The United States has inherited sodomy laws which constitutionally outlawed a variety of sexual acts that are deemed to be illegal, illicit, unlawful, unnatural and/or immoral from the colonial-era based laws in the 17th century. [1] While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many sodomy-related statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes, in some cases even including acts between married persons.
Through the mid to late 20th century, the gradual decriminalization of American sexuality law led to the elimination of anti-sodomy laws in most U.S. states. During this time, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of its sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. However, in 2003, the Supreme Court came to a new opinion and reversed the decision with Lawrence v. Texas , invalidating all sodomy laws in the remaining 14 states: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia.
Colin Talley argues that the sodomy statutes in colonial America in the 17th century were largely unenforced. The reason he argues is that male-male eroticism did not threaten the social structure or challenge the gendered division of labor or the patriarchal ownership of wealth. [2] There were gay men on General Washington's staff and among the leaders of the new republic, [3] even though in Virginia there was a maximum penalty of death for sodomy. In 1779, Thomas Jefferson tried to reduce the maximum punishment to castration. [4] It was rejected by the Virginia legislature. [5] Justice Anthony Kennedy authoring the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas stated that American laws targeting same-sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th century and also wrote that: [6]
Early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to prohibit nonprocreative sexual activity more generally, whether between men and women or men and men. Moreover, early sodomy laws seem not to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private. Instead, sodomy prosecutions often involved predatory acts against those who could not or did not consent: relations between men and minor girls or boys, between adults involving force, between adults implicating disparity in status, or between men and animals.
In 1950, New York enacted a new statute that divided the crime of sodomy into 3 degrees. First degree sodomy, with a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment, is defined as being done by force as in rape, or an act with an animal or a dead body. Second degree sodomy, with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, includes acts per os or per anum by a person over 21 years old with a person under 18 years old. Third degree sodomy, which is a misdemeanor with a maximum of 6 months in prison, is any act per os or per anum not amounting to first or second degree sodomy. With this new law, New York became the first state to reduce the crime of sodomy from a felony to a misdemeanor. A psychopathic offender law was included with this statute, but covered only sexual acts with minors or with the use of force or threats. In 1950, the Attorney General issued an opinion that the governing sodomy law covered both participants in an act of fellatio, the wording of the law being broader for oral sex than for anal. This opinion would be affirmed by a court interpretation more than a decade later.
In 1965, New York enacted a new statute repealing the crime of sodomy. Due to opposition to repealing the crime of sodomy, New York enacted a new statute at the same time that criminalized sodomy and reduced the maximum penalty from 6 months to 3 months, along with excluded married couples. It created the category of sexual misconduct, defined as engaging in sexual intercourse with another person without such person's consent and engaging in sexual conduct with an animal or a dead human body, which became a class A misdemeanor. Since the new statute repealing the crime of sodomy would only be effective on September 1, 1967, it never took effect.
Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment or hard labor. In that year, the Model Penal Code (MPC) — developed by the American Law Institute to promote uniformity among the states as they modernized their statutes — struck a compromise that removed consensual sodomy from its criminal code while making it a crime to solicit for sodomy. In 1962, Illinois adopted the recommendations of the Model Penal Code and thus became the first state to remove criminal penalties for consensual sodomy from its criminal code, [7] almost a decade before any other state. Over the years, many of the states that did not repeal their sodomy laws had enacted legislation reducing the penalty.
On March 12, 1971, the Idaho House of Representatives voted was 55-5 in favor of House Bill 161, which enacted the entire Model Penal Code (MPC) in Idaho, which included repealing common-law crimes and the "crime against nature" law. The bill passed the Idaho Senate on March 25, 1971 and the vote was 34-1. It was signed on April 9, 1971 by Governor Cecil Andrus. It took effect on January 1, 1972. On January 25, 1972, the Idaho House voted was 44-28 in favor of House Bill 101, which repealed the provisions of House Bill 161, which had adopted the MPC. The bill passed the Idaho Senate on March 27, 1972 and the vote was 30-5. It was signed on March 27, 1972 by Governor Cecil Andrus. It took effect on April 1, 1972. On March 22, 1972, the Idaho House voted was 49-15 in favor of House Bill 59, which restored a criminal code framework after the repeal of House Bill 161, which included reinstating common-law crimes and reintroduced the felony "crime against nature" law, which included a minimum five-year penalty with no maximum limit. The bill passed the Idaho Senate on February 1, 1972 and the vote was 34-1. It was signed on February 18, 1972 by Governor Cecil Andrus. It took effect on April 1, 1972.
