Home  ›  Why Is Is Still Illegal Again

Why Is Is Still Illegal Again

Written By Sunday, May 15, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Attribute of U.s. law

Decriminalization of same-sex activity sexual intercourse in the The states

 1962

 1971

 1972

 1973

 1974

 1975

 1976

 1977

 1978

 1979

 1980

 1983

 1985

 1992

 1993

 1996

 1997

 1998

 1999

 2001

 2003

List of state statutes banning sodomy (all of which, aside from the bestiality laws, were made moot by Lawrence v. Texas, 2003)

 No statute banning sodomy

 Statute bans bestiality

 Statute bans aforementioned-sex sodomy

 Statute bans sodomy

Sodomy laws in the United states of america, which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, were inherited from colonial laws in the 17th century.[1] While they oftentimes targeted sexual acts between persons of the aforementioned sex activity, many 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 20th century, the gradual liberalization of American sexuality led to the emptying of sodomy laws in most states. During this time, the Supreme Courtroom upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. Nevertheless, in 2003, the Supreme Court reversed the conclusion with Lawrence five. Texas, invalidating sodomy laws in the remaining xiv states mapped as of Apr 2022 (Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Minnesota, Maryland, Massachusetts, Due north Carolina, Oklahoma, Southward Carolina and Texas).

History [edit]

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 construction or claiming the gendered division of labor or the patriarchal ownership of wealth.[2] There were gay men on General Washington'south staff and among the leaders of the new republic,[3] even though in Virginia there was a maximum penalisation of expiry for sodomy. In 1779, Thomas Jefferson tried to reduce the maximum punishment to castration.[4] Information technology was rejected by the Virginia legislature.[5]

Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or difficult labor. In that twelvemonth, the Model Penal Code (MPC) — developed by the American Law Institute to promote uniformity amidst united states as they modernized their statutes — struck a compromise that removed consensual sodomy from its criminal lawmaking while making it a criminal offense to solicit for sodomy. In 1962 Illinois adopted the recommendations of the Model Penal Code and thus became the kickoff state to remove criminal penalties for consensual sodomy from its criminal code,[6] nearly a decade before any other state. Over the years, many of usa that did not repeal their sodomy laws had enacted legislation reducing the penalty. At the time of the Lawrence decision in 2003, the penalization for violating a sodomy law varied very 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.[ citation needed ]

By 2002, 36 states had repealed their sodomy laws or their courts had overturned them. Past the time of the 2003 Supreme Court decision, the laws in about 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 bigotry against gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals.

On June 26, 2003, the U.Southward. Supreme Courtroom in a half dozen–3 conclusion in Lawrence v. Texas struck downward the Texas same-sex sodomy constabulary, ruling that this private sexual comport is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United states Constitution. This decision invalidated all state sodomy laws insofar as they applied to noncommercial acquit in private betwixt consenting civilians and reversed the Courtroom'due south 1986 ruling in Bowers 5. Hardwick that upheld Georgia's sodomy law.

Before that 2003 ruling, 27 states, the Commune of Columbia, and 4 territories had repealed their sodomy laws by legislative activeness; 9 states had had them overturned or invalidated by state courtroom activeness; iv states still had aforementioned-sex sodomy laws; and x states, Puerto Rico, and the U.South. armed forces had anti-sodomy laws applying to all regardless of sex or gender. In 2005, Puerto Rico repealed its sodomy police force, 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 services.

In 2005, basing its decision on Lawrence, the Supreme Court of Virginia in Martin v. Ziherl invalidated § eighteen.2-344, the Virginia statute making fornication betwixt unmarried persons a law-breaking.[7]

Louisiana's statutes still include "unnatural carnal copulation by a man beingness with another of the same sex" in their definition of "crimes against nature", punishable (in theory) by a fine of up to $2,000 or a prison judgement of upward to 5 years, with or without hard labor;[8] withal, this section was further mooted past the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 2005 in light of the Lawrence decision.[9]

In State 5. Whiteley (2005), the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that the criminal offence against nature statute, North.C. G.S. § 14-177,[ten] is not unconstitutional on its face because it may properly be used to criminalize sexual conduct involving minors, non-consensual or coercive acquit, public conduct, and prostitution.[11]

