# No wonder Alabama is picked on so much... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 29, 2004, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431 "2004-07-29T13:04:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Dr.Lao](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dr.Lao](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Lao)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/41 "2004-07-30T02:50:38Z")
> [@honeydewgrrl](#): > > I actually do have an ulterior motive besides attempting to rile-up the oppressed folks in the sex-toy market. I’m really just trying to instigate some mutually beneficial barter at the AL/GA state line. You’re not in the best place to gloat about backwards laws: > [@](#): > > Americans do not have a fundamental right to sexual privacy, a 2-1 decision of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on Wednesday. > > The split panel upheld an Alabama law – **nearly identical to one in Georgia** – that made the sale of sex toys a crime punishable by up to a year in prison. Emphasis mine. [http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180191546](http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180191546) ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/42 "2004-07-30T03:31:03Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > I guess I don’t have the problem with this decision some other people do. Basically, if the 11CA were to declare there’s some constitutional right to sexual privacy, then someone else to try to hide behind it when asked why he’s trolling the internet for 10 year old boys or trying to buy crotchless panties for his goat. The U.S Supreme Court declared there is a right to sexual privacy (Lawrence vs Texas) between consenting adults and the floodgates haven’t opened up for pedophiles and goatlovers. Don’t feel foolish for not being able to tell the difference between goatlovers and consenting adult humans though; neither can Justice Scalia. :wally ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/43 "2004-07-30T03:48:45Z")
> [@Dr. Lao](#): > > You’re not in the best place to gloat about backwards laws Any perceived gloating must have been the Californian in me… 😉 [Good Vibrations](http://www.goodvibes.com/) in San Francisco is where I go for my more signifigant purchases, but I have also purchased and enjoyed quite a few items from stores right here in Atlanta. I’m not exactly sure of the specific differences between the wording of the Alabama and Georgia laws, but I know that at least some of my Georgia purchases were not labled as **CrazyCatLady** described, though I am well aquainted with those labels. The Georgia Law pre-dates my moving here in 1999. To the best of my knowledge it has been on the books since the 1970’s(??). But rest assured that had I been here during the debate prior to the Georgia law going into effect…or had it been brought up on appeal to the 11th Circuit Court and decided in a similar fashion while I was here…I would have said the _exact_ same thing. Earlier in the thread I believe I already mentioned my feelings that Georgia is (very, very) far from an enlightened entity. I’m more than happy to further extend this pitting to Georgia (and that goes quadruple for Cobb County) and anywhere else where space in the law books is flat out wasted on such crap. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/44 "2004-07-30T04:09:51Z")
BLALRON, if that “putz” is directed at me, as opposed to Scalia, you can stick it up your ass sideways. The fact that a fundamental right to sexual privacy could be used by deviants to shield their unpermitted conduct does not mean that I personally do not understand the difference between goatlovers and consenting adults. The fact that a recognized right to sexual privacy could be misused in such a way actually has fuck-all to do with you and your boyfriend, m’kay? So go right ahead and feel foolish about your inability to grasp my point. If you bothered to read the Eleventh Circuit opinion, which is _Williams v. Alabama_ and which you can find [here](http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216135.pdf), you would see that the Court considered _Lawrence_, which is of course the obvious precedent, and decided that it did _not_ recognize a right to sexual privacy – and it sure as hell didn’t “declare” that there was one. Rather, it considered whether the Texas anti-sodomy law offended the petitioners’ _due process_ rights by sticking the government’s nose in matters that it had no business inquiring into. In analyzing the question, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the “rational basis” test, used for most due process questions, not the “strict scrutiny” test, which is used when reviewing a fundamental right. Now, the dissent argues that such a fundamental right is implicit in _Lawrence_, but IMO this argument is not very persuasive in the absence of any Supreme Court authority setting forth a right to “sexual privacy” as such. IMO the Eleventh Circuit rightly decided that if a new fundamental right was to be created, it should be created by the Supreme Court. If the ACLU chooses to appeal this decision, the Supremes will have the chance to review the question and decide whether “sexual privacy” should be added to the pantheon of recognized fundamental rights. If you’d like to argue further about the precedential authority of _Lawrence_ and its application to _Williams_, that’s fine, but do me a favor and read the freaking case first. ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/45 "2004-07-30T04:10:37Z")
> [@Stonebow](#): > > Wait a second, what if it’s just one really big one…but it has two heads? Well, you probably have to cut one head off, but if two grow back that isn’t a double header. Nope, that’s a hydra and isn’t covered by that law, so enjoy your animated multiple orifice french tickler to your heart’s content. ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/46 "2004-07-30T04:17:33Z")
\ > [@Jodi](#): > > BLALRON, if that “putz” is directed at me, as opposed to Scalia, you can stick it up your ass sideways. The fact that a fundamental right to sexual privacy could be used by deviants to shield their unpermitted conduct does not mean that I personally do not understand the difference between goatlovers and consenting adults. The fact that a recognized right to sexual privacy could be misused in such a way actually has fuck-all to do with you and your boyfriend, m’kay? So go right ahead and feel foolish about your inability to grasp my point. Go fuck _yourself_, Jodi. Pedophiles and zoophiles are not having sex with fellow consenting adults. That you use it as a parallel is dishonest at best. Laws like that ARE used to discriminate and to persecute sections of society and are not enforced generally on the entire public. The parallel between you and Scalia is accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/47 "2004-07-30T04:38:14Z")
MOCKINGBIRD – > [@](#): > > Go fuck yourself, Jodi. You first, you pathetic uncomprehending piece of shit. > [@](#): > > Pedophiles and zoophiles are not having sex with fellow consenting adults. Thanks for the update. :rolleyes: I was soooo confused about that, seeing as how I thought 10 year old boys and goats were somehow consenting adults. Jesus Christ, does it _hurt_ to be that stupid? > [@](#): > > That you use it as a parallel is dishonest at best. It’s not a parallel, you dumbshit. Recognizing a fundamental right to sexual privacy means recognizing that this right is possessed by _everyone_ – gay, straight, consenting, un-, adult, underage – just as we all possess other fundamental rights (privacy, speech, religion, etc.) Therefore, _if_ such a right were extended to _everyone_ it could be misused by those who engage in criminal sexual conduct, because they could allege their conduct is not subject to governmental scrutiny because it falls within the rubric of this fundamental right. What does that have to do with what consenting adults may or may not do? Anyone? Anyone? That’s right: _Nothing_. No-thing. > [@](#): > > Laws like that ARE used to discriminate and to persecute sections of society and are not enforced generally on the entire public. Laws like what? That you can’t buy a dildo in Alabama? What the hell are you talking about? > [@](#): > > The parallel between you and Scalia is accurate. Again, a parallel no one has drawn. Those parallel do give you some trouble, don’t they? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/48 "2004-07-30T04:55:44Z")
And just because this is so fucking stupid, let me remind you of what I said, and _all_ I said: > [@](#): > > I guess I don’t have the problem with this decision some other people do. Basically, if the 11CA were to declare there’s some constitutional right to sexual privacy, then someone else to try to hide behind it when asked why he’s trolling the internet for 10 year old boys or trying to buy crotchless panties for his goat. This in the context of an argument about the right to buy dildoes. So where’s the parallel I was allegedly drawing? Comparing pedophilia and bestiality to . . . what exactly? I know you Angry Gay Boys think every single reference to deviant sex is a veiled assertion that you’re a bunch of deviants, but for Christ’s sake, not everything’s about you. And if you think the parallel’s an insulting one – and it is, profoundly so – don’t be so fucking quick to draw it. ---
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/49 "2004-07-30T21:31:24Z")
I don’t really have anything of substance to add, because anything I had to say **Jodi** has already said and about a zillion times better than I could’ve, to boot. Except for, a lot of the really ridiculous laws people are talking about were put on the books a long time ago and have just never been taken off. **Sauron** pointed out in this thread that this particular law was added to the books fairly recently. I believe _that_ is the glaring difference. ---
**Author:** ![Fiona\_Orange](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@Fiona\_Orange](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiona_Orange)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/50 "2004-07-30T21:43:56Z")
This isn’t really comparable to a duck-marrying law here. I don’t know many people with much of a vested interest in marrying a duck, but I can think of ten off the top of my head who would love a new dildo. I’m one of the ten 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2004, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/51 "2004-07-31T14:48:24Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s not a parallel, you dumbshit. Recognizing a fundamental right to sexual privacy means recognizing that this right is possessed by everyone – gay, straight, consenting, un-, adult, underage – just as we all possess other fundamental rights (privacy, speech, religion, etc.) Therefore, if such a right were extended to everyone it could be misused by those who engage in criminal sexual conduct, because they could allege their conduct is not subject to governmental scrutiny because it falls within the rubric of this fundamental right. The Supreme Court disagrees with your analysis. So therefore it doesn’t _have to_ extend to minors like you claim. Minors can be more easily coerced, therefore there is a legitimate government interest in protecting them. _This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life._ Lawrence vs Texas With all due respect, when it comes to interpreting the Constitution the Supreme Court is a more authoritative source than Jodi. ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2004, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/52 "2004-07-31T14:52:46Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > With all due respect, when it comes to interpreting the Constitution the Supreme Court is a more authoritative source than Jodi. :eek: _Really_? That’ll be news to Jodi. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/53 "2004-08-01T02:02:52Z")
