A hearty Cynics salute tonight goes out to Judges Thomas Morrow Reavley and Edward Charles Prado of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (in Texas) who Tuesday published a brilliant and prescient opinion that ought, by all rights, propel them to the Supreme Court. The gentlemen in question decided that the Texas law that criminalizes the sale or promotion of sex toys in the state of Texas is violative of the 14th Amendment right to privacy enshrined in our great Constitution.

Our new favorite Texans (whose opinion was not shared by their less esteemed colleague from Mississippi) based their opinion on the, um, seminal Lawrence and Garner v. Texas case, which ruled that Texas’ then law against consensual homosexual sodomy and, to a lesser degree the Carey and Griswold birth control cases. In part, the opinion reads:

An individual who wants to legally use a safe sexual device during private intimate moments alone or with another is unable to legally purchase a device in Texas, which heavily burdens a constitutional right. This conclusion is consistent with the decisions in Carey and Griswold, where the Court held that restricting commercial transactions unconstitutionally burdened the exercise of individual rights. Indeed, under this statute it is even illegal to “lend” or “give” a sexual device to another person. This further restricts the exercise of the constitutional right to engage in private intimate conduct in the home free from government intrusion. It also undercuts any argument that the statute only affects public conduct.

The judges went further, to my great delight because this law is basically designed to keep me and (and others) from pursuing “autonomous” sexual pleasure without regards to procreation (which, fuck you Texas!) because obviously my lady bits, their preferences and what I alternately ought to be using them for are of paramount importance to the government.

Just as in Lawrence, the State here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct. The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the State is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence.

I would normally celebrate my now-constitution right to masturbation, but while seeking out the accompanying picture, I found this article. It is NSFW, but may be required reading, particularly for our more fabulous readers. It’s extremely education, and includes X-rays.

Federal Appeals Court Overturns Texas Sex-Toy Ban [Fox News]