On January 31, 2013, the Senate of Virginia passed a pecker repealing § xviii.2-345, the lewd and lascivious cohabitation statute enacted in 1877. On February 20, 2013, the Virginia Business firm of Delegates passed the neb 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.[12]

On March 12, 2013, a three-gauge console of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit struck down § eighteen.2-361, the crimes confronting nature statute. On March 26, 2013, Attorney General of Virginia Ken Cuccinelli filed a petition to have the instance reheard en banc, but the Court denied the asking on April 10, 2013, with none of its xv judges supporting the asking.[13] On June 25, Cuccinelli filed a petition for certiorari request the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals conclusion, which was rejected on October 7.[xiv] [xv]

On February vii, 2014, the Virginia Senate voted 40-0 in favor of revising the crimes confronting nature statue to remove the ban on same-sex sexual relationships. On March half dozen, 2014, the Virginia Business firm of Delegates voted 100-0 in favor of the bill. On Apr 7, the Governor submitted slightly different version of the bill. Information technology was enacted by the Legislature on April 23, 2014. The law took result upon passage.[16]

In Apr 2014, a proposed Louisiana bill sought to revise the land'south offense against nature law, maintaining the existing prohibition confronting sodomy during the commission of rape and child sex abuse, and against sex with animals, but removing the unconstitutional prohibition against sexual practice betwixt consenting adults. The bill was defeated on Apr xv, 2014 past a vote of 66 to 27.[17]

Utah voted to revise its sodomy laws to include but forcible sodomy and sodomy on children rather than any sexual relations between consenting adults on February 26, 2019.[xviii] Governor Gary Herbert signed the beak into police on March 26, 2019.[19] [20]

On May 23, 2019, the Alabama House of Representatives passed, with 101 voting yea and 3 absent-minded, Alabama Senate Bill 320, which repeals 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 neb took event on September 1, 2019.[21] [22]

Maryland voted to repeal its sodomy police force on March 18, 2020. The bill became law in May 2020 without the signature of Governor Larry Hogan.[23] While the original text of the bill intended to repeal both the state's sodomy police force and unnatural or perverted sexual practice police, amendments from the Maryland Senate urged to solely repeal the sodomy police.[24]

Idaho repealed its sodomy police in March, 2022.[25]

As of Apr i, 2022, xv states either have not yet formally repealed their laws against sexual activity amongst consenting adults or accept not revised them to accurately reflect their truthful scope in the aftermath of Lawrence v. Texas. Often, the sodomy law was drafted to also comprehend other forms of sexual conduct such every bit bestiality, and no attempt has subsequently succeeded in separating them. Eleven states' statutes purport to ban all forms of sodomy, some including oral intercourse, regardless of the participants' genders: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Due south Carolina. Four states specifically target their statutes at same-sex activity relations only: Kansas,[26] [27] Kentucky, Tennessee, and Texas.

  • Florida (Fld. Stat. 800.02.)
  • Georgia (O.C.Thousand.A. § sixteen-6-2)
  • Kansas (Kan. Stat. 21-3505.)
  • Kentucky (KY Rev Stat § 510.100.)
  • Louisiana (R.S. 14:89.)
  • Maryland (Md. Code Ann., Criminal Law Article, § three-322.)
  • Massachusetts (MGL Ch. 272, § 34.) (MGL Ch. 272, § 35.)
  • Michigan (MCL § 750.158.) (MCL § 750.338.) (MCL § 750.338a.) (MCL § 750.338b.)
  • Minnesota (Minn. Stat. 609.293.)
  • Mississippi (Miss. Code § 97-29-59.)
  • Due north Carolina (G.S. § 14-177.)
  • Oklahoma (§21-886.)
  • South Carolina (S.C. Code § 16-fifteen-60.)
  • Texas (Tx. Penal Lawmaking § 21.06.)

Federal law [edit]

Sodomy laws in the U.s. were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the Commune of Columbia and the U.Southward. Military.

