It was useful to take a little time off from the blog, though various stuff did come up during the week worthy of comment. For instance, there was the opinion upholding* a law against the sale of sex toys (see also here and here), which is related to a Texas law that I spoke about in the past. The law led to problems that show how such laws truly can invade the private realm -- public and private are far from mutually exclusive spheres.
[The Eleventh Circuit is the home of controversial President Bush appointee Judge Pryor, who was recently the swing vote in denying a rehearing of the circuit's opinion upholding a ban on gay adoptions. The strong dissent in both cases was written by a Clinton appointee and ex-nun.]
A certain advocate responded to that latter post and recently was nice enough to mention my blog to the editor of the Slate fray. Thus, it is only right that I mention her new blog, a fan site of sorts in honor of doodahman, a Slate fray favorite. I also added it to my blogroll. Both are lawyers (I just play one on the net) as are two other friends I met on the Slate fray -- clearly Chicago (current home of one my favorite baseball players, Glendon Rusch) has some kewl people. I was there in the Summer of 2001, a more innocent time, and it is also a nice city overall.
Sexual privacy was furthered by a well written lower state court ruling in Seattle upholding the right of same sex marriage. Though it was immediately appealed, the opinion should serve a guide to others. The comments on the true threats to (heterosexual) marriage, including ironically using quasi-marriage arrangements (like civil unions), was especially on point.
I have a couple things on my mind to write about, but that's it for now. Congrats NY and Chicago for good baseball afternoons.
---
* I currently cannot open the opinion itself [but the trial court opinion meets my approval], but the majority is cited approvingly here. I don't find this bit of reasoning (ahem) reasonable. The same sex sodomy case expressly was not an equal protection case (a sixth vote, O'Connor, would so hold), so we are left supposing it somehow protected sodomy per se or something broader. Under what reasoning would the Constitution protect sodomy but not other intimate sexual relations, such as playing with sex toys?
The logic of the sex toy opinion is not limited to sale, but to a lack of a right to such materials per se. Lawrence v. Texas cannot just be concerned with private activity either, since it brought into its breadth the sale of contraceptives. What makes certain sex toys so different that their sale is reasonably barred? Also, I would argue that sexual expression is involved here, especially if they are sold as novelty items. This makes the state interest even smaller. Morality is a dubious state interest in general, but here it is especially dubious.
The law does make exceptions "for a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purpose." I assume self-education or self-medication is not included. How this exactly helps things is unclear. The law clearly is arbitrary and irrational or in the very least just plain perverted.