Sex Toys Now OK in Texas

In the spirit of Valentines day the 5th district court sex toys get the OK in Texas.

An appeals court has overturned a Texas statute outlawing sex toy sales.

The ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans leaves Alabama as the state with the strictest ban on such devices.

Tuesday's ruling says the Texas law making it illegal to sell or promote obscene devices -- violates the 14th Amendment on the right to privacy.

Companies that own Dreamer's and Le Rouge Boutique, which sell the devices in Austin, and retailer Adam & Eve, sued in in 2004 in Austin.

They appealed after a judge dismissed the suit.

The Texas Attorney General's Office, which represented the Travis County district attorney, has not decided whether to appeal.

In 2004, a woman in Burleson was arrested for selling two sex toys to undercover officers.

Passion Parties consultant Joanne Webb was charged with violating the state's obscenity law. A judge later dismissed her case.
One has to wonder why the state of Texas has these laws and what kind of idiot decides to enforce and fight for these things. These laws are stupid and states shouldn't have any business making or enforcing these types of laws. Alabama had their similar laws supported by the 5th district court last year. What is confusing to me is that the Texan law was overturned because it conflicts with the 14th amendment on the right to privacy.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Now, I'm no constitutional lawyer but I don't see any right to privacy enumerated above. I suppose this is the same right to privacy that was declared in Roe vs Wade. Does the 11th and the 5th District court follow the same constitution that I do?



http://www.libertysblog.com/2008/02/sex-toys-now-ok-in-texas.html