Commune of Columbia [edit]

In 1801, Congress enacted the Commune of Columbia Organic Deed of 1801 that continued all criminal laws of Maryland and Virginia in the now formally structured District, with those of Maryland applying to that portion of the District ceded from Maryland, and those of Virginia applying to that portion ceded from Virginia. At the fourth dimension, Maryland had a sodomy law applicative just to gratuitous males with a penalization of "labour for any time, in their discretion, not exceeding 7 years for the aforementioned crime, on the public roads of the said county, or in making, repairing or cleaning the streets or bason [sic] of Baltimore-town" and the death penalisation for slaves committing sodomy, while Virginia had a penalty of ane–10 years for gratis persons committing sodomy, merely had the death penalisation for slaves committing sodomy. The law went into effect on Feb 27, 1801.[28]

In 1831, Congress established penalties in the District of Columbia for a number of crimes, but not for sodomy. Information technology specified that "every other felony, misdemeanor, or offence not provided for by this act, may and shall be punished equally heretofore[.]" At the fourth dimension, Maryland and Virginia had a penalty of 1–x years for committing sodomy. It went into effect on March 2, 1831.[28]

In 1892, Congress passed a constabulary for the District of Columbia that states that "for the preservation of the public peace and the protection of belongings inside the District of Columbia." Labeled in the police force as vagrants were "all public prostitutes, and all such persons who lead a notoriously lewd or lascivious course of life[.]" All offenders had to post bail of upwards to $200 for good beliefs for a catamenia of 6 months. The police force went into outcome on July 29, 1892.[28]

In 1898, Congress deleted the word "notoriously" from the provision concerning a lewd or lascivious course of life, thereby allowing prosecution of those without notoriety. The bond for expert behavior was raised to $500, and the law was made clearly gender-neutral. The law went into effect on July 8, 1898.[28]

In 1901, Congress adopting a new lawmaking for the District of Columbia that expressly recognized common-law crimes, with a punishment for them of upwards to five years and/or a $1,000 fine. The law went into consequence on March 3, 1901.[28]

In 1935, Congress passed a police force for the Commune of Columbia that made information technology a offense for "whatsoever person to invite, entice, persuade, or to address for the purpose of inviting, enticing, or persuading whatever person or persons...to accompany, to get with, to follow him or her to his or her residence, or to whatsoever other house or building, inclosure, or other identify, for the purpose of prostitution, or whatever other immoral or lewd purpose." It imposed a fine of up to $100, up to 90 days in jail, and courts were permitted to "impose conditions" on anyone convicted under this law, including "medical and mental examination, diagnosis and treatment by proper public health and welfare authorities, and such other terms and conditions as the court may deem best for the protection of the community and the penalty, control, and rehabilitation of the defendant." The law went into upshot on August 14, 1935.[28]

In 1941, Congress enacted a new solicitation law for the District of Columbia that labeled a "vagrant" any person who "engages in or commits acts of fornication or perversion for rent." The law went into consequence on Dec 17, 1941.[28]

In 1948, Congress enacted the first sodomy constabulary in the District of Columbia, which established a penalty of up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $1,000 for sodomy. Besides included with this sodomy law was a psychopathic offender law and a law "to provide for the treatment of sexual psychopaths in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes." The law went into effect on June 9, 1948.[28]

In 1953, Congress changed the solicitation police in the District of Columbia and so that the jail term of up to xc days was retained, but the maximum fine was raised to $250, and the reference to the power of judges to "impose weather" on the defendant was removed. The constabulary went into outcome on June 29, 1953.[28]

In 1981, subsequently the District of Columbia regained home dominion from Congress, it enacted a police that repealed the sodomy constabulary, as well as other consensual acts, and fabricated the sexual assault laws gender-neutral. However, the U.Southward. House exercised the ability that it retained to veto laws passed by the District of Columbia Council. On Oct i, 1981, the Firm voted 281-119 to disallow the new law.[29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] In 1983, ane of the Business firm vetoes by Congress was alleged unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the example of Clearing and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, just the police force was repealed by an act of Congress in a revision to the dwelling-rule constabulary required by the Supreme Courtroom decision.[28]

Repeal [edit]

In 1993, the District of Columbia passed a police force repealing the sodomy police force, merely this time Congress did non interfere and allowed the police to go into issue.[28]

Armed services [edit]

