« Obama's Christian case for gays (II) | Main | McCain as 'slick Willie' »
March 03, 2008
The Texas dildo massacre
Posted by: Chris
The Texas attorney general has filed an appeal to the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the full court to reconsider a recent panel opinion that struck down the state's ban on sex toys. The Texas law prohibits the sale of artificial penises and vaginas "primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs" except for "medical, psychiatric, judicial, legislative, or law enforcement."
A Fifth Circuit panel struck down the law in Reliable Consultants vs. Ronnie Earle, concluding that it violates the right of ordinary citizens "to engage in private intimate conduct in the home without government intrusion." That right can be traced back to Supreme Court rulings striking down laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives and, of course, the landmark Lawrence vs. Texas, which invalidated the same state's criminal prohibition against same-sex sodomy.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has warned of a familiar parade of horribles if the panel opinion is allowed to stand, including the invalidation of laws prohibiting "consensual adult incest and bigamy." Sigh. Laws against bigamy and incest were supposed to be the next victims after the Lawrence ruling, but of course not one such law has been struck down in the five years since.
The Lawrence ruling does, however, compel the invalidation of the Texas sex toy ban, and similar prohibitions in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. If the Fifth Circuit ruling stands, it will automatically apply to the laws in Mississippi and Louisiana which are part of that judicial circuit.
Since the justifications differ significantly, there's no logical nexus between invalidating bans on sodomy and sex toys, on the one hand, and prohibitions on incest and bigamy, on the other. But the Lawrence ruling ought to have already resulted in striking down laws against fornication (sex outside of marriage) and solicitation, at least where the sex act being solicited would occur in private (and is consensual, non-commercial and between adults).
The ruling from the Fifth Circuit, generally a reliable conservative court, would represent an important advance in getting government out of the sex regulation business.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e550a9bcee8834
Comments
-
You should note that this is a circuit split is between the 5th and 11th circuits. See the 5th circuit decision in Reliable Consultants v. State of Texas in opposition to the 11th circuit decision Williams v. Madison County, Alabama, 478 F.3d 1316, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 333. Hat Tip: Volokh Conspiracy.
-
Ronnie Earle is an unpredictable Democrat, indicts and prosecutes anyone or anything. He is endorsing his assistant district attorney Rose Lemhberg, who is a Victory Fund endorsed lesbian.
Wish her luck, if she wins tomorrow’s primary, Austin will have an openly gay DA.
-
Oh, great. So policemen and judges can buy all the dildos they want. And, of course, legislators. "It's for research." I'd be incensed if my tax dollars were being used to appeal this case.
-
Its so sad to read negative feedbacks about dildos. Dildos are good for us to enhance our sexual desires, but we should use it in a proper way to avoid cases like this.
-
sorry...but i think that law is absurd and meaningless....
it's a lot of waste....
-
This article are everywhere..well sad to say the sex toy end up bad that's the wrong way to used..Sex toys, when used properly, are not harmful in any ways. You just need awareness and proper knowledge.
-
I totally agree with you "Jaesica Keiwan". What do they think if there's no sex toys at all, the crimes are getting higher too "rapist".It's really meaningless....
-
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
-
Its great idea.Well sad to say the sex toy end up bad that's the wrong way to used.It is not harmful any ways.
http://www.adultoysuk.co.uk/
-
It takes discipline to use this kind of stuff. Proper use should always be applied.
sex toys
-
you nailed it!
http://dildosandfleshlights.co.uk/
-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Open your hearts (and your drawers) and give the gift of love. This year, please donate generously to the Toys-4-Texans charity drive. Send your cast-off rubber schlongs, pussy vibrators, butt plugs, tit tassles, cock rings, and sundry sex toys to:Toys-4-Texans
PO Box 6969
Horny Wallow, 79696 TX(All cash contributions non-tax deductible.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
What in the world? I must have been asleep when this hit the news. How on earth did they think they could ban sex toys? Does Texas really have that many religious nutjobs living there. I say that because most absurd sex laws stem from some dogmatic religious belief. I should forward this LINK to all of my local pastors inboxes.
-
Good work, thanks for sharing this information!!
-
Great and informative post. I am very much appreciate on this btopic.
-
I could not believe it when I first heard that sex toys where banned in some places. That's just stupid! But I think that ban has been dismissed now, which is good !! :) Great article, I'm a bit late in reading it though as I have just noticed the date. lol
-
well the idea being that the "now more conservative than ever" Supreme Court would uphold the law and chip away at the Lawrence or Griswold decisions.
-
sex-toy retailers in Texas rejoiced when a federal appeals court ruled—just in time for Valentine’s Day—that a Texas prohibition against the sale of dildos and pocket pussies violated the 14th Amendment.
-
Texas has never been known as a forward thinking state... No surprise here.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Strict Scrutiny on Mar 3, 2008 7:50:37 PM:
Hah! The laws in these southern states never cease to amaze me. Or make me laugh. On a more serious note though ...
I wonder if state authorities are intentionally appealing this case, hoping that it will eventually reach the Supreme Court? The idea being that the "now more conservative than ever" Supreme Court would uphold the law and chip away at the Lawrence or Griswold decisions. If this case really is the loser it seems to be, what's the point? Unless there is something else underlying the decision to appeal.
The South Dakota legislature attempted something similar with abortion, although in the S.D. case it was transparently obvious what they were trying to accomplish. Luckily, this effort failed.