Paperview
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 10,341
- Reaction score
- 5,075
- Location
- The Road Less Travelled
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
His legal team argued there was no right "to stimulate one's genitals."
Mother Jones has quite the piece on a Cruz, in 2007 as Solicitor General, defending fiercely the dildo ban in Texas, going so far as to say a person does not have the right to masturbate, well...more or less.
Read the piece to get the bones of the case, and a bit more on his 76 page brief but this part here, just - Wow.
=====================
"The brief insisted that Texas, in order to protect "public morals," had "police-power interests" in "discouraging prurient interests in sexual gratification, combating the commercial sale of sex, and protecting minors." There was a "government" interest, it maintained, in "discouraging…autonomous sex."
The brief compared the use of sex toys to "hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy," and it equated advertising these products with the commercial promotion of prostitution.
In perhaps the most noticeable line of the brief, Cruz's office declared, "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."
That is, the pursuit of such happiness had no constitutional standing. And the brief argued there was no "right to promote dildos, vibrators, and other obscene devices."
The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos | Mother Jones
The case was shot down by the judges, but Cruz and his office stood firm, and appealed. The story notes Cruz was considering fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Mother Jones has quite the piece on a Cruz, in 2007 as Solicitor General, defending fiercely the dildo ban in Texas, going so far as to say a person does not have the right to masturbate, well...more or less.
Read the piece to get the bones of the case, and a bit more on his 76 page brief but this part here, just - Wow.
=====================
"The brief insisted that Texas, in order to protect "public morals," had "police-power interests" in "discouraging prurient interests in sexual gratification, combating the commercial sale of sex, and protecting minors." There was a "government" interest, it maintained, in "discouraging…autonomous sex."
The brief compared the use of sex toys to "hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy," and it equated advertising these products with the commercial promotion of prostitution.
In perhaps the most noticeable line of the brief, Cruz's office declared, "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."
That is, the pursuit of such happiness had no constitutional standing. And the brief argued there was no "right to promote dildos, vibrators, and other obscene devices."
The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos | Mother Jones
The case was shot down by the judges, but Cruz and his office stood firm, and appealed. The story notes Cruz was considering fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court.