Although the U.S. military discharged soldiers for homosexual acts throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century, U.Due south. military law did non expressly prohibit homosexuality or homosexual carry until Feb 4, 1921.[35]

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 item statutes governing U.S. armed forces bailiwick and justice. Under the category Miscellaneous Crimes and Offences, Article 93 states that any person subject to armed services law who commits "assault with intent to commit sodomy" shall be punished every bit a courtroom-martial may direct.[36]

On June four, 1920, Congress modified Article 93 of the Articles of War of 1916. It was changed to make the act of sodomy itself a law-breaking, split from the offense of assault with intent to commit sodomy.[36] It went into effect on February 4, 1921.[37]

On May 5, 1950, the Uniform Lawmaking of Armed forces Justice was passed by Congress and was signed into law past President Harry South. Truman, and became effective on May 31, 1951. Article 125 forbids sodomy amidst all military personnel, defining it equally "whatever person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sexual activity or with an fauna is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, still slight, is sufficient to consummate the offence."[36]

Every bit for the U.S. Armed Forces, the Court of Appeals for the Military has ruled that the Lawrence v. Texas determination 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 inside the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court,"[38] only went on to say that despite the application of Lawrence to the military, Article 125 tin can withal be upheld in cases where at that place are "factors unique to the war machine environment" that would identify the bear "outside any protected liberty interest recognized in Lawrence."[39] Examples of such factors include rape, fraternization, public sexual behavior, or whatsoever other factors that would adversely affect good social club and discipline. Convictions for consensual sodomy have been overturned in military courts nether Lawrence in both United States v. Meno [40] and The states v. Bullock.[41]

Repeal [edit]

On December 26, 2013, President Barack Obama signed into law the National Defense force Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2014, which repealed the ban on consensual sodomy found in Article 125.[42]

Country and territorial laws prior to Lawrence v. Texas [edit]

Below is a table of sodomy laws and penalties in U.S. states and territories prior to their invalidation in 2003.[43] [44]

The table indicates which acts or groups were covered under each sodomy law, as pertaining to consenting adults. It also indicates the year and method of repeal or strikedown.

