On what grounds?
Whoever is wanting more government into our lives must have a stick up there butt. I mean come on. I am as conservative as the next, but if they want to order sex toys to enhance their marriage or for whatever else then I could care less. Does Alabama not have more important things to worry about. How about fixing their horrible education standards. Now that would be a start.
I bet O'Reilly covers this.
This whole support of the Nanny State is really becoming a disturbing reality. I see what's happening here. While the Democrats are focusing the general public on the war debate, the rest of the government is taking away small freedoms, one at a time. Sadly, I am guessing those on this panel that made this judgement probably consider themselves conservative. ::sigh::
Meanwhile, cucumbers are still legal.
Public morality remains a legitimate rational basis for the challenged legislation even after the Lawrence decision.
I thought this thread would generate a bit more buzz.
It's hard to imagine that banning sex toys (on some general notion that they would harm "public morality") is constitutional, but banning gay sodomy (on the proven notion that it burdens society do to the increased incidence of HIV and Aids, as well as other sexually transmitted diseases) is unconstitutional.
I'd rather it be the other way around.
News from Alabamastan!!
Will hardware store owners be jailed for selling shower heads?
Alabama's Harley dealers dodged a bullet they didn't even know was out there.