BLALRON – > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court disagrees with your analysis. So therefore it doesn’t have to extend to minors like you claim. Minors can be more easily coerced, therefore there is a legitimate government interest in protecting them. It only appears to disagree with my analysis insofar as I was wrong to include minors in it. But – that’s it? Tthe sum total of your problem with my point is that I erroneously included minors? Because your correction of me is itself correct, but isn’t it still a bit of nitpick? How about the larger point I was making, which is that one argument against extending a fundamental right to sexual privacy is that people could use it to try to shield their deviant and/or obscene behavior from governmental scrutiny? You got any thoughts on that, assuming you now see it? I’m not asking you to agree with it, necessarily, but it would be nice if you would concede I didn’t deserve to be called a putz just for making it. MOCKINGBIRD, weren’t you supposed to be studying up on what a parallel is? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/54 "2004-08-01T02:57:56Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > BLALRON – > > It only appears to disagree with my analysis insofar as I was wrong to include minors in it. But – that’s it? Tthe sum total of your problem with my point is that I erroneously included minors? Because your correction of me is itself correct, but isn’t it still a bit of nitpick? How about the larger point I was making, which is that one argument against extending a fundamental right to sexual privacy is that people could use it to try to shield their deviant and/or obscene behavior from governmental scrutiny? You got any thoughts on that, assuming you now see it? I’m not asking you to agree with it, necessarily, but it would be nice if you would concede I didn’t deserve to be called a putz just for making it. > > MOCKINGBIRD, weren’t you supposed to be studying up on what a parallel is? Well, no, you were wrong to include goats, too. Anyway, whoever it is you’re worried would use a “declaration” that the right to privacy includes sexual privacy (because y’know, _nobody_ thought SCOTUS _meant_ sexual privacy in the first place) and that they government has no business intruding on their goat-felching, or whatever… would still lose, because _L v. T_ establishes a right to sexual privacy between consenting adults, and your assorted deviants don’t get the same treatment. Invasions into _their_ privacy need not recieve the strictest scrutiny, although the government will still have to show that it has a legitimate public interest in protecting goats and little boys from creepy men in trenchcoats. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/55 "2004-08-01T06:00:45Z")
REALLY NOT ALL THAT BRIGHT – > [@](#): > > Well, no, you were wrong to include goats, too. I don’t see that I was. The goat doesn’t have any rights under the constitution. > [@](#): > > Anyway, whoever it is you’re worried would use a “declaration” that the right to privacy includes sexual privacy (because y’know, nobody thought SCOTUS meant sexual privacy in the first place) . . . The U.S. Supreme Court was obviously talking about an _implied_ right privacy, but it was NOT talking about an _express_ right to privacy – which is what was being asked for in _Williams_, which is why _Lawrence_ was deemed inapposite. > [@](#): > > . . . and that they government has no business intruding on their goat-felching, or whatever… would still lose, because L v. T establishes a right to sexual privacy between consenting adults . . . First, under the analysis put forth by the Eleventh Circuit in _Williams_, which I find reasonable, _Lawrence_ does NOT establish a fundamental right to sexual privacy between consenting adults. A reading of _Lawrence_ supports this: the Court did not consider a right to privacy _per se_, but rather privacy as a “liberty interest” subsumed in the Due Process clause. (This is in line with _Griswold_ , in which the Court determined that a right to privacy can be found in the “penumbras” of the Constitution, sparking the continuing debate as to what the hell the “penumbras” rationale really means, other than “we’re going to find something in the Constitution that isn’t actually _in_ the Constitution.”) Importantly, in _Williams_ the petitioners were asking the Court to find a separate fundamental right to sexual privacy – in effect, a new stand-alone right, no merely one “subsumed” in something else, like the Due Process clause – and this the Court refused to do. And I think rightly so; if that step is going to be taken, it should be taken by the U.S. Supreme Court. Second, a fundamental right to privacy, if found, would not be held “between consenting adults” but would be held by every individual citizen, including deviants, and could be exercised by them as easily as by everyone else. Third, if we’re talking about a _Lawrence_-style right regarding _conduct_, it arguably does not apply to a statute prohibiting the sale of sex toys. > [@](#): > > . . . and your assorted deviants don’t get the same treatment. They don’t get the same treatment under _Lawrence_ but we’re not talking about the analysis used in _Lawrence_ when we talk about establishing a fundamental right to sexual privacy. That’s my point. > [@](#): > > Invasions into their privacy need not recieve the strictest scrutiny, although the government will still have to show that it has a legitimate public interest in protecting goats and little boys from creepy men in trenchcoats. Again, you are looking at the question under a _Lawrence_ analysis, which the court in _Williams_ explicitly refused to do – because _Lawrence_ doesn’t deal with a fundamental right to sexual privacy, which is what the ACLU was asking for in _Williams_. If a fundamental right to sexual privacy were held to exist, and penetrating (ha!) beyond it required a compelling state interest (the standard required for fundamental rights – well, the kids are probably okay (because preventing the sexual exploitation of children is unquestionably a CSI), but I’m not so sure about the goats. Moreover, it probably would open up a whole 'nother can of worms on the obscenity issue, since any governmental effort to deem materials obscene could be challenged not just on freedom of speech/expression grounds (as is currently the case) but on sexual privacy grounds as well. ---
**Author:** ![sperfur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9adbd/32.png) [@sperfur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sperfur)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/56 "2004-08-01T20:18:06Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > …the difference between goatlovers and consenting adults. I’m about damn tired of your ‘goatlover’ remarks. You know nothing of my relationship with Billy. We’re in _love_. ---
**Author:** ![sperfur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9adbd/32.png) [@sperfur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sperfur)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431/57 "2004-08-01T20:31:07Z")
> [@Fiona Orange](#): > > …I can think of ten off the top of my head who would love a new dildo. > > I’m one of the ten 🙂 I hope I draw your name in the Christmas pool. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wonder-alabama-is-picked-on-so-much/257431.md?page=2)