State or
territory 		Year of
repeal or
strikedown 		Covered Invalidated by
Oral sexual activity Anal sex Homosexual
couples 		Single
heterosexual
couples 		Married
couples
Alabama 2003 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg X mark.svg
  • U.S. Supreme Courtroom
    (Lawrence v. Texas)
  • Legislative repeal (2019)
Alaska 1971/
1980 		Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • Legislative repeal
    • 1971: Oral sex decriminalized
    • 1980: Anal sex activity decriminalized
American
Samoa 		1979 N/A
  • Legislative repeal (1979)
Arizona 2001 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg X mark.svg
  • Legislative repeal
Arkansas 1975/
2001/
2005 		X mark.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg X mark.svg X mark.svg
  • Legislative repeal (1975, reinstated against same-sex activity 1977)
  • Arkansas Supreme Courtroom
    (Jegley v. Picado)[45]
  • Legislative repeal (2005, separate ban on animality)[46]
California 1976 North/A
  • Legislative repeal
Colorado 1972 Due north/A
  • Legislative repeal
Connecticut 1971 N/A
  • Legislative repeal
Delaware 1973 N/A
  • Legislative repeal
Commune of
Columbia 		1993 N/A
  • Legislative repeal
  • Legislative repeal (1995)
  • Legislative repeal (2004)
Florida 2003 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • U.Due south. Supreme Courtroom (Lawrence 5. Texas);
    Annotation: Franklin v. State, 1971, struck down original "crimes confronting nature" statute; sodomy still could be prosecuted under a separate statute confronting "unnatural and lascivious acts";[47] police force against adultery also retained[48]
Georgia 1998 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • Supreme Court of Georgia
    (Powell 5. Georgia)
Guam 1978 N/A
  • Legislative repeal
Hawaii 1973 N/A
  • Legislative repeal
Idaho 1971/
2003 		Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • Legislative repeal (1971,
    laws reinstated 1972)
  • U.S. Supreme Court
    (Lawrence v. Texas)
  • Legislative repeal (2022)
Illinois 1962 Due north/A
  • Legislative repeal, the offset state to do and then
Indiana 1976 N/A
  • Legislative repeal
Iowa 1978 North/A
  • Legislative repeal
Kansas 2003 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg X mark.svg X mark.svg
  • Legislative repeal (1969 for heterosexuals, same-sex sexual activity all the same illegal - the starting time state to target LGBT people)[49]
  • U.S. Supreme Courtroom
    (Lawrence v. Texas)
Kentucky 1992 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg X mark.svg X mark.svg
  • Legislative repeal (1974 for heterosexuals, same-sex sexual activeness still illegal)[50]
  • Kentucky Supreme Courtroom
    (Kentucky v. Wasson)
Louisiana 2003 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • U.S. Supreme Courtroom
    (Lawrence v. Texas)
Maine 1976 N/A
  • Legislative repeal
Maryland 1999 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • Schochet five. Land (1990)
      (heterosexuals) [51]
    • Williams v. Glendening (1998)
      (oral sex activity, homosexuals, ruling)
    • Williams v. Glendening (1999)
      (anal sexual activity, consent decree)
  • Partial legislative repeal since October ane, 2020.[52]
Massachusetts 1974 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • Massachusetts Supreme
    Judicial Court
    (Commonwealth v. Balthazar) (1974)[53]
    • (GLAD 5. Chaser General) (2002)[54]
Michigan 1990/
2003 		X mark.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • Michigan 3rd Circuit Courtroom
    (Michigan Organization for
    Human Rights v. Kelley    ) (1990)
    (Applied directly to Wayne County prosecutors, uncertain whether ruling was binding on all prosecutors statewide) [55] [56]
  • Michigan Courtroom of Appeals
    (People 5. Brashier) (1992)
    (Court upheld sodomy law, finer reversing MOHR v. Kelly) [57] [58]
Minnesota 2001 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    (Doe v. Ventura)[59]
Mississippi 2003 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • U.S. Supreme Court
    (Lawrence v. Texas)
Missouri 1999/
