On Wednesday, the leftist media discovered that Ted Cruz, as Solicitor General of Texas, argued against the notion that there is a Constitutional right to masturbation. This, of course, troubled them greatly, for precisely the reasons you would suspect. But is there substance to the actual complaint?
Not if you know how to read.
In 2004, distributors of dildos in Texas attempted to challenge a state law outlawing sale and promotion of obscene devices, according to David Corn of Mother Jones. In my own personal view – and probably in Cruz’s view, too – this law is silly. Silliness, however, does not spell unconstitutionality. There are many silly laws, including laws that suggest that biological men be allowed in women’s bathrooms. Silliness is not a Constitutional concern, but a political one.
The plaintiffs in this case claimed that this law violated their Constitutional right to privacy – a right which does not exist in the Constitution, and certainly does not govern public sale of marketable goods. They then argued about the wonderful uses of sex toys.
A federal judge ruled for Texas, stating that there was no federal constitutional right to buying products to help you masturbate. The case was appealed to a panel of the Fifth Circuit. The Solicitor General’s office argued that the state has “police power” to protect “public morals,” adding, “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.” This is undoubtedly true; the Constitution makes no mention of touching yourself in the Bill of Rights or anywhere else.
Again, that doesn’t make the law right. But it certainly isn’t in conflict with the federal Constitution. And not only do such laws not violate “substantive due process,” that pernicious phrase itself is legal idiocy coined by the left to push its favorite things. The left can’t point to where the Constitution protects sex toy-sale aided masturbation. But they want it to be, so it must be, dammit! (As for freedom of association and religion, that stuff’s bothersome, so they’d prefer to just blot it out.)
In the end, the Fifth Circuit reversed, stating that the right to privacy extended to buying products to enhance intimacy. Cruz’s office decided not to appeal the case.
This means that Cruz is a prude rather than a lawyer tasked with fighting on behalf of the people of his state who voted to implement a law, apparently. And according to noted legal scholar Corn, this means he’s a Constitutional idiot, to boot! Which leads to one question: why did the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals uphold a similar law the year before? The Eleventh Circuit Court there found, “If we were to accept the invitation to recognize a right to sexual intimacy, this right would theoretically encompass such activities as prostitution, obscenity, and adult incest – even if we were to limit the right to consenting adults.” This is certainly true, and this is the road upon which we find ourselves after Justice Kennedy’s ridiculous decision in Obergefell.
The left believes that there’s a right to everything they like, and a mandate against everything they don’t. The Constitution disagrees. But never mind the legal niceties – Cruz must be a prude. He must be a prude because the left wants him to be a prude, rather than a lawyer doing what his job requires and what is Constitutionally correct.
