“Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation’s history. Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states. We saw states before Obergefell, some states were moving to allow gay marriage, other states were moving to allow civil partnerships. There were different standards that the states were adopting,” he continued.
“The way the Constitution set up for you to advance that position is convince your fellow citizens, that if you succeeded in convincing your fellow citizens, then your state would change the laws to reflect those views. In Obergefell, the court said, ‘No, we know better than you guys do, and now every state must, must sanction and permit gay marriage,’” he added.
Cruz, however, admitted that the Supreme Court likely doesn’t have the “appetite” to overturn same-sex marriage due to the complications it would create.
“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, per NBC News.
“I think that would be a factor that would, 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,” he concluded.
Cruz's remarks come just weeks after the Supreme Court’s controversial decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision that established the constitutional right to an abortion.
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion. “Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”
In a separate opinion on the abortion decision, Justice Clarence Thomas referred to the 2015 Obergefell Supreme Court ruling as “demonstrably erroneous” and suggested that the court revisit other decisions.
“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote.
Ethen Kim Lieser is a Washington state-based Finance and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek, and Arirang TV. Follow or contact him on LinkedIn.