Ted Cruz Slams Supreme Court's Gay Marriage Decision | TODAY

I annual gay pride parades took on new meaning on Sundays people poured into the city streets to celebrate the supreme court's ruling legalizing same sex marriage nationwide over

the weekend comments on that decision from Republican presidential candidates range from calls to respect the decision to

would abolish the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices and allow voters to have a chance to remove them from the bed and

war Dred Scott is it right up there with you for that look what happened last week is twice to

show that and there is a constitutional means if someone wants to change the marriage laws in the state the way the constitution allows you to do so is

matter because they're going to enforce their own policy positions me ask about that because one thing you also said was that you would support a Texas state

clerk who refused to issue a license to a gay couple on religious crap let me ask you this if

there were if a state court refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple would you agree with that too well

there's no religious backing for that and and one of the things that you know that in that loving Virginia commercials Virginia case which is that struck down the fans on on

interracial marriage they use religious arguments to justify that there's no religious backing for that and I have spent decades fighting

against bigotry and and racial oppression on the side of the Cuban immigrant bigotry fundamentally wrong and

campaign theme I spent two decades when I was the Solicitor General of Texas the chief lawyer for the state in front of the United States Supreme Court over

and over again we fought and defended religious liberty and one we defended the ten commandments and one we defend the pledge of allegiance and one you

know one of the things I was really honored to do it represented over three million defending the Mojave Desert veterans memorial at

one end and religious liberty is right at the foundation of our country when you go back to this case that would loving versus Virginia this is a precedent you're well aware of this struck down a state ban on interracial marriage this is something that many

you have taken that same position in the case of interracial marriage that that's not a constitutional right in the states shoulda

been free to ban interracial marriage if they wanted so of course and we fought a bloody civil war what's

expunge it and we passed three amendments the thirteenth fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the constitution that it to ensure that everyone

know one of the things that that that in my book a time for truth I talk about is my time clerking at the U. S. Supreme Court trying to get people a window to

what happens behind the scenes at the same thing I try to do in the Senate where we're giving people an understanding not just of what what

both Republicans and Democrats Pratt to join together and in what I call the Washington cartel you talk about corruption money in politics and yet you're suggesting this constitutional amendment that would subject Supreme Court justices to

retention elections which sounds like injecting politics into the one branch of government the framers were very clear about they did not want

to have to be subject to the political winds how do you explain that well let's be clear the court has injected itself into politics you've got you know justice Scalia wrote too powerful to sense I would encourage every to

read justice Scalia's dissent where he says these decisions are a fundamental threat to democracy and he says five

unelected lawyers have declared themselves the rulers what we have to make it will analytical America's