This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
End of dialog window.
EXCERPT:
CRUZ: "So, look, Obergerfell, 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 that were moving, 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. And had the court not ruled in Obergefell, the democratic process would have continued to operate that if you believed gay marriage was a good idea, the way the Constitution 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. In Obergefell, the court said, 'No, we know better than you guys do, and now every state must sanction and permit gay marriage.' I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided. It was the court overreaching. Whether the court will reverse it, I will say — so, in Dobbs, what the Supreme Court said is Roe is different because it’s the only one of the cases that involves the taking of a human life and that’s qualitatively different. I agree with that proposition."