Sen. Cruz says SCOTUS 'clearly wrong' in legalizing gay marriage, called it an 'overreach' of states' rights

Senator Ted Cruz said the Supreme Court was 'clearly wrong' in the decision made for the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States in 2015, on Saturday in an episode featured on his verified YouTube podcast page.

Sen. Cruz spoke with political commentator Liz Wheeler on their joint podcast show called 'The Cloakroom,' in Saturday's episode about the vulnerability of the Obergefell ruling, calling it an 'overreach' and saying such decisions should be left to the states.

"If you were in this role as an advocate and if Obegefell was in front of the Supreme Court again in the same way, what would be the vulnerability of this case?" Wheeler asked. "What would be the argument against this case, or the argument for overturning?"

Before Cruz stated the Supreme Court was 'clearly wrong' in the ruling on legalizing same-sex marriage, Cruz first responded by saying the case, similar to Roe v. Wade, ignored 'two centuries of the nation's history.'

He continued on saying that marriage was an 'issue' always left to the states, and he brought up how different states were adopting their own policies and views on marriage, such as some legalizing same-sex marriage and others allowing civil partnerships.

"Had the Court not ruled in Obergefell, the democratic process would've 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 citizen," said Cruz. "And if you succeeded in convincing your fellow citizens, then your state would change the laws to reflect those views."

Cruz said with the ruling of Obergefell, the Court 'was overreaching' when it was decided to mandate states to sanction and permit gay marriage.

Cruz started to raise the question of whether or not the Court would reverse the ruling before bringing up the example of the Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson; calling the case 'fundamentally different,' agreeing with the Court's action opining the difference involves a human life.

Cruz specified that with overturning a ruling, the Court looks at multiple factors, specifying 'reliance interest;' if people relied on the previous precedent and acted accordingly, and said in the context of gay marriage, many people did as such.

"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. 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," said Cruz.

Cruz mentioned the views of Justice Thomas on the reconsideration of same-sex marriage and said Justice Thomas was being a 'purist' in the meaning of the Constitution.

Wheeler agreed with his comment and cited Justice Alito, saying he reiterated multiple times in the majority opinion that Dobbs v. Jackson held no bearing on the rulings of Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Wheeler asked Cruz what are or should be the standards for determining whether a cause is a national or statewide issue.

"The standard should be what the Constitution puts the authority," said Cruz. "With respect to marriage, the Constitution gave the authority to the states, and that's what I think the Court should have done, and I think Obergefell was wrongly decided."

Cruz did point out there are standards for overturning a decision and said these factors were outlined in the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling.

According to Cruz, factors included whether it was 'egregiously wrong' from the start and whether the precedent is proven unworkable.

Cruz continued by saying the ruling of Roe v. Wade was continuously unworkable; an example being the Pro-Life Movement spawned from the decision, whereas the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling has not had the same level of unworkability, resistance, or produced the same amount of division, which he suggested could be a reason why the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson did not show interest in the topic.