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."
FYI, lawyers get paid to argue any side of the story...why are you liberals so obsessed with this story?
Admittedly, I find it extremely funny. Been laughing all morning.
Get ahold of yourself.
Or...don’t.
Or, whatever. :-)
What do you mean, if its true?
Of course it’s true, and you can research the case or read dozens of other news articles pertaining to the details:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-ban-on-sex-toy-sales-overturned/
The gutter is a hundred feet above where this campaign is....
Agreed - defending state law. And the views of the people of his state. He as always been a big one for that.
And regarding the slippery slope. How often are there threads on FR decrying (or laughing) at the Japanese men with their weird sex fetishes, robots, or even how our young men would rather play video games and watch porn instead of interacting and courting women?
Cruz’s defense can be “At least I didn’t laugh about getting a rapist acquitted.”
I can think of one freeper who is going to switch his vote over this!
“I was his college roommate...this would be a new belief of his.
I got to admit...very funny !!!
Irrelevant! It's the salaciousness of the argument that matters because SEX SELLS!
(Disclaimer: I'm not a Ted Cruz supporter, however I think articles such as this one and the "arguments" they attempt to make are frankly stupid, won't change anyone's mind and in fact only serve to cement certain opinions about the motivations and intent of Trump and/or Cruz supporters when posted. Enough of this stupid crap already!)
Just like those who live in the beltway,those in NYC will do anything to keep their cash cow alive.
Not liking the sunshine that illuminates your candidate. It’s a shame.
I assume you posted this to diminish Cruz. In the interest of a productive and effective discussion, exactly HOW does this do that?
Declare in detail what is wrong with the positions that Cruz took in behalf of the state.
It falls to the state legislature, who is obviously suffering massive boredom to think up laws like this. As long as these are sold to adults over 18. No one cares. As was said, Abbott and Cruz were duty bound to represent the legislature to the feds, but, what a waste of time. As a Trump supporter I am going to get a kick out of some of the comments about Cruz’s arguments that were presented.
I must say I read the article and all the comments and I am VERY disappointed in my fellow freepers, why you ask. Because no where did I see a gif with Red sCruz wagging a dildo at us instead of his finger with that insane look on his face. Come on freepers.
Ok, that made me laugh.
Oh, come on ... oh, wait ...
Isn’t this what Solicitor Generals are supposed to do?Present their state’ms case in court?
The headline and story are silly. I gather that the Texas statute regulated the sale of sex toys. That would seem to be straightforward enough. The opponents of the law would of course twist the question around in all sorts of convoluted hypothetical ways, because that is what lawyers do when they are trying to give a judge or jury a rationalization for the desired decision.
That is the truth, good way of putting it.
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.