-- That's why Ted has been urging all states not covered by this ruling to ignore it. --
No he hasn't. He's been proposing various ways to reverse the law, constitutional amendment for retention elections being the chief remedy, I think; along with giving legal cover for those who find homo marriage to be an abomination on religious grounds.
Same with urging clerks to ignore it. Cruz is a slave to the law, and if the law says the state has to grant homo marriage licenses, and has to allow conscientious objection, Cruz's focus in on the conscientious objection part. Hardly ignoring the ruling, it is 100% abiding by it.
-- he is against this and it should be left to the States to decide and outright stated that the judges making this decision violated their oaths and should resign. --
I don't recall any suggestion that they resign or even recuse. And "leaving it up to the states" creates a substantial mess.
I'll recede from saying Cruz finds homo marriage, affirmative action, and federal control of education to be acceptable - but he does find them to be lawful, and he has not expressed any respect for civil disobedience to immoral law.
The following link is to a great interview Ted gave to NPR the other day.
http://www.npr.org/about-npr/418600824/complete-transcript-senator-ted-cruz-interview-with-npr-news
An excerpt where Cruz talks about how the court ruling is not “law”, and does not need to be obeyed except by the specific parties involved in the lawsuit:
INSKEEP (NPR): Which is a great story. But did I just understand you to suggest that state officials should feel no particular obligation to follow the court ruling if they feel it’s illegitimate?
CRUZ: They should feel no obligation to agree that the court ruling is right or is consistent with the Constitution.
This ruling...
INSKEEP: But does that mean they can ignore?
CRUZ: They cannot ignore a direct judicial order. The parties to a case cannot ignore a direct judicial order. But it does not mean that those who are not parties to case are bound by a judicial order.
And that’s what Justice Scalia was saying in his dissent, which is that the court depends upon the remainder of government trusting that it is faithfully applying the law and — and these judges and justices are disregarding their oaths....
What this decision is, and both of these decisions are [gay marriage and obamacare], are decisions from the Washington elites that they know better than the American people, that it doesn’t matter whether the American people agree with them or not, they’re going to force their radical views on them, and that’s — that’s really unfortunate.
INSKEEP: I really want to get to other views in the — other issues in the book, but I feel it’s important to clarify this one thing.
Did I understand you to say just now that as you read the law, as you read our system, this decision is not binding on the entire country, only to the specific states that were named in the — in the suit.
CRUZ: Article III of the Constitution gives the court the authority to resolve cases and controversies. Those cases and controversies, when they’re resolved, when you’re facing a judicial order, the parties to that suit are bound to it. Those who are not parties to the suit are not bound by it.
Now, in subsequent litigation, other courts will follow the precedence of the court, but a judicial order only binds those to whom it is directed, those who are parties to the suit. That’s the way our litigation system works.
Now, this is what Justice Scalia was talking about in his dissent, which is that it has been the case that on a great many issues, others have largely acquiesced, even if they were not parties to the case.
But there’s no legal obligation to acquiesce to anything other than a court judgment. And I would note that the next major battlefield that is going to occur following this marriage decision is religious liberty.....
And there is an intolerance in the left that seeks to force people of faith to knuckle under and embrace, and that’s fundamentally wrong, Steve.
Society has no right to force a Jewish rabbi to perform a Christian wedding. Society has no right to force a Muslim imam to perform a Jewish wedding.
And under the Bill of Rights, under the First Amendment — we’re a nation that was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. And it is fundamentally wrong.
But the next battleground will be efforts, litigation efforts, to persecute those, whether they are Christians or Jews or Muslims or Mormons or people of faith, who believe in a biblical definition of marriage, the union of one man and one woman — the next battle will be the litigation battles to persecute them, to find them.
And I believe — and — and you talked about 2016 — I believe 2016 will be a religious-liberty election, because I have spent almost my entire adult life fighting to defend the religious liberty of every American to follow his or her faith and live according to his conscience.....