At the time of the Lawrence decision in 2003, the penalty for violating a sodomy law varied widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction among those states retaining their sodomy laws. The harshest penalties were in Idaho, where a person convicted of sodomy could earn a life sentence. Michigan followed, with a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment while repeat offenders got life. [8] By 2002, 36 states had repealed their sodomy laws or their courts had overturned them. By the time of the 2003 Supreme Court decision, the laws in most states were no longer enforced or were enforced very selectively. The continued existence of these rarely enforced laws on the statute books, however, are often cited as justification for discrimination against gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals.
On June 26, 2003, the United States Supreme Court struck down in the Lawrence v. Texas decision the following jurisdictions (14 US states, 1 US territory and the Uniform Code of Military Justice) that statutes criminalized consensual sodomy: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri (rest of the state outside of the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District), North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas, United States Armed Forces, Utah and Virginia. On June 26, 2003, at the time of the Lawrence v. Texas decision, the following jurisdictions (20 US states, 1 US territory and the Uniform Code of Military Justice) had statutes criminalizing consensual sodomy: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas, United States Armed Forces, Utah and Virginia.
In 2005, Puerto Rico repealed its sodomy law, and in 2006, Missouri repealed its law against "homosexual conduct". In 2013, Montana removed "sexual contact or sexual intercourse between two persons of the same sex" from its definition of deviate sexual conduct, Virginia repealed its lewd and lascivious cohabitation statute, and sodomy was legalized in the US armed forces. In 2005, basing its decision on Lawrence, the Supreme Court of Virginia in Martin v. Ziherl invalidated § 18.2-344, the Virginia statute making fornication between unmarried persons a crime. [9]
On January 31, 2013, the Senate of Virginia passed a bill repealing § 18.2-345, the lewd and lascivious cohabitation statute enacted in 1877. On February 20, 2013, the Virginia House of Delegates passed the bill by a vote of 62 to 25 votes. On March 20, 2013, Governor Bob McDonnell signed the repeal of the lewd and lascivious cohabitation statute from the Code of Virginia. [10] On March 12, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit struck down § 18.2-361, the crimes against nature statute. On March 26, 2013, Attorney General of Virginia Ken Cuccinelli filed a petition to have the case reheard en banc , but the Court denied the request on April 10, 2013, with none of its 15 judges supporting the request. [11] On June 25, Cuccinelli filed a petition for certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision, which was rejected on October 7. [12] [13]
On February 7, 2014, the Virginia Senate voted 40-0 in favor of revising the crimes against nature statute to remove the ban on same-sex sexual relationships. On March 6, 2014, the Virginia House of Delegates voted 100-0 in favor of the bill. On April 7, the Governor submitted a slightly different version of the bill. It was enacted by the legislature on April 23, 2014. The law took effect upon passage. [14] On February 26, 2019, the Utah legislature voted to eliminate the crime of sodomy between consenting adults. [15] Governor Gary Herbert signed the bill into law on March 26, 2019. [16] [17]
On May 23, 2019, the Alabama House of Representatives passed, with 101 voting yea and 3 absent, Alabama Senate Bill 320, repealing the ban on "deviate sexual intercourse". On May 28, 2019, the Alabama State Senate passed Alabama Senate Bill 320, with 32 yea and 3 absent. The bill took effect on September 1, 2019. [18] [19] Alabama is the southernmost continental state to repeal their sodomy law as of 2023.
On March 18, 2020, the Maryland legislature voted to repeal its sodomy law. The bill became law in May 2020 without the signature of Governor Larry Hogan . [20] While the original text of the bill intended to repeal both the state's sodomy law and unnatural or perverted sexual practice law, amendments from the Maryland Senate urged to solely repeal the sodomy law. [21] On March 31, 2023, the Maryland legislature voted to repeal the unnatural and perverted sexual practice law. The bill was sent to Governor Wes Moore for signature. As he did not veto the bill within 30 days of passage, Moore allowed for the bill to become law without his signature, and the repeal took effect on October 1, 2023. [22]
In March 2022, Idaho repealed its sodomy law. [23] The repeal was a result of a lawsuit brought on in September 2020 by a plaintiff known as John Doe. John Doe alleged his constitutional rights were violated when he was forced to register as a sex offender upon moving to Idaho due to a conviction for "oral sex" 2 decades prior. [24] On May 17, 2023, the Minnesota legislature passed an Omnibus Judiciary and Public Safety Bill that included provisions repealing the state's sodomy, adultery, fornication, and abortion laws. On May 19, Governor Tim Walz signed the bill into law. It took effect the following day. [25]
As of October 1, 2023, the following jurisdictions (12 US states) had statutes criminalizing consensual sodomy: Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. These statutes penalties are not enforceable due to the binding precedent of Lawrence v. Texas, meaning consensual sodomy cannot be prosecuted. [26]
Below is a table of sodomy laws in the jurisdictions in United States of America and penalties as applicable to the binding precedent of Lawrence v. Texas . [27] [28] The most recent jurisdiction to repeal its sodomy ban is Maryland.
