Seriously don-o?
You’re asking me to read a 76 page legal brief on a case that Cruz lost at the State level and again at the US District Appellate Court. His argument failed and you haven’t bothered to look at the basic summary.
At a glance, this statement jumps out from the article. “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.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.
I understand that you revere Ted Cruz, but do you honestly feel that legalizing Texan’s adult play-toys would result in the legalization of incest or bigamy? It’s been well over a decade since toy-ban was overturned, and incest and bigamy have not been legalized in Texas.
The argument that Cruz makes here is in response to the justification presented by the plaintiffs, that is, asserting that their products fulfill a legitimate purpose; that being to “enhance their sexual experiences.”
Cruz asserts that accepting the enhancement argument as a legitimate defense opens the door for “engaging in consensual adult incest or bigamy” as simply a different way some could claim to “enhance their sexual experiences.”
That's his actual argument. Does the fact that he lost the case mean that the "enhancement principle" is now settled law? You've gotta know that some day, some perv is going to assert that.