In an interview with Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz on Monday’s NBC Today, co-host Savannah Guthrie grilled the Texas Senator on his opposition to the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling, equating his stance with being against interracial marriage: “...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 grounds. Let me ask you this, if a state clerk refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, would you agree with that, too?”
Cruz replied: “Well, there's no religious backing for that. And one of the things-” Guthrie interrupted him: “But you know that in the Loving vs. Virginia case, which is – struck down the bans on interracial marriage, they used religious arguments to justify that.” Cruz continued: “There's no religious backing for that and I have spent decades fighting against bigotry and racial oppression.”
After Cruz detailed his history of taking on religious freedom legal cases, Guthrie returned to the interracial marriage comparison:
Well, let me go back to this case that – Loving vs. Virginia – this is a precedent you’re well aware of, this struck down a state ban on interracial marriage. This is something that many, many people see parallels with this same case that just decided gay marriage. You say it should be left to states. Would you have taken that same position on the case of interracial marriage? That that's not a constitutional right and the states should have been free to ban interracial marriage if they wanted to?
Cruz responded: “Of course not. And we fought a bloody civil war-” Again Guthrie immediately interrupted him: “What's the difference in those two cases?” Cruz explained:
It is exactly what I said, that we fought a bloody civil war over the original sin of our country that was slavery. Slavery was grotesque and immoral and some 600,000 Americans lost their lives, spilled their blood on American soil to expunge it. And we passed three amendments, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, to ensure that everyone has equal rights regardless of race. And that was honoring the promise of the Constitution. It was the right thing to do.
Guthrie's line of questioning was particularly absurd given that Cruz was the child of an interracial marriage.
Here is an excerpt of the June 29 interview:
(...)
7:15 AM ET
Over the weekend, comments on that decision from Republican presidential candidates ranged from calls to respect the decision to support for an amendment that would reverse the ruling. Texas Senator Ted Cruz called it “illegitimate and lawless.” He would like a constitutional amendment that would abolish the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices and allow voters to have a chance to remove them from the bench.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Ted Cruz Opens Up; Texas Senator on ObamaCare & Same Sex Marriage]
Cruz has got a new book out, it’s called A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America. And he joins us now. Senator Cruz, good morning, good to see you.
SEN. TED CRUZ [R-TX]: Good morning, Savannah. Great to be with you.
GUTHRIE: Can't think of a better time to have you as a guest with these really consequential rulings coming down last week. You were quoted as saying these two decisions represented some of the darkest 24 hours in American history. And I have to say, that took me aback. I can think of some pretty dark days in American history, 9/11, Civil War, Dred Scott. Is it right up there with you for that?
CRUZ: Look, what happened last week is twice, back-to-back, the U.S. Supreme Court, a majority of the justices, violated their judicial oath. On Thursday of last week, the Court rewrote ObamaCare, rewrote the statute, ignored the language of the statute, and as a result forced millions of people into this failed law. Millions of Americans are hurting, have lost their jobs, have lost their health care because of ObamaCare.
And then the next day, the Supreme Court rewrote the Constitution and threw out the marriage laws of all 50 states. Now, listen, I've spent my life fighting to defend the Constitution and there is a constitutional means. If someone wants to change the marriage laws in a state, the way the Constitution allows you to do so is to convince your fellow citizens to do so through the democratic process. What we saw instead is five unelected lawyers saying the views of 320 million Americans don't matter because they're going to enforce their own policy positions.
GUTHRIE: Let me ask you 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 grounds. Let me ask you this, if a state clerk refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, would you agree with that, too?
CRUZ: Well, there's no religious backing for that. And one of the things-
GUTHRIE: But you know that in the Loving vs. Virginia case, which is – struck down the bans on interracial marriage, they used religious arguments to justify that.
CRUZ: There's no religious backing for that and I have spent decades fighting against bigotry and racial oppression. I'm the son of a Cuban immigrant. Bigotry is fundamentally wrong. And one of the things I talk about in the book, A Time for Truth, is fighting to defend religious liberty. For me religious liberty isn’t some newfound campaign theme. I've 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 won, we defended the Ten Commandments and won, we defended the Pledge of Allegiance and won. You know, one of the things I was really honored to do, I represented over three million veterans defending the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial and won. And religious liberty is right at the foundation of our country.
GUTHRIE: Well, let me go back to this case that – Loving vs. Virginia – this is a precedent you’re well aware of, this struck down a state ban on interracial marriage. This is something that many, many people see parallels with this same case that just decided gay marriage. You say it should be left to states. Would you have taken that same position on the case of interracial marriage? That that's not a constitutional right and the states should have been free to ban interracial marriage if they wanted to?
CRUZ: Of course not. And we fought a bloody civil war-
GUTHRIE: What's the difference in those two cases?
CRUZ: It is exactly what I said, that we fought a bloody civil war over the original sin of our country that was slavery. Slavery was grotesque and immoral and some 600,000 Americans lost their lives, spilled their blood on American soil to expunge it. And we passed three amendments, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, to ensure that everyone has equal rights regardless of race. And that was honoring the promise of the Constitution. It was the right thing to do.
(...)
