Posted on 04/14/2016 3:09:33 AM PDT by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
Ted Cruz once argued that Americans have no constitutional right to bear dildos, that the government has a legitimate interest in discouraging "autonomous sex," and that allowing the sale of sex toys is the first step on the road to legal incest.....
....On Wednesday, the magazine published an exposé detailing Cruz's defense of a ban on sex-toy sales while serving as the Texas solicitor general. Back in 2004, several adult-plaything providers challenged a Texas law that banned the sale and promotion of "obscene devices."......The plaintiffs founded their challenge on the Fourteenth Amendment's right to privacy,...... A federal judge turned the company down, it appealed, and in 2007 it fell to Cruz's legal team to keep dildos from undermining the fabric of Western civilization.
In a 76-page brief calling on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to stand with the lower court, Cruz's office wrote that "any alleged right associated with obscene devices" is not "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions."..... While Cruz acknowledged that,......government could not ban the "private use of obscene devices," it could ban their sale so as to uphold "public morals." What's more, while the government can't forbid citizens from masturbating, it has a legitimate interest in "discouraging ... autonomous sex." Cruz's team went on to declare, "There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship."
Wrong, Cruz wasn’t ‘duty bound’ to take this case. Nor was he bound to concoct the argument that was presented before the court. No one forced Cruz to plea this case. ‘Discovery’ must have been insightful.
Choices
Free Will
I know Eric Holder's Justice Dept. doesn't see it that way but the fact remains that as part of the Executive Branch of the state of Texas, the Solicitor General's job is to do his part to see the laws that are passed are faithfully executed.
For being such a moral pillar, Cruz sure has no problem with lying like a SOB.
He’s not wrong. If you disagree, show me where in the Constitution it says you have a right to masturbate. Oh, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but you do not, strictly speaking, have a constitutional right to beat off.
(National Geographic is always a good choice).
Thanks for bringing attention to the fact that Cruz has fought for Texas laws (even goofy ones) compared to the law breaking Socialist living in the White House now.
Yep, I'm still okay with voting, in our primary, for a "dildo" lawyer VS another rich elitist who thinks rules don't apply to him.
So where the hell WAS Biggles last Saturday?
Don’t ask me!
I’m still trying to find that stupid rabbit’s glasses!
[freaky...I was just listening to that on YouTube...are you watching me?]
o.O
“The posts are coming from inside the house!”
LOLOL!
You are a trip, Larry.
:)
Love you too! :-)
Oh, not to beat this into the ground (pardon the pun), but my last girlfriend loved that part of Passion Play. She’s in Texas now and lost her glasses. I told her she should have had a spare-a-pair!
” Texas solicitor general. Back in 2004, several adult-plaything providers challenged a Texas law “
So a Texas Solicitor General performed his duties by defended a state law.
Shocking...
Awwwww......:)
/shuffles feet
PP and TAAB are some crazy vinyl.
Their last tour was like TAAB: The Sequel.
I did not even consider going.
Not sure I could have sat through it all, given that Ian is wont to noodle his tunes out even longer than they already are.
If he could put out another real Tull album, soon, yeah, that’d be nice.
Homo Erraticus was his last avant garde solo offering.
Between that and Rupi’s Dance...yeesh.
I did like Divinities, though.
14th Amendment:
The appeals court disagreed in a 2–1 decision, which held that the government has no business encroaching on Americans’ most private of affairs.
But Cruz and Texas attorney general Greg Abbott battled on, filing a brief requesting a hearing before the full court of appeals, claiming the three-judge panel had overstepped the precedent set by Lawrence. Cruz’s office argued that the prior ruling would give all manner of deviants grounds to claim that “engaging in consensual adult incest or bigamy” must be legal as they have a right to “enhance their sexual experiences.” They lost the motion and ultimately chose not to bring the matter to the Supreme Court.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas law making it illegal to sell or promote obscene devices, punishable by as many as two years in jail, violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
You should join the GLBT community if you believe your argument
These are anti conservative arguments liberals make
10 th amendment is a real part of our constitution
You stand alone, Lonestar.
Reread what is written. The law was thrown out as obsolete many years ago. The Texas State Court & the Court of Appeals found it unconstitutional. A duplicate of this type of law is nonexistent in the 50 states. It’s a violation of privacy under the 14th amendment.
No need to condemn me, 50 state legislatures, and the Appellate Court System to the glbtq society. The court made the correct decision.
The entire post is a copied from Cruz’s argument and the court’s findings.
My contribution regards the irony of St. Cruz the Pious referring to appropriate sex between “significant others” as opposed to stating ‘between a married couple.’ It’s a legal approval of promiscuity & adultery.
They were at the family town hall. They were in the front row during the one-on one.
Ted likes telling that story, he’s done it before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.