In a blow to Texas dildo salesmen and a certain cohort of that state's female populace, the U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear an appellant's claim of federal unconstitutionality against a state law barring the manufacture, dissemination and marketing of devices shaped like sex organs. More here via The Washington Post. Left standing without further challenge is an appeals court ruling stipulating the law does not interfere with the right and ability of an individual to use a dildo in private.

Yeahbut, if making, disseminating and marketing them are illegal in Texas, what are you supposed to do? Smuggle one in across state lines in your Jimmy's glove compartment? Or maybe, men - just keep a lot of squid and sardines around. With a hat tip to the broader issues analysis by columnist and author Ryan Sager in his excellent new book, "The Elephant In The Room," anti-dildo marketing legislation smacks of hardcore Big Gummint southern conservatism versus the more sane libertarian brand practiced out West. Yet politically, I can see where the Supremes would pretty much have to leave matters of dildo dissemination to the states. As the WaPo notes:

Colorado, Kansas and Louisiana have held such laws unconstitutional, while Georgia, Mississippi and Texas have upheld them, said (plaintiff Ignacio Sergio) Acosta's lawyer in urging the Supreme Court to take the case.

I think this one's a natural for freewheelin' Texas gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman, who already clearly speaks to the pro-dildo constituency. And I say that in the nicest possible way.

TECHNORATI TAGS: U.S. SUPREME COURT, SEX TOYS, DILDOS, TEXAS, ACOSTA V. TEXAS, RYAN SAGER, ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, KINKY FRIEDMAN, GOVERNOR