I was wrong! A few hours later her campaign sent out this press release:
Do you think the 2nd Amendment will be destroyed by the Biden Administration?
Apparently Davis got the idea for her interracial marriage attack when the San Antonio Express-News editorial
board asked Abbott if he would have opposed interracial marriage 50
years ago if he had been the Texas attorney general at that time. She couldn’t have gotten it from the fact that Abbott is married to a granddaughter of Mexican immigrants which in itself is a strong indication of how Abbott feels about mixed-ethnic and
When asked the ridiculous question of how he would have handled interracial marriages50 years ago, Abbott responded:
“Right now, if there was a ban on interracial marriage, that’s
already been ruled unconstitutional,” Abbott told the San Antonio
Express-News editorial board. “And all I can do is deal with the issues
that are before me … The job of an attorney general is to represent and
defend in court the laws of their client, which is the state
Legislature, unless and until a court strikes it down.”
When Express-News’ Peggy Fikac told Abbott his answer was unclear, Abbott replied:
“Actually, the reason why you’re uncertain about it is because I
didn’t answer the question. And I can’t go back and answer some
hypothetical question like that.”
The only thing to learn from this line of questioning is that unlike
Eric Holder who has opposed in court legislation passed by Congress and
signed by the President, Abbott believes in the more traditional
obligations of an Attorney General which is to defend every bill passed by the legislature and signed by the executive. Which gets us to the B.O.B. part of Ms Davis’ latest charge.
She found that charge in an article in the Texas Observer which said in part:
In 2008, Abbott chose to defend the state’s ban on the sale of sex toys, a case that emerged from the fallout of Lawrence v. Texas. Over the years, Abbott has deployed novel legal arguments against gay marriage. But this wasn’t a case about gay marriage, a subject that still animates sincere moral disagreements. This was a case about every American’s god-given right to buy dildos.
At the time, anti-sex toy laws were widely understood to be unconstitutional, but Abbott suited up for battle. The state, his lieutenants argued with straight faces before the 5th Circuit, had an interest in “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation.” The state of Texas has a pressing interest, Abbott said, in discouraging you from masturbating or blowing your boyfriend [Those are the author’s words not Abbott’s] That was just six years ago.
The Attorney General’s role is as lawyer for the state, as so he has to support in court the legislation passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. If he had not represented the state of Texas in the law suit he would have been just as wrong as Eric Holder when he refused to represent the U.S. Government in the suit against the Defense of Marriage Act.
For Davis to bring Abbot’s opinion of dildos into a campaign is just a reflection of the desperation (from an election point of view) she feels.