So in other words, he admitted to violating his oath. And what the hell does he mean, "forced"? Was someone holding a gun to his head?
You are correct. He need not have voted for something he believed unconstitutional despite a prior Supreme Court ruling.
In fact, I recall reading a thread here on this forum of a Judge who did just that, and his ruling was never challenged or overturned (likely because he got it right). Wish I could remember more detail then that about the case, but apparently it has happened, at least once.
If the Supreme Court gets it wrong, it should be a Judges' duty to uphold the Constitution, not the erroneous decision.
Not bashing Garza here, but there is precedent for this sort of thing. It's called sticking your neck out for what you believe in.