Flutterby™! : Lawrence decision not a panacea

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Lawrence decision not a panacea

2005-03-02 16:11:48.502771+00 by radix 4 comments

the url is for a columnist out of Pittsburgh describing the decision. Basically a 1998 Alabama law banning 'marital aids' has been upheld by the 11th circuit and the Supreme Court last week refused to take the case (denial of certiorari).

He quotes from the Alabama argument: "it is enough for a legislature to reasonably believe that commerce in the pursuit of orgasms by artificial means for their own sake is detrimental to the health and morality of the State."

All I can say is: there's a reason we call it Alabamastan.


[ related topics: Quotes Sexual Culture Health Law ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2005-03-02 16:25:05.489291+00 by: Dan Lyke

I edited your comment to drop the link in the first part. That "Primary URL" bit is for some of the syndication stuff, and can actually safely be ignored in most cases.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-03-02 19:48:26.615204+00 by: Larry Burton

While I think Alabama is a backwards state that ought to be ashamed of itself for trying to legislate this type of commerce I agree with the Supreme Courts refusal to hear the case. Right or wrong the state should not be prevented by the federal courts from passing this type of legislation. This type of legislation should be repealed due to the voters of the state demanding that it be repealed or never enacted in the first place.

Unfortunately, Georgia has some similar laws. I think they are wrong but I don't want federal authorities meddling into the affairs of the state. States not offering equal protection is one thing, outlawing sex toys and other forms of commerce is something else and should be left up to the states.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-03-03 16:31:58.955625+00 by: Dan Lyke

Larry, I waver between states rights, and thinking that this is an issue that, if not currently codified in our federal constitution, should be. Much like the right to a free press, to keep and bear arms, and to be free from quartering soldiers, I'm for any interpretation of the constitution that keeps states from limiting any consentual interactions between adults.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-03-03 17:20:23.149572+00 by: Larry Burton

Dan, I may be wrong but I don't think that Alabama makes it illegal for me to bring a sex toy into the state and use it by myself or with one or more consenting adults in the privacy of my own home or hotel room. Alabama is limiting what can legally be sold in the state not what consenting adults can use in their sex play. I know it's a fine line in that they are putting a hardship on those people living a good distance from the state line from acquiring the sex toys of their choice but the citizens are not being restrained from using these sex toys and are only being hindered, not prohibited, from acquiring them.

The distinction that I think needs to be taken into account is that if the Feds can prevent a state from making the sale of items illegal they can also prevent the states from making the sale of an item legal. What does this say in regards to the states that have legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes?