Ted Cruz has a new nickname in the Lone Star state. Dildo! It originated when he was the Solicitor General (authoritarian parasite) of the state of Texas.
From 2004 to 2008, the Canadian was fighting a case before Texas and then United States courts to ban the promotion and sale of dildos and other sexual devices. Being the habitual loser that he is, and to the great benefit of the people of Texas and the rest of the United States, the Canadian lost, and today the people are free to enjoy sexual devices as they please.
So, let me get this straight. Ted Cruz, self-proclaimed champion of our Constitution and its cornerstone, the principle of individual liberty, who promises to end big government, attempted a big government shut down of individual liberty and our Constitution, based upon his and Greg Abbott’s moral belief? Really? So, this blending of moral code and legal code is fine with the Canadian and his Cruzbot zombies. I know of only one culture in which the moral code and legal code are the same. Think Sharia.
According to Uproxx, Canadian Cruz was no stranger to his own personal sexual stimulation during college, as his college roommate, Craig Mazin, attests:
Ted Cruz thinks people don’t have a right to “stimulate their genitals.” I was his college roommate. This would be a new belief of his.
— Craig Mazin (@clmazin) April 13, 2016
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 previous year, a Texas mother who was a sales rep for Passion Parties was arrested by two undercover cops for selling vibrators and other sex-related goods at a gathering akin to a Tupperware party for sex toys. No doubt, this had worried businesses peddling such wares.) 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.