Posted on 07/28/2004 11:36:53 PM PDT by FairOpinion
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld a 1998 Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys in the state, ruling the Constitution doesn't include a right to sexual privacy.
In a 2-1 decision overturning a lower court, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) said the state has a right to police the sale of devices that can be sexually stimulating.
The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), which represented merchants and users who sued to overturn the law, asked the appeals court to rule that the Constitution included a right to sexual privacy that the ban on sex toy sales would violate. The court declined, indicating such a decision could lead down other paths.
"If the people of Alabama in time decide that a prohibition on sex toys is misguided, or ineffective, or just plain silly, they can repeal the law and be finished with the matter," the court said.
"On the other hand, if we today craft a new fundamental right by which to invalidate the law, we would be bound to give that right full force and effect in all future cases including, for example, those involving adult incest, prostitution, obscenity, and the like."
Attorney General Troy King said the court "has done its duty" in upholding the law.
Sherri Williams, an adult novelty retailer who filed the lawsuit with seven other women and two men, called the decision "depressing."
"I'm just very disappointed that courts feel Alabamians don't have the right to purchase adult toys. It's just ludicrous," said Williams, who lives in Florida and owns Pleasures stores in Huntsville and Decatur. "I intend to pursue this."
U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith Jr. of Huntsville has twice ruled against the state law, deciding in 2002 that the sex toy ban violated the constitutional right to privacy. The state appealed both times and won.
The state law bans only the sale of sex toys, not their possession, the court said, and it doesn't regulate other items including condoms or virility drugs. "The Alabama statute proscribes a relatively narrow bandwidth of activity," U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr. wrote.
Circuit Judge Rosemary Barkett disagreed, saying the decision was based on the "erroneous foundation" that adults don't have a right to consensual sexual intimacy and that private acts can be made a crime in the name of promoting "public morality."
Imagine a law that says that armed robbery is only illegal if the perp is a male.
Alabama on the other hand, made sex toys illegal for everyone, they did not say that sex toys are illegal for same-sex couples to use, but OK for opposite sex couples. The law should stand.
But let's see how many people say, "let's leave it up to the states."
But that's exactly what the court did.
Congratulations to the good court from Alabama. At least there are some courts that understand the natural law.
Sheesh. I love my home state, but sometimes we go a bit over the edge.
Could you explain the statement in the headline?
Does this also regulate devices bought over the internet?
Which part of the constitution guarantees you the right to sell sex toys?
No, that's not what Texas law did.
Violations of the Ninth amendment are prohibited to the states. Therefore, the question is whether a given right (in this case, selling a legal item, which I'd argue is a fundamental part of property ownership) falls among the non-enumerated rights.
By the way, that argument falls flat on me, I believe that the government has no place conducting marriages at all.
Why do the states have no right to conduct marriages?
Goldstategop,
Are you sure there's no right to privacy in the constitution? Here's what I'm thinking...the reason for the Bill of Rights was to lay out the minimum rights; and even then, there was strong disagreement about including the BillOR lest our rights be limited to those enumerated. My understanding- and correct me if I'm wrong- is that ALL rights were reserved to the people that were not expressly forbidden, and that the Bill O.R. was simply a bare bones enumeration of SOME of those rights.
Mind you, I abhor Roe V Wade. But I have rethought lately the whole right to privacy issue. Of course, you do not have a right to privacy to commit murder or any other crime, which thus precludes killing unborn babies.
What thinkest thou?
And further more, if the people of Alabama decide that they don't want to see sex shops on every corner, thats up to them. Then if you need sex toys and porn, get a computer, and do it in the privacy of your own home.
They don't either.
They can conduct a civil ceremony as a magistrate, but Holy Matrimony, (which IS what we are discussing here, isn't it) is a ceremony that only the clergy can conduct.
It's called 'inciting the choir'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.