Ted Cruz Once Argued to the Court of Appeals That There Is No “Substantive-Due-Process Right” to Buy Sex Toys

Via Mother Jones:

The filing noted, “The Texas Penal Code prohibits the advertisement and sale of dildos, artificial vaginas, and other obscene devices” but does not “forbid the private use of such devices.” The plaintiffs had argued that this case was similar to Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas’ law against sodomy. But Cruz’s office countered that Lawrence “focused on interpersonal relationships and the privacy of the home” and that the law being challenged did not block the “private use of obscene devices.” Cruz’s legal team asserted that “obscene devices do not implicate any liberty interest.” And its brief added that “any alleged right associated with obscene devices” is not “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.” In other words, Texans were free to use sex toys at home, but they did not have the right to buy them.

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 plaintiffs, it noted, were “free to engage in unfettered noncommercial speech touting the uses of obscene devices,” but not speech designed to generate the sale of these items.

“Police power interests” in an adult’s bedroom? Great.

Citing Lawrence, the court of appeals determined people have the “right to be free from governmental intrusion regarding ‘the most private human contact, sexual behavior’,” essentially telling Cruz and his team that the Texas government should GTFO people’s bedrooms.

You would think that would be the end of it because, really, why is this even taking up a court of law’s time in modern America? But no.

Abbott and Cruz quickly filed a brief asking the full court of appeals to hear the case, claiming the three-judge panel had extended the scope of Lawrence too far. This brief suggested that if the decision stood, some people would argue that “engaging in consensual adult incest or bigamy” ought to be legal because it could “enhance their sexual experiences.”

So owning a sex toy is somehow legally on par with incest and bigamy according to Ted?

Seriously… what in the hell is wrong with Ted Cruz?

And this is who anyone wants to vote for as president? He’s a lawyer who made one of the most anti-liberty, pro-Big Government arguments any court of law ever heard.

At least the motion was denied and the case finally dropped because, well, it’s a comical level of stupid.