It's not about the constitutionality, but the liberal thinking that leads people to use the government to control the lives of other people even though their actions do no direct harm to the liberal complainers.
To get an idea of what I'm talking about, replace "spinster who hasn't been laid in 20 years" and "sex toys" with "PETA" and "hunting" or "Greenpeace" and "logging."
But miss it you did.
I believe that a state banning PETA, hunting, Greenpeace, or logging might find themselves in a constitutional bind. (Thank you for not saying, "What if a state wanted slavery?")
"even though their actions do no direct harm"
(Picture me holding my right arm, fully extended over my head, hand bent at the wrist. Got that picture? Good.)
I have had it up to here with this "no direct harm" bull$hit. Who says our laws must be written to cover "direct harm" only? Why is this now the standard that must be met? Since friggin' when?
There is such a thing as indirect harm. There is such a thing as societal standards. There is such a thing as creating and maintaining an environment in which to raise the next generation.
Legislating morality? Sure it is. ALL of our laws legislate morality. If the majority of the people of a state wish to write a constitutional law that excludes something they believe causes indirect harm, or that is against their standards, or interferes with the raising of children, why can't they?
This article should be a dog-bites-man non-issue.