Jurisdiction | Date statute struck down | Date statute repealed | Covered by statute | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bestiality | Opposite-sex intercourse | Same-sex intercourse | ||||||||||
Anal sex | Married intercourse | Oral sex | Unmarried intercourse | Anal sex | Oral sex | |||||||
Alabama | ( Lawrence v. Texas ) | 20032019 | Ala. Code 1975 § 13A-6-220 - 221 | |||||||||
Alaska | N/A | (sodomy) 1971 | 1980A.S. 11.61.140 | |||||||||
American Samoa | 1979 | N/A | ||||||||||
Arizona | 2001 | A.R.S. § 13-1411 | ||||||||||
Arkansas | ( Jegley v. Picado ) [29] | 20011975 | 2005 A.C.A. § 5-14-122 | |||||||||
California | N/A | 1976 | Cal. Penal Code § 286.5 | |||||||||
Colorado | 1972 | C. R. S. A. § 18-9-202 | ||||||||||
Connecticut | 1971 | C. G. S. A. § 53a-73a | ||||||||||
Delaware | 1973 | 11 Del.C. § 775 | ||||||||||
District of Columbia | 1993 | D.C. Code § 22–1012.01. | ||||||||||
Florida | (Lawrence v. Texas; unnatural and lascivious act) 1971 | 2003(crimes against nature) | 1974West's F. S. A. 828.126 | West's F. S. A. 800.02 | ||||||||
Georgia | ( Powell v. Georgia ) | 1998N/A | O.C.G.A. § 16-6-6 | O.C.G.A. § 16-6-2 | ||||||||
Guam | N/A | 1978 | 9 GCA § 70.40. | |||||||||
Hawaii | 1973 | HRS § 711-1109.8 | ||||||||||
Idaho | (Lawrence v. Texas) | 20031971 | 2022 I.C. § 18-6602 | |||||||||
Illinois | N/A | 1962 | 720 I.L.C.S. 5/12-35 | |||||||||
Indiana | 1976 | I.C. 35-46-3-14 | ||||||||||
Iowa | 1978 | I.C.A. § 717C.1 | ||||||||||
Kansas | (Lawrence v. Texas) | 2003(opposite-sex intercourse) | 1969K.S.A. 21-5504 | K.S.A. 21-5504 | ||||||||
Kentucky | ( Kentucky v. Wasson ) | 1992(opposite-sex intercourse) | 1974KRS § 525.137 | KRS § 510.100 | ||||||||
Louisiana | (Lawrence v. Texas) | 2003N/A | LSA-R.S. 14:89.3 | LSA-R.S. 14:89 | ||||||||
Maine | N/A | 1976 | 17 M.R.S.A. § 1031 | |||||||||
Maryland | ( Williams v. Glendening ; anal sex) 1998 1990 | 1999(unnatural and perverted sexual practice) [32] 2020 | 2023MD Code, Criminal Law, § 10-606. | |||||||||
Massachusetts | ( Commonwealth v. Balthazar ) [34] | 1974N/A | M.G.L.A. 272 § 77 | M.G.L.A. 272 § 34 | ||||||||
Michigan | (Lawrence v. Texas) 1990 | 2003M.C.L.A. 750.158 | M.C.L.A. 750.158 | |||||||||
Minnesota | ( Doe v. Ventura ) | 20012023 | M.S.A. § 609.294 | |||||||||
Mississippi | (Lawrence v. Texas) | 2003N/A | Miss. Code Ann. § 97-29-59 | |||||||||
Missouri | (Lawrence v. Texas; rest of the state outside of the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District ) 1999 | 20032006 | V.A.M.S. 566.111 | |||||||||
Montana | ( Gryczan v. State ) [37] | 1997(same-sex intercourse) [38] [39] 1974 | 2013MCA 45-8-218 | |||||||||
Nebraska | N/A | 1978 | Neb. Rev. St. § 28-1010 | |||||||||
Nevada | 1993 | N. R. S. 201.455 | ||||||||||
New Hampshire | 1975 | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 644:8g | ||||||||||
New Jersey | 1978 | N. J. S. A. 4:22-17 | ||||||||||
New Mexico | 1975 | NMSA § 30-9A-3 | ||||||||||
New York | ( New York v. Onofre ; excluded the New York National Guard ) | 19802000 | McKinney's Penal Law § 130.20 | |||||||||
North Carolina | (Lawrence v. Texas) | 2003N/A | N.C.G.S.A. § 14-177 | |||||||||
Northern Mariana Islands | N/A | 1983 | N/A | |||||||||
North Dakota | 1973 | NDCC, § 12.1-20-12 | ||||||||||
Ohio | 1974 | R.C. § 959.21 | ||||||||||
Oklahoma | (Lawrence v. Texas; same-sex intercourse) 1988 | 2003N/A | 21 Okl. St. Ann. § 886 | |||||||||
Oregon | N/A | 1972 | O. R. S. § 167.333 | |||||||||
Pennsylvania | ( Commonwealth v. Bonadio ) [40] | 1980(unmarried opposite-sex intercourse and same-sex intercourse) 1972 | 199518 Pa.C.S.A. § 3129 | |||||||||
Puerto Rico | (Lawrence v. Texas) | 2003(opposite-sex anal sex and same-sex anal and oral sex) 1974 | 2006P.R. Laws tit. 33, § 4773 | |||||||||
Rhode Island | N/A | 1998 | Gen.Laws 1956, § 11-10-1 | |||||||||
South Carolina | (Lawrence v. Texas) | 2003N/A | Code 1976 § 16-15-120 | Code 1976 § 16-15-120 | ||||||||
South Dakota | N/A | 1977 | SDCL § 22-22-42 | |||||||||
Tennessee | ( Campbell v. Sundquist ) | 1996(same-sex intercourse) [41] 1989 | 1996T. C. A. § 39-14-214 | |||||||||
Texas | (Lawrence v. Texas) 1970 | 2003(opposite-sex anal and oral sex [43] ) | 1974V. T. C. A., Penal Code § 21.09 | V. T. C. A., Penal Code § 21.06 | ||||||||
United States Armed Forces | (Lawrence v. Texas) | 2003(sodomy) | 201310 U.S. Code § 934 - Art. 134. | |||||||||
United States of America | N/A | |||||||||||
Utah | (Lawrence v. Texas) | 20031971 | 2019 U.C.A. 1953 § 76-9-301.8 | |||||||||
Vermont | N/A | 1977 | 13 V.S.A. § 352 | |||||||||
Virgin Islands of the United States | 1985 | 14 V.I.C. § 2062 | ||||||||||
Virginia | (Lawrence v. Texas) | 2003(anal and oral sex) [44] 2013 | 2014Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-361 | |||||||||
Washington | N/A | 1976 | West's RCWA 16.52.205 | |||||||||
West Virginia | 1976 | N/A | ||||||||||
Wisconsin | 1983 | W.S.A. 944.18 | ||||||||||
Wyoming | 1977 | W.S.1977 § 6-4-601 |
Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the District of Columbia and the U.S. Armed Forces.
In 1801, the 6th United States Congress enacted the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801, a law that continued all criminal laws of Maryland and Virginia, with those of Maryland applying to the portion of the District ceded from Maryland and those of Virginia applying to the portion ceded from Virginia. As a result, in the Maryland-ceded portion, sodomy was punishable with up to seven years' imprisonment for free persons and with the death penalty for enslaved persons, whereas in the Virginia-ceded portion it was punishable between one and ten years' imprisonment for free persons and with the death penalty for enslaved persons. Maryland repealed the death penalty for slaves in 1809 and modified the penalty for all persons to match Virginia's terms of imprisonment. In 1847, the Virginia-ceded portion was given back to Virginia, thus only the Maryland law had effect in the district. [45] In 1871, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, a law that reorganized the district government and granted it home rule. All existing laws were retained unless and until expressly altered by the new city council. Direct rule was reinstated in 1874. The criminal status of sodomy became ambiguous until 1901, when Congress passed legislation recognizing common law crimes, punishable with up to five years' imprisonment or a fine of $1,000. [45]
In 1935, Congress made it a crime in the district to solicit a person "for the purpose of prostitution, or any other immoral or lewd purpose". In 1948, Congress enacted the first law specific to sodomy in the district, which established a penalty of up to ten years in prison or a fine of up to $1,000, regardless of sexuality. Oral sex was included in the law's application. Also included with this law was a psychopathic offender law and a law "to provide for the treatment of sexual psychopaths". [45] The metropolitan police department eventually had several officers whose sole job was to "check on homosexuals". Multiple court cases dealt with the issue in the following years. Many of the published sodomy and solicitation cases during the 1950s and 1960s reveal clear entrapment policies by the local police, some of which were disallowed by reviewing courts. In 1972, settling the case of Schaefers et al. v. Wilson, the D.C. government announced its intention not to prosecute anyone for private, consensual adult sodomy, an action disputed by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. The action came as part of a stipulation agreement in a court challenge to the sodomy law brought by four gay men. [45]
In 1973, Congress again granted the district home rule through the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. It provided for a new city council that could pass its own laws. However laws regarding certain topics, such as changes to the criminal code, were restricted until 1977. All laws passed by the D.C. government are subject to a mandatory 30-day "congressional review" by Congress. If they are not blocked, then they become law. [46] In 1981, the D.C. government enacted a law that repealed the sodomy law, as well as other consensual acts, and made the sexual assault laws gender neutral. However, the Congress overturned the new law. [47] A successful legislative repeal of the law followed in 1993. This time, Congress did not interfere. [48] [45] In 1995, all references to sodomy were completely removed from the criminal code, and in 2004, the D.C. government repealed an outdated law against fornication. [49]
Although the U.S. military discharged soldiers for homosexual acts throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century, U.S. military law did not expressly prohibit homosexuality or homosexual conduct until February 4, 1921. [50]
On March 1, 1917, the Articles of War of 1916 were implemented. This included a revision of the Articles of War of 1806, the new regulations detail statutes governing U.S. military discipline and justice. Under the category Miscellaneous Crimes and Offences, Article 93 states that any person subject to military law who commits "assault with intent to commit sodomy" shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. [51]
On June 4, 1920, Congress modified Article 93 of the Articles of War of 1916. It was changed to make the act of sodomy itself a crime, separate from the offense of assault with intent to commit sodomy. [51] It went into effect on February 4, 1921. [52]
On May 5, 1950, the Uniform Code of Military Justice was passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on May 31, 1951. Article 125 forbids sodomy among all military personnel, defining it as "any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offence." [51]
As for the U.S. Armed Forces, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has ruled that the Lawrence v. Texas decision applies to Article 125, severely narrowing the previous ban on sodomy. In both United States v. Stirewalt and United States v. Marcum , the court ruled that the "conduct [consensual sodomy] falls within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court," [53] but went on to say that despite the application of Lawrence to the military, Article 125 can still be upheld in cases where there are "factors unique to the military environment" that would place the conduct "outside any protected liberty interest recognized in Lawrence." [54] Examples of such factors include rape, fraternization, public sexual behavior, or any other factors that would adversely affect good order and discipline. Convictions for consensual sodomy have been overturned in military courts under Lawrence in both United States v. Meno [55] and United States v. Bullock. [56]
On December 26, 2013, President Barack Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, which repealed the Article 125 ban on consensual sodomy. [57]
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that U.S. state laws criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults are unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a "right to privacy" that earlier cases had found the U.S. Constitution provides, even though it is not explicitly enumerated. It based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with any or all forms of private sexual activities between consenting adults.
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults, in this case with respect to homosexual sodomy, though the law did not differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual sodomy. It was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), though the statute had already been struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1998.
Martin v. Ziherl, 607 S.E.2d 367, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Virginia holding that the Virginia criminal law against fornication was unconstitutional. The court's decision followed the 2003 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which established the constitutionally-protected right of adults to engage in private, consensual sex.
Gross indecency is a crime in some parts of the English-speaking world, originally used to criminalize sexual activity between men that fell short of sodomy, which required penetration. The term was first used in British law in a statute of the British Parliament in 1885 and was carried forward in other statutes throughout the British Empire. The offence was never actually defined in any of the statutes which used it, which left the scope of the offence to be defined by court decisions.
The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the United States are among the most advanced in the world, with public opinion and jurisprudence changing significantly since the late 1980s.
The crime against nature or unnatural act has historically been a legal term in English-speaking states identifying forms of sexual behavior not considered natural or decent and are legally punishable offenses. Sexual practices that have historically been considered to be "crimes against nature" include masturbation, sodomy and bestiality.