2003 		Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg X mark.svg X mark.svg
  • Missouri Court of Appeals,
    Western District
    (State of Missouri v. Cogshell) (1999)
    (Western District counties just)
  • U.Due south. Supreme Court
    (Lawrence five. Texas)
    (rest of Missouri)
  • Legislative repeal (2006)
Montana 1997 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg X mark.svg X mark.svg
  • Legislative action (1974)
    (heterosexual oral and anal sex only - the reference to "crimes against nature" was repealed and replaced with "deviate sexual relations"[60])
  • Montana Supreme Court
    (Gryczan v. State)[61]
  • Legislative activeness (2013) repealed "deviant sexual relations"[62] [63]
Nebraska 1978 N/A
  • Legislative repeal
Nevada 1993 Due north/A
  • Legislative repeal
New
Hampshire 		1975 North/A
  • Legislative repeal
New Jersey 1978 N/A
  • Legislative repeal
New Mexico 1975 Due north/A
  • Legislative repeal
New York 1980/
2000 		Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • New York Court of Appeals
    (New York v. Onofre) (1980)
    (excluding the New York National Baby-sit)
  • Legislative repeal, 2000
    (applied to New York National Guard)
North Carolina 2003 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg X mark.svg
  • U.Due south. Supreme Courtroom
    (Lawrence v. Texas)
Northern
Mariana
Islands 		1983 N/A
  • Legislative repeal
Northward Dakota 1973 Due north/A
  • Legislative repeal
Ohio 1974 N/A
  • Legislative repeal
Oklahoma 1988/
2003 		Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • Oklahoma Courtroom of Criminal Appeals
    (Newsom v. State) (1988)
    (heterosexuals)
  • U.Due south. Supreme Courtroom
    (Lawrence five. Texas)
    (homosexuals)
Oregon 1972 N/A
  • Legislative repeal
Pennsylvania 1972/
1980 		Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • Legislative activity, 1972
    (married couples only)
  • Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    (Commonwealth v. Bonadio)
    (all other relationships) [64]
  • Legislative repeal, 1995
Puerto Rico 1974/
2003 		Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • Legislative action (1974)
    (heterosexual oral sex only)
  • U.Southward. Supreme Courtroom
    (Lawrence v. Texas)
    (all other forms)
  • Legislative repeal (2006)[65]
Rhode Island 1998 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg X mark.svg
  • Legislative repeal
Due south Carolina 2003 X mark.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • U.Due south. Supreme Court
    (Lawrence v. Texas)
South Dakota 1977 North/A
  • Legislative repeal
Tennessee 1996 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg X mark.svg X mark.svg
  • Legislative repeal (1989 for heterosexuals, same-sex sex notwithstanding illegal)[66]
  • Tennessee Court of Criminal
    Appeals
    (Campbell v. Sundquist)
    (appeal denied by the
    Tennessee Supreme Court)
Texas 2003 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • Legislative activeness (1974)
    (heterosexual oral and anal sex only - the reference to "sodomy" was repealed and replaced with "homosexual conduct"[67])
  • U.S. Supreme Court
    (Lawrence v. Texas)
Utah 1971/
2003 		Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • Legislative repeal (1971, reinstated in full 1972)
  • U.Due south. Supreme Courtroom
    (Lawrence 5. Texas)
  • Legislative repeal (2019)
Vermont 1977 Northward/A
  • Legislative repeal
Virgin Islands 1985 Due north/A
  • Legislative repeal
Virginia 2003 Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • U.Southward. Supreme Court
    (Lawrence 5. Texas)
  • Supreme Courtroom of Virginia
    (Martin v. Ziherl) (2005)
  • Legislative repeal (lewd and lascivious cohabitation only, 2013)
  • U.s. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Excursion
    (Moose 5. MacDonald) (2013)
  • Legislative repeal (anal and oral sex, 2014)[68]
Washington 1976 N/A
  • Legislative repeal
West Virginia 1976 N/A
  • Legislative repeal
Wisconsin 1983 N/A
  • Legislative repeal
Wyoming 1977 N/A
  • Legislative repeal

See also [edit]

  • LGBT rights in the United States
  • List of sexual activity-related court cases in the Us
  • Section 839(a) of championship 10 United States Code § 925 - Article 125.

References [edit]

  1. ^ Eskridge, William N. (2009). Gaylaw: Challenging the Apartheid of the Cupboard. Harvard University Press. p. 161. ISBN9780674036581.
  2. ^ Colin L. Talley, "Gender and male aforementioned-sex erotic behavior in British North America in the seventeenth century." Journal of the History of Sexuality (1996): 385-408. online
  3. ^ William Eastward Benemann, Male-Male Intimacy in Early America: Beyond Romantic Friendships (2006).
  4. ^ "Amendment 8: Thomas Jefferson, A Neb for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments". Press-pubs.uchicago.edu. Archived from the original on 2014-02-04. Retrieved 2014-03-11 .
  5. ^ Patricia Due south. Ticer, State Senator (D-xxx) in the. "Virginia". Glapn.org. Archived from the original on 2011-10-04. Retrieved 2011-08-31 .
  6. ^ Canaday, Margot (September three, 2008). "We Colonials: Sodomy Laws in America". The Nation. Archived from the original on January 26, 2014. Retrieved Feb 7, 2014.
  7. ^ Google Scholar: Martin five.Ziherl, accessed April 9, 2011
  8. ^ "Louisiana RS 14:89". Legis.state.la.us. Archived from the original on 2013-08-03.
  9. ^ "Sodomy law revisions are upheld on appeal, Times-Trivial". Nola.com. Archived from the original on 2015-10-18. Retrieved 2012-03-18 .
  10. ^ "1000.S. § xiv-177". Ncga.state.nc.us. Archived from the original on 2014-02-21. Retrieved 2013-12-05 .
  11. ^ "Country v. Whiteley, 172 NC App 772 (04-636) 08/sixteen/2005". Aoc.state.nc.united states of america. Archived from the original on 2008-ten-12. Retrieved 2014-03-11 .
  12. ^ "SB 969". Open:States. Archived from the original on Dec 24, 2013. Retrieved April 13, 2013.
  13. ^ "Ken Cuccinelli Loses Petition To Uphold Anti-Sodomy Law". The Huffington Post. 10 April 2013. Archived from the original on 2013-04-13. Retrieved 2013-04-10 .
  14. ^ "Ken Cuccinelli Appeals To Defend Virginia's Anti-Sodomy Law At Supreme Court". Huffington Post. June 25, 2013. Archived from the original on July 2, 2013.
  15. ^ "Court won't hear Va. appeal over sodomy law". U.s. Today. October 7, 2013. Archived from the original on October 25, 2017.
  16. ^ "LIS > Bill Tracking > SB14 > 2014 session". Leg1.country.va.u.s.. Archived from the original on 2014-03-ten. Retrieved 2014-04-25 .
  17. ^ O'Donoghue, Julia (Apr 15, 2014). "Louisiana House votes 27-66 to keep unconstitutional anti-sodomy law on the books". Times-Niggling. Archived from the original on Apr 16, 2014. Retrieved April 16, 2014.
  18. ^ "Infidelity and sodomy amongst consenting adults closer to existence legal in Utah". 26 February 2019.
  19. ^ "Governor Signs Pecker Making Adultery and Sodomy Legal Betwixt Consenting Adults – KDXU 94.9 890".
  20. ^ "Adultery and sodomy among consenting adults are no longer illegal in Utah". 26 March 2019.
  21. ^ Act 2019-465, SB320
  22. ^ AL SB 320
  23. ^ "Maryland Legislation HB0081". mgaleg.maryland.gov.
  24. ^ "Maryland HB81 | 2020 | Regular Session". LegiScan . Retrieved 2020-09-11 .
  25. ^ "Idaho S1325 | 2022 | Regular Session".
  26. ^ Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3505 (2010).
  27. ^ Sulzberger, A.One thousand. (20 Jan 2012), "Kansas Law on Sodomy Stays on Books Despite a Choose", The New York Times, nytimes.com, archived from the original on January 22, 2012, retrieved 21 January 2012, A version of this article appeared in print on January 21, 2012, on folio A13 of the New York edition with the headline: Kansas Law On Sodomy Stays on Books Despite a Cull.
  28. ^ a b c d due east f grand h i j k District of Columbia Archived 2014-10-27 at the Wayback Machine
  29. ^ To Table the Phillip Crane Motion to Discharge the House Committee on the District of Columbia from Further Consideration of H. Res. 208, The Resolution Disapproving the Action of the District of Columbia Council in Revising Criminal Penalties in Certain Sexual activity-Related Offenses. Archived 2014-x-19 at the Wayback Machine
  30. ^ To Proceed to the Consideration of H. Res. 208, The Resolution Disapproving the Action of the Commune of Columbia Quango in Revising Criminal Penalties in Certain Sex-Related Offenses. (Move Agreed To) Archived 2014-10-19 at the Wayback Machine
  31. ^ To Discharge the Firm Committee of the District of Columbia from Further Consideration of H. Res. 208, The Resolution Disapproving the Action of the District of Columbia Quango in Revising Criminal Penalties in Certain Sexual practice-Related Offenses. (Motion Agreed To) Archived 2014-ten-19 at the Wayback Automobile
  32. ^ To Adopt H. Res. 208, The Resolution Disapproving the Action of the District of Columbia Council in Revising Criminal Penalties in Certain Sex-Related Offenses (Movement Agreed To) Archived 2014-10-nineteen at the Wayback Machine
  33. ^ To Limit Debate to Ii Hours on H. Res. 208, The Resolution Disapproving the Activity of the District of Columbia Council in Revising Criminal Penalties in Certain Sex-Related Offenses. (Motion Agreed To) Archived 2014-x-19 at the Wayback Machine
  34. ^ H. Res. 208 - A resolution disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the District of Columbia Sexual Assault Reform Act of 1981. Archived 2014-03-30 at the Wayback Motorcar
  35. ^ Us Archived 2016-02-05 at the Wayback Machine
  36. ^ a b c "Key Dates in US Policy on Gay Men and Women in the United states Armed forces". usni.org. Archived from the original on 2014-03-23. Retrieved 2014-03-22 .
  37. ^ The Manufactures of War
  38. ^ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces: U.Due south. v. Stirewalt, September 29, 2004 Archived May 25, 2010, at the Wayback Motorcar, accessed August xvi, 2010
  39. ^ U.Southward. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces: U.South. v. Marcum, Baronial 23, 2004 Archived April 7, 2010, at the Wayback Machine, accessed August 16, 2010
  40. ^ United States five. Webster Thousand. Smith , USCG CMG0224 (United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 2008).
  41. ^ United States v. Bullock , Ground forces 20030534 (United States Ground forces Court of Criminal Appeals 2004).
  42. ^ Johnson, Chris (Dec 20, 2013). "Defense force bill contains gay-related provisions". Washington Bract. Archived from the original on December 22, 2013. Retrieved December 21, 2013.
  43. ^ SodomyLaws.org: "United States Sodomy Laws," Jan 28, 1998 Archived December 16, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, accessed August 17, 2010
  44. ^ GLAPN - Case Law: "Case police". Archived from the original on 2011-10-01. Retrieved 2010-09-26 . , accessed September 25, 2010
  45. ^ "Jegley v. Picado 80 Southward.Westward.3d 332". Apa.org. Archived from the original on 2013-11-04. Retrieved 2014-03-11 .
  46. ^ "Senate Bill 984" (PDF). Arkansas Country Legislature. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 22, 2014. Retrieved October fifteen, 2014.
  47. ^ "800.02 Unnatural and lascivious human activity. A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with some other person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree". Archive.flsenate.gov. Archived from the original on 2013-12-04. Retrieved 2013-12-02 .
  48. ^ "Flsenate Archive: Statutes & Constitution > View Statutes". Archive.flsenate.gov. Archived from the original on 2014-03-11. Retrieved 2014-03-11 .
  49. ^ "The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States - Kansas". Glapn.org. Archived from the original on 2013-02-11. Retrieved 2012-08-05 .
  50. ^ "The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States - Kentucky". Glapn.org. Archived from the original on 2011-xi-08. Retrieved 2012-08-05 .
  51. ^ Google Scholar: Stephen Adam Schochet 5. Land of Maryland, October 9, 1990, accessed March 11, 2011
  52. ^ "Maryland HB81 | 2020 | Regular Session".
  53. ^ Massachusetts Cases: Democracy v. Richard L. Balthazar, 366 Mass. 298 Archived 2016-03-03 at the Wayback Car, accessed March 11, 2011
  54. ^ Supreme Judicial Courtroom of Massachusetts: GLAD v. Attorney General, February 21, 2002 Archived February 25, 2006, at the Wayback Machine, accessed August 17, 2010
  55. ^ Michigan Organisation for Human Rights 5. Kelley , No. 88–815820 CZ sideslip op. (Mich. 3rd Cir. Ct. July 9, 1990).
  56. ^ Gay Times: Michigan Archived 2011-09-28 at the Wayback Machine
  57. ^ "Sodomy laws - Michigan". Gay & Lesbian Archives of the Pacific Northwest. Archived from the original on April 3, 2014. Retrieved Baronial 2, 2013.
  58. ^ People v. Brashier , 496 NW 2d 385 (Mich. App. December 29, 1992).
  59. ^ "Doe five Ventura". Glapn.org. Archived from the original on 2012-11-03. Retrieved 2014-03-11 .
  60. ^ "Montana". Glapn.org. Archived from the original on 2011-10-04. Retrieved 2011-08-31 .
  61. ^ "Montana Kills Sodomy Constabulary". Thetaskforce.org. 1997-07-04. Archived from the original on 2011-08-04. Retrieved 2011-08-31 .
  62. ^ "Montana governor signs bill to strike down obsolete sodomy law – LGBTQ Nation". Lgbtqnation.com. Archived from the original on 2013-ten-25. Retrieved 2013-10-21 .
  63. ^ "LAWS Detailed Nib Information Folio". Laws.leg.mt.gov. Archived from the original on 2013-10-22. Retrieved 2013-ten-21 .
  64. ^ [1] Archived July 10, 2010, at the Wayback Automobile
  65. ^ [ii] Archived Oct 20, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  66. ^ "The History of Sodomy Laws in the Us - Tennessee". Glapn.org. Archived from the original on 2013-04-24. Retrieved 2012-08-05 .
  67. ^ "The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States - Texas