Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on Saturday blasted the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage, calling the ruling “clearly wrong” and accused the high court of “overreaching.”

Cruz’s comments come just weeks after the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health that overturned the  constitutional right to an abortion guaranteed in Roe v. Wade. In a concurring opinion to that ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court’s most senior conservative justice, said that the court "should reconsider” past rulings, including Obergefell.  

“Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history,” Cruz said in a clip from his podcast posted on his YouTube channel Saturday. “Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states.”

“We saw states before Obergefell, some states were moving to allow gay marriage, other states were moving to allow civil partnerships,” he continued. “There were different standards that the states were adopting."

"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 is set up for you to advance that position is convince your fellow citizens, and if you succeeded in convincing your fellow citizens, then your state would change the laws to reflect those views,” Cruz added. “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," Cruz said. 'It was the court overreaching.”

In Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion, he called for the court to reconsider not only Obergefell, but also the court’s 1965 ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, which protected the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception, and 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, which prevents bans on same-sex relationships.

“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’ … we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote.

Cruz, a longtime opponent of same-sex marriage, told NPR in 2015 that his objection to it would be “front and center” of his 2016 presidential campaign.

On Saturday, however, the Texas Republican admitted that it would be “more than a little chaotic” for the high court to overturn the right to same-sex marriage.

“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,” he said, adding: “To be honest, I don’t think this court has any appetite for overturning any of these decisions.”

According to a Gallup poll from last month, a record-high 71% of Americans support same-sex marriage, compared to just 27% support when the company first started asking the question in 1996 and has largely steadily climbed ever since. Support for same-sex marriage hit a majority level in 2011 and reached 60% in 2015, the same year the court ruled in Obergefell, per Gallup.

Other Republicans have expressed their opposition to Obergefell in recent months, including Cruz’s fellow Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who mentioned the ruling during the confirmation hearings of Ketanji Brown Jackson earlier this year.

“Agree or disagree with the results of a given Supreme Court decision, over our nation’s history, there’s been something for everyone to love or hate [from the Supreme Court], from Plessy v. Ferguson — which established the shameful ‘separate but equal doctrine’ for public schools ultimately overruled in Brown v. Board of Education — to Obergefell, which mandated same-sex marriages,” Cornyn said in April. “When the Supreme Court creates a right that is not even mentioned in the Constitution, the independence and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself is called into question.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on the other hand, told Fox News last month that he doubts the high court would take action to address Obergefell or other precedents mentioned by Thomas in his concurring opinion.

“I really respect Clarence Thomas,” Graham told “Fox News Sunday” in June when asked about the concurring opinion, adding: “But Alito set the right tone. He said nothing in this decision puts those cases at risk.”

“The reason he decided that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided is because it deals with the potential for life," Graham continued. “These other privacy issues — like contraception — do not deal with the potential for life. 

But Cruz’s comments sparked outrage among Democrats, including Washington Sen. Patty Murray, who said that Republicans “feel more emboldened than ever to turn back the clock on our right.”

“If you thought Republicans were done dragging our country backwards—think again,” she wrote on Twitter. “They feel more emboldened than ever to turn back the clock on our rights. Not on my watch.”

A bipartisan group of lawmakers on Monday introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, which would codify marriage equality rights into law and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that defined marriage as between one man and one woman and allowed states to refuse same-sex marriages performed legally in other states. The provisions of the law were struck down by the Supreme Court in Obergefell and 2013's United States v. Windsor.

"The Supreme Court’s extremist and precedent-ignoring decision in Dobbs v. Jackson has shown us why it is critical to ensure that federal law protects those whose constitutional rights might be threatened by Republican-controlled state legislatures," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said in a statement. "LGBTQ Americans and those in interracial marriages deserve to have certainty that they will continue to have their right to equal marriage recognized, no matter where they live, should the Court act on Justice Thomas’ draconian suggestion that the 2013 United States v. Windsor and 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges rulings be reconsidered or if it were to overturn Loving v. Virginia."

“Marriage equality is a constitutional right that has been well established by the Supreme Court as precedent and this freedom should be protected,” Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin said. “The bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act will enshrine and protect marriage equality and make sure legal, same-sex and interracial marriages are recognized. I take great pride in being a part of this bipartisan effort to protect the progress we have made on marriage equality, because we cannot allow this freedom and right to be denied.”

“Maine voters legalized same-sex marriages in our state nearly a decade ago, and since Obergefell, all Americans have had the right to marry the person whom they love,” said Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican, adding: "This bill is another step to promote equality, prevent discrimination, and protect the rights of all Americans.”

“In overturning Roe v. Wade, the conservative Supreme Court majority indicated it is willing to attack other constitutional rights, including same-sex and interracial marriage,” said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein. “In fact, one justice specifically noted that the court’s Obergefell decision confirming same-sex marriage should be revisited. Our bill would repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act and ensure that marriage equality remains the law of the land.”

The House is set to vote on the legislation this week.