If you treat the "right to privacy" as some sort of blanket protection of anything that goes on in the home, then it is an elastic right without end, since anything for use in the home could then not be regulated. But Griswold/Roe were seen as far more tied to control of sexuality and whether to have children and was a right that predated Griswold. See Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), which argued that sterilization was not a legal punishment.
Lawrence more recently went beyond the reproduction aspect of this principle, but still focused on the fundamental liberty of association with the person one loves, "When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring" in Justice Kennedy's words.
It's seriously hard to argue that one's relationship with a vibrator is a fundamental bond of association akin to the interpersonal bonds highlighted in these earlier decisions.
If a ban on vibrators was struck down, could rapid NRA folks argue that their personal relationship with their AK-47 made an assault weapons ban illegal? Could drug addicts argue that all drug laws were illegal because of their intimate relationship with mind alteration?
Now, the ban on sex toys is stupid and the law should be repealed. Notably, the law bans sale of the toys, not possession, so the upshot of the decision is more mail order purchases of such items in Alabama.
Nathan
----- Original Message ----- From: andie nachgeborenen To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Sexuality Under Seige or So What Else is New?
I hate to be a one note Johnny, but would you explain to me why contraceptives are constitutionally protected by the provacy rights under the due process clause, but vibrators are not? If we had a blank slate, no Griswold, no Roe, no cases granting praviacy rights in sexual matters, maybe you would be right, but we don't. The 11th Cir, flies in the face of clear and long established constitutional law.
Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
>> "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 ...
I guess it doesn't sound to me like that's what the court said; they seemed to imply that they thought the law was silly, but that striking it down via a constitutional challenge wasn't gonna cut it. Which I guess I'm okay with.
It's really the legislature that feels that Alabamians don't have the right to purchase adult toys, right?
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk