Talk:Sodomy laws in the United States

Removed Word Pervasive

I've listed the following definition from Reverso as support for my edit substituting the word "universal" for "pervasive," as the word pervasive is really not a very neutral word. A law that was universal less than fifty years ago can hardly be so uncontroversially bad as to permit us to use such a word in a encyclopedia article.

pervasive

Something, especially something bad, that is pervasive is present or felt throughout a place or thing.

Untitled

Any details on how sodomy was defined according to these Laws prior to 2003? i.e: "Idaho (all sexes; felony punishable by imprisonment for 5 years to life)". So, to which of anal/oral/BDSM/other sexual practices... for married/unmarried couples was this applicable?

There appear to be some unclear entries in the "Laws Prior to 2003" table. Several states (including Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Utah, and Virginia) are listed as having had laws struck down in 2003, and cite the Lawrence vs Texas case as the reason for the laws being struck down. However, each of them show a full set of green check marks under to all of the covered activities. This would imply that all the activities were already permitted prior to the outcome of the 2003 Lawrence decision. What was the real situation in each of these states prior to 2003?24.222.2.222 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"Gay Sex"?

There is a contradiction in the text -- in the beginning it says "gay sex" but then lists states where the laws apply to "all sexes". It seems therefore, that gay sex (which itself is not too clear -- was that male-male sex only, as in other countries, or also female-female sex?) was not the only target of those laws. -- John Smythe 02:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It says they were INTENDED to counter gay sex. In that intent, they defined the acts broadly enough to include heterosexual couples. Removing tag. Kuronue | Talk 21:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any supportive documentation or are we just making assumption. There has been and still are some countries where male-male sex is illegal but female-female sex is legal or a much lesser crime.Mantion (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The only three anti-gay law(s):

Only Texas (Just $500 Max), Oklahoma (10 Years Max) and Kansas (6 months Max) same-sex only left in the statutes (Not enforced).

Missouri (2006) and Puerto Rico (2005) / (Oral sex only) repealed these anti-same-sex law(s) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.183.121.151 (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Deleting garbled paragraph on Michigan law

Michigan In Michigan Organization for Human Rights v. Kelley 1990, a trial court ruled Michigan’s sodomy law unconstitutional under the state constitution. The ruling was not petition that ruling so it is consideration the choice is necessary on all state prosecutors. On the other hand, because the case subsists brought on behalf of select people and nplea, present status of the law is in uncertainty [4] [5]. (all sexes; felony punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment - Repeat offenders get life); statute was struck down by Wayne County judge but status was unclear.

The links are both dead, too. I'm not an expert on the law in Michigan, but I'm adding a link to a newspaper story which definitively shows that the Michigan law was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.Textorus (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Subject

It seems odd to me that there is no actual discussion of Sodomy laws in the United States here, only a celebration that they have been repealed. Is there someone out there with some knowldege of the purported subject of this article who can write something about it? CsikosLo (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusion About Lawrence v. Texas

My understanding of the 2003 Supreme Court decision (and I have read it cover to cover) is that it invalidated the Texas law precisely because it treated gay people differently from heterosexuals. Therefore, it did not invalidate sodomy laws that are egalitarian with respect to that divide. If heterosexual and homosexual conduct is equally regulated, that Supreme Court decision doesn't affect the law. If that's right, then this entry is hopelessly misinformed and misleading, even outright wrong in several places. Parableman (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Legislative repeal

This entry uses the phrase "legislative repeal" to denote a law that has been repealed. But repeal requires the passage of a new law, which requires action by a legislature 'and a governor or, in rare instance, by a legislature alone overriding a governor's veto. Why don't we just say "repeal" or "repealed by statute"? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What does the big red X mean?

Should be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.74.184 (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What else did these laws prohibit?

While the article provides a good summary of what these laws prohibited in terms of oral and anal sex, sometimes the same laws also banned other practices like bestiality. It would be useful to know which state or federal laws did (or do) this, because it illustrates how governments associated homosexuality with such other things. Also, I suspect these other parts of the laws were kept intact, so some sodomy laws weren't so much repealed as they were modified, but they probably aren't called sodomy laws now. I hope someone has this information to add. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. I've listed the laws I found regarding sexuality in Florida. It is more comprehensive than just "sodomy" because the word is not used in the law -- so I tried to find anything related to sex. Sliceofmiami (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Florida sexual laws

Here are the Florida laws associated with sexual behavior. The word "sodomy" does not exist in the literature, so a more comprehensive search of related to all sexual behavior was performed (hardly the correct word to use in this context). Where the "sections" are way too long to list, a reference link to the entire chapter is included.

• CHAPTER 794 SEXUAL BATTERY

• CHAPTER 796 PROSTITUTION

• CHAPTER 797 ABORTION

• CHAPTER 798 ADULTERY; COHABITATION

"798.01 Living in open adultery.—Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section."

"798.02 Lewd and lascivious behavior.—If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."

• CHAPTER 800 LEWDNESS; INDECENT EXPOSURE

"800.02 Unnatural and lascivious act.—A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A mother’s breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section."

"800.03 Exposure of sexual organs.—It is unlawful to expose or exhibit one’s sexual organs in public or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises, in a vulgar or indecent manner, or to be naked in public except in any place provided or set apart for that purpose. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A mother’s breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section."

"800.04 Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age."

"800.05 Forfeiture of retirement benefits for a felony defined in s. 800.04"

"800.09 Lewd or lascivious exhibition in the presence of an employee."

• CHAPTER 823 PUBLIC NUISANCES

"823.13 Places where obscene materials are illegally kept, sold, or used declared a public nuisance"

• CHAPTER 825 ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION OF ELDERLY PERSONS AND DISABLED ADULTS

"825.1025 Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of an elderly person or disabled person"

• CHAPTER 826 BIGAMY; INCEST

"826.01 Bigamy; punishment.—Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries another person shall, except in the cases mentioned in s. 826.02, be guilty of a felony of the third degree"

"826.03 Knowingly marrying husband or wife of another.—Whoever knowingly marries the husband or wife of another person, knowing him or her to be the spouse of another person, shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree"

"826.04 Incest.—Whoever knowingly marries or has sexual intercourse with a person to whom he or she is related by lineal consanguinity, or a brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece, commits incest, which constitutes a felony of the third degree"

• CHAPTER 827 ABUSE OF CHILDREN

"827.071 Sexual performance by a child"

• CHAPTER 847 OBSCENITY

• CHAPTER 872 OFFENSES CONCERNING DEAD BODIES AND GRAVES

"872.06 Abuse of a dead human body; penalty. (1) As used in this section, the term “sexual abuse” means: (a) Anal or vaginal penetration of a dead human body by the sexual organ of a person or by any other object; (b) Contact or union of the penis, vagina, or anus of a person with the mouth, penis, vagina, or anus of a dead human body; or (c) Contact or union of a person’s mouth with the penis, vagina, or anus of a dead human body. (2) A person who mutilates, commits sexual abuse upon, or otherwise grossly abuses a dead human body commits a felony of the second degree"

Sliceofmiami (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Jefferson

It mentions castration as the punishment for sodemy, polygamy and what not.. But it should be noted that Jefferson felt that females who engaged in such activities should be punished with "by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least." Should that be included?Mantion (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sodomy laws in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100710013622/http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/pabonadio.html to http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/pabonadio.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061020161253/http://www.ilga.org:80/statehomophobia/Legal%20Wrap%20Up%20Survey%20July%202006.pdf to http://www.ilga.org/statehomophobia/Legal%20Wrap%20Up%20Survey%20July%202006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

graphic

This graphic was in the text but unless I'm missing something I don't see how it can possibly be accurate as all sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional in 2003.

Sodomy laws in the United States

  No statute banning sodomy

  Statute bans zoophilia

  Statute bans same-sex sodomy

  Statute bans sodomy

Bangabandhu (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It is explained in the article. Many states still are holding old statues banning sodomy - regardless decisions of the Supreme Court and regardles of the USA constitution. They are still written there despite being invalid. So it is really nice to have a graphic which shows that US law system is more complex. Especially for someone from the outside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.104.2 (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Some states are conforming some are still not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.104.2 (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sodomy laws in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018163941/http://www.nola.com/printer/printer.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews-9%2F111466958966450.xml to http://www.nola.com/printer/printer.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews-9%2F111466958966450.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012085225/http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2005/040636-1.htm to http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2005/040636-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131216194515/http://www.sodomy.org/laws/ to http://www.sodomy.org/laws/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928031636/http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/Hotspots/GayGuide-action-Region-regionid-23.html to http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/Hotspots/GayGuide-action-Region-regionid-23.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Help verifying edit about revision of Louisiana sodomy law

I'm soliciting some help in trying to establish the validity of this set of edits on 5 August 2013, referencing an article in the Times-Picayune titled "Sodomy law revisions are upheld on appeal", thus implying there was a revision to the Louisiana sodomy law (presumably Louisiana R.S. 14:89), the validity of the revision to the law purportedly having been challenged and upheld.

Neither archive.org nor archive.is has a usable copy of the article, and I have been unsuccessful at locating this article or some other article about a change to the law within the apparent time frame (e.g. 2003-2005). The "best" I have found is a change to R.S. 14:89 made in 2010.

I'd like somebody else to look this over before we consider removing it. Perhaps there's a way to figure out all the different revisions that have been made to this statute in the relevant time frame and hopefully identify either an article supporting this or the specific court case it is referencing.

As far as I understand, the Louisiana law has never been modified to comply with Lawrence v Texas, a bill to do so having failed to pass in 2014. Fabrickator (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Maryland repeal

A bill in Maryland has passed into law to repeal the ban. It is effective October 1st, 2020. Is it the policy to wait for the bill to be effective before making the necessary edits on this page?

Agpuh2 (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Agpuh2:: I think it's desirable to include this now. The issue is that our language makes it awkward to create text which is appropriate for both before and after the fact, and we'd prefer to be able to make one edit which works both before and after. This calls for the use of the delayed template. Here's an example:

The first day of 2020 is in the past.

The last day of 2020 is in the past.

Of course, you would use something like this (click on "edit" to see the template usage):

Maryland bill HB81 repealed the prohibition on sodomy on October 1, 2020.

Congratulations! You are now an advanced template user. Fabrickator (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: in the spirit of making the changes in one edit, how would I change the map (the same one shown earlier on this Talk page) to reflect this update?

Agpuh2 (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Agpuh2: The map is its own entity (i.e. File:Unconstitutional_sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States.svg) and would be updated independently of the article page. Insofar as having the map automagically update on a specific date, I don't think there's any sort of "template" to accomplish that.

Note that the map is stored as an svg file. There are tools available to edit svg files, but if all you're doing is changing the "fill" color of one state, you can cleverly decipher the coding and just replace the existing "fill" value for that state with the appropriate "fill" value.. At least, that's what I did to modify a very similar map. Fabrickator (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Unconstitutional sodomy laws in the United States.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sodomy laws in the United States.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This really needs a friendlier title.

Legality of same-sex sexual activity

Decriminalization of same-sex sexual intercourse in the United States

Both of the above would make more sense wouldn't they? As not all of same sex relationships are related to the articles antiquated laws. That way this page could be merged with a more apt title, and put in the "historical" part, as in past tense. 49.185.177.195 (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Minnesota Legality

the 2001 Hennepin County decision found the Minnesota sodomy law 609.293 to be unconstitutional as applied to private, noncommercial acts by consenting adults in Doe v. Ventura.

yet this page shows that married and unmarried couples as covered under the law, when this is not the case. 2600:1014:B04F:5B6A:488:4A69:3A96:E2A8 (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest (since it seems to be moot given that it's been deemed unconstitutional), can someone please point to the basis for this claim that it does not apply to both married and unmarried couples? Fabrickator (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)