votes of just five citizens.
Marriage involves so much law, custody, pensions, ownership, divorce, parent status, medical stuff and on and on, it just wouldn’t work for a family to be living in one state and transferred to another or moving, or traveling through another and meeting all kinds of randomness and non-existence.
The media and the left was very effective in shutting down the option of creating a legal 2 person union that wasn’t called “marriage”.
We do know that the Continental Congress/Congress was issuing some pensions to war widows in 1780,1794,1798, and 1802 which means the feds knew about marriage and what made a legal one.
It doesn’t which is why there are two questions in that case. Do states have to recognize gay marriages legal in another state or not was one such question. Between the full faith and credit argument and reliance argument I don’t see anything changing on gay marriage. The majority in Hobbs went out of their way to distinguish Roe from the other cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.