<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Michael/Male/26-30. Lives in United States/Pennsylvania/Wexford/Christopher Wren, speaks English. Spends 20% of daytime online. Uses a Fast (128k-512k) connection. And likes baseball /politics.
This is my blogchalk:
United States, Pennsylvania, Wexford, Christopher Wren, English, Michael, Male, 26-30, baseball , politics.

Saturday, February 26, 2005

Big Brother in Alabama & Other News .... 

Not really having anything whatsoever to do with baseball or the Phillies, but I saw this on Yahoo! Headlines and I couldn't pass without commenting on it:



Supreme Court Rejects Appeal on Ban on Sex Toy Sale

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court rejected on Tuesday a constitutional challenge to an Alabama law that makes it a crime to sell sex toys.

The high court refused to hear an appeal by a group of individuals who regularly use sexual devices and by two vendors who argued the case raised important issues about the scope of the constitutional right to sexual privacy.

The law prohibited the distribution of "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." First-time violators can face a fine of up to $10,000 and as much as one year in jail.

What a sad world we live in when it's a felony(!) to use a vibrator. Doesn't the state legislature of Alabama have anything better to do with its time? Like, I dunno, fixing their dilapitated schools? Getting people out of poverty? Preventing cousins from marrying? This is major-league silliness, Red State Big Brotherism at its worst.

I pity the poor users of sex toys who get prosecuted under this law. Imagine sitting in the holding cell and listening to your other cell mates talk:

Thug #1: "What are you in for?"
Thug #2: "Armed robbery..."
Thug #3: "Aggrivated Assault..."
Thug #4: "Possession of narcotics..."
Guy in the polo shirt: "Buying a vibrator..."

I'm a little surprised that the Supreme Court won't hear the case. I certainly can't fathom the state of Alabama's legal reasoning for the sex toy ban. Where is the rational basis behind it? Preventing people from having pleasure? I suppose if you are one of those people who endorse the idea that sex is entirely for procreation this makes sense. (Hey, if you don't want to enjoy it, why should anyone else too?) I note that representatives from the Catholic Church, not exactly a bastion of hedonism, told my wife & I during our marriage counseling classes that the Church has rejected the "sex is for procreation purposes only" belief. So, if I could stand on my soap-box for a moment: what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business, provided that they aren't hurting anyone. This is just one of those things you just have to shake your head at and thank god that you live in a place where people aren't that ignorant or narrow-minded. Lighten up, Alabama.

On a less adult subject, I'm transitioning my email account to my new gmail account. It's pretty sweet stuff. Contact me at citizensblog@gmail.com I made the adjustment on my contact info.

Enjoy the weekend. And stay clear of Alabama.

Comments:
Hello!My brother asked me to look at your blog.This is one of the best well planned out blogs that I've seen. You must of put some time and effort into this. The information is Great. Keep up the good work. I'll be coming back soon.

Regards,

affiliate program
 
thanks for the infomation
 
The years teach much latina phone sex which the days never knew. latina phone sex
 
Hello! I see that you have put alot of time into your blog. Your information is top notch.

Regards,

affiliate marketing program
 
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?