Finding all of the examples of Republican politicians pandering and selling their souls to Christofascists is an almost endless task and would be utterly exhausting. I do my best, but as a part time blogger, my time is limited. Thankfully, sites like Mother Jones - Joe My God does a wonderful job as well - make the task more simple because they do such a great job in exposing GOP batshitery. A case in point is the
Mother Jones piece that looks at Ted Cruz's crusade against dildos. Yes, dildos. It would be hard to make up stuff this insane, but not when you are dealing with Christofascists and their political whores in the Republican Party. Here are article highlights (read the entire piece):
In one chapter of his campaign book, A
Time for Truth, Sen. Ted Cruz
proudly chronicles his days as a Texas solicitor general, a post he held from
2003 to 2008. Bolstering his conservative cred, the Republican presidential
candidate notes that during his stint as the state's chief lawyer, in front of
the Supreme Court and federal and state appellate courts . . . . Yet one case he does not mention is the time he helped
defend a law criminalizing the sale of dildos.
The case was actually an important
battle concerning privacy and free-speech rights. In 2004, companies that owned
Austin stores selling sex toys and a retail distributor of such products
challenged a Texas law outlawing the sale and promotion of supposedly obscene
devices. Under the law, a person who violated the statute could go to jail for
up to two years. At the time, only three states—Mississippi, Alabama, and
Virginia—had similar laws.
The plaintiffs in the
sex device case contended the state law violated the right to privacy under the
14th Amendment. They argued that many people in Texas used sexual devices as an
aspect of their sexual experiences. They claimed that in some instances one
partner in a couple might be physically unable to engage in intercourse or have
a contagious disease (such as HIV), and that in these cases such devices could
allow a couple to engage in safe sex.
In 2007, Cruz's legal team, working on
behalf of then-Attorney General Greg Abbott (who now is the governor), filed a
76-page brief calling on the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to uphold
the lower court's decision and permit the law to stand. 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."
. . . . 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.
In a 2-1 decision issued in February 2008, the court of appeals told Cruz's
office to take a hike. The court, citing Lawrence, pointed to the "right to be free
from governmental intrusion regarding 'the most private human contact, sexual
behavior.'" The panel added, "An individual who wants to legally use
a safe sexual device during private intimate moments alone or with another is
unable to legally purchase a device in Texas, which heavily burdens a
constitutional right." It rejected the argument from Cruz's team that the
government had a legitimate role to play in "discouraging prurient
interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated
to procreation."
Summing up, the judges declared, "The case is not
about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about
controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the State
is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct.
This is an insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence...Whatever one might
think or believe about the use of these devices, government interference with
their personal and private use violates the Constitution."
The appeals court had rejected the
arguments from Cruz's office and said no to Big Government policing the morals
of citizens. But Abbott and Cruz wouldn't give up. Of course, they might have
initially felt obligated to mount a defense of this state law. But after it had
been shot down, they pressed ahead, relying on the same puritanical and excessive
arguments to justify government intrusion. 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." And Cruz's office filed another brief noting it
was considering taking this case to the Supreme Court.
Cruz and Abbott lost the motion
for a hearing from the full court of appeals. And the state soon dropped the case, opting not to appeal to the
Supreme Court. This meant that the government could no longer outlaw the sale
of dildos, vibrators, and other sex-related devices in the Lone Star State—and
in Mississippi and Louisiana, the two other states within this appeals court's
jurisdiction.
Imagine how his political career might have been
affected had Cruz become the public face for the anti-dildos movement.
Given how physical repulsive Cruz is - he could raise a fortune by allowing people to pay to NOT have sex with him - I can only imagine how many dildos his wife must own.