Deviant sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse is, in some U.S. states, a legal term for "any act of sexual gratification involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another, anus to mouth or involving invasion of the anus or vagina of one person by a foreign object manipulated by another person".
A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but are typically understood and defined by many courts and jurisdictions to include any or all forms of sexual acts that are illegal, illicit, unlawful, unnatural and immoral. Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex, manual sex, and bestiality. In practice, sodomy laws have rarely been enforced to target against sexual activities between individuals of the opposite sex, and have mostly been used to target against sexual activities between individuals of the same sex.
In the United States, each state and territory sets the age of consent either by statute or the common law applies, and there are several federal statutes related to protecting minors from sexual predators. Depending on the jurisdiction, the legal age of consent is between 16 and 18. In some places, civil and criminal laws within the same state conflict with each other.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Louisiana may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Louisiana as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Same-sex marriage has been recognized in the state since June 2015 as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. New Orleans, the state's largest city, is regarded as a hotspot for the LGBTQ community.
Vermont is seen as one of the most liberal states in the U.S. in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights, with most progress in jurisprudence having occurred in the late 20th and the early 21st centuries. Vermont was one of 37 U.S. states, along with the District of Columbia, that issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples prior to the landmark Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges, establishing equal marriage rights for same-sex couples nationwide.
The establishment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights in the U.S. state of Connecticut is a recent phenomenon, with most advances in LGBT rights taking place in the late 20th century and early 21st century. Connecticut was the second U.S. state to enact two major pieces of pro-LGBT legislation; the repeal of the sodomy law in 1971 and the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2008. State law bans unfair discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations, and both conversion therapy and the gay panic defense are outlawed in the state.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Maryland enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. The state's anti-sodomy provisions were ruled unconstitutional in 1999 and repealed by the state's legislature in 2023. Maryland has had statewide protections against discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation since 2001 and gender identity since 2014. Legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland was approved by voters on November 6, 2012 and went into effect on January 1, 2013. Today, the state of Maryland is regarded as one of the most LGBTQ-friendly states in the country, with a 2022 Public Religion Research Institute showing that 87% of Marylanders support LGBTQ anti-discrimination laws. Additionally, a ban on conversion therapy on minors became effective on October 1, 2018. In October 2020, Montgomery County passed unanimously an ordinance that implemented an LGBTIQ+ bill of rights.
In the District of Columbia, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) people enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. Along with the rest of the country, the District of Columbia recognizes and allows same-sex marriages. The percentage of same-sex households in the District of Columbia in 2008 was at 1.8%, the highest in the nation. This number had grown to 4.2% by early 2015.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Virginia enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. LGBT rights in the state are a relatively recent occurrence; with most improvements in LGBT rights occurring in the 2000s and 2010s. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Virginia since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Bostic v. Rainey. Effective July 1, 2020, there is a state-wide law protecting LGBT persons from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit. The state's hate crime laws also now explicitly include both sexual orientation and gender identity.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Idaho face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Idaho, and same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since October 2014. State statutes do not address discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law. A number of cities and counties provide further protections, namely in housing and public accommodations. A 2019 Public Religion Research Institute opinion poll showed that 71% of Idahoans supported anti-discrimination legislation protecting LGBTQ people, and a 2016 survey by the same pollster found majority support for same-sex marriage.
The criminal transmission of HIV in the United States varies among jurisdictions. More than thirty of the fifty U.S. states have prosecuted HIV-positive individuals for exposing another person to HIV. State laws criminalize different behaviors and assign different penalties. While pinpointing who infected whom is scientifically impossible, a person diagnosed with HIV who is accused of infecting another while engaging in sexual intercourse is, in many jurisdictions, automatically committing a crime. A person donating HIV-infected organs, tissues, and blood can be prosecuted for transmitting the virus. Spitting or transmitting HIV-infected bodily fluids is a criminal offense in some states, particularly if the target is a prison guard. Some states treat the transmission of HIV, depending upon a variety of factors, as a felony and others as a misdemeanor.
Adultery laws are the laws in various countries that deal with extramarital sex. Historically, many cultures considered adultery a very serious crime, some subject to severe punishment, especially in the case of extramarital sex involving a married woman and a man other than her husband, with penalties including capital punishment, mutilation, or torture. Such punishments have gradually fallen into disfavor, especially in Western countries from the 19th century. In countries where adultery is still a criminal offense, punishments range from fines to caning and even capital punishment. Since the 20th century, criminal laws against adultery have become controversial, with most Western countries repealing them.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)