home

Texas Overturns Ban on Sex Toys

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has tossed a law that made it illegal to sell for promote sex toys.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas law making it illegal to sell or promote obscene devices, punishable by as many as two years in jail, violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

The Court's reasoning:

In its decision Tuesday, the appeals court cited Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 opinion that struck down bans on consensual sex between same-sex couples.

"Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct," the appeals judges wrote. "The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification after Lawrence."

< A Five Step Plan for a Hillary Rebound | Would Obama Accept The Nomination If He Loses The Popular Vote? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It's amazing.... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:39:50 AM EST
    ... that it took a case like Lawrence to finally lead to this one.  Lawrence was the hot-button issue of homosexual sex . . . but here it's merely "a toy" that, presumably, could be used among a husband and wife, or even a person by him/herself.

    (I.e., one would have thought that a case like this would be overturned before a case like Lawrence occurred)

    While I'm a bit hestitant to bring hot-button politics here (and I hope I don't regret this) -- this proves the point that no matter what happens, we have to unite behind whoever the Dem candidate will be.

    Not surprisingly: Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas dissented in Lawrence.  No doubt Alito would join them (Roberts taking the place of Rehnquist), and one more GOP appointment, and we can kiss our privacy freedoms goodbye.

    (And I really really hate to mention this, but, Justice Stevens will be close to 89 when the next president takes his/her oath)

    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:46:53 AM EST
    Scalia didn't merely dissent in Lawrence, he acted like it was the worst decision since Dred Scott.

    Then again, when I took Con Law in law school, the decision that repulsed me more than any other was Bowers v. Hardwick.  I guess it just seemed like such a no-brainer.

    Parent

    same here! (none / 0) (#9)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:36:18 AM EST
    I also was blown away by the (to me) obvious wrongheadedness of Bowers, and couldn't understand how anyone but the most biased person, arguing illogically, could come up with that

    Parent
    Haha (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Claw on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:53:00 AM EST
    What I love is the delicious possibility that ConLaw profs in Texas (and elsewhere) may have to discuss this in class.  My poor prof barely got through the obscenity/pornography cases with a straight face.  

    Finally!! (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:56:47 AM EST
    It's funny because they still sell them but they are for "educational" purposes.  Crazy people