I suppose it’s difficult to read into the Constitution the right to own a sex toy — which is why it’s a lot easier in Alabama to buy and own a gun than a dildo. Which may seem bass-ackwards (at least when it comes to insuring domestic Tranquility, if not promoting general Welfare), but blame a Constitutional Convention that was more interested in establishing a stable political order, not a pleasant place to live. While the 9th Amendment notes that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” establishing a right of “sexual privacy” seems to disagree with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (as reported here).
In this case, the American Civil Liberties Union (‘ACLU’) invites us to add a new right to the current catalogue of fundamental rights under the Constitution: a right to sexual privacy. It further asks us to declare Alabama’s statute prohibiting the sale of ‘sex toys’ to be an impermissible burden on this right. Alabama responds that the statute exercises a time-honored use of state police power — restricting the sale of sex. We are compelled to agree with Alabama and must decline the ACLU’s invitation.
The law in question was passed in 1998:
Alabama’s Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act prohibits, among other things, the commercial distribution of ‘any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs for any thing of pecuniary value.’
In other words, you can’t sell vibrators or dildos (or anything else of that ilk), at least not designed or marketed as such. Which seems, personally, ridiculous. The law doesn’t say anything about ownership or possession,
On the other hand, I can certainly agree with the court’s finding that:
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.
Indeed. Should the prudery of the majority (or their representatives, or the political/social delicacy of the question) be allowed to dictate the sexual pursuits of the citizens of Alabama? Not directly, perhaps, but, again, are those pursuits (which the Supremes have declared are a privacy right) infringed upon by commercial restrictions? And is that infringement unconstitutional?
I don’t know. But I don’t plan on moving to Alabama any time soon.
(via BoingBoing)