Today, Senator Ted Cruz said that he believed the Supreme Court was “clearly wrong” when it decided to legalize same-sex marriage in 2015. A landmark LGBTQ+ case, Obergefell v. Hodges, was decided in a 5 to 4 ruling in June 2015 and the decision made it illegal for any state to deny a marriage certificate to same-sex couples.

Ted Cruz discussed what he described as the vulnerability of the ruling on his Verdict+ podcast. He said that the ruling was decided incorrectly as he seemed to mimic the argument of Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion when Roe v. Wade was overturned.

"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, and other states were moving to allow civil partnerships. There were different standards that the states were adopting.

The democratic process would have continued to operate if the Supreme Court had not ruled the way it did. In Obergefell the Court said, 'no, we know better than you,' and now every state must sanction and permit gay marriage.”

Ted Cruz said on his podcast.

He continued on with, “That decision was clearly wrong when it was decided.” He also said the Court was overreaching at the moment of the ruling.

"In Dobbs, what the Supreme Court said is 'Roe is different because it's the only one of the cases that involve the taking of a human life and it's qualitatively different,' I agree with that proposition."

The Senator said.

Even as Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion argued that the decision only concerned abortion, and that "nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion," Clarence Thomas added the questioning on top of that. He [Thomas] wrote that the Court "should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

"We have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents. After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated."

Clarence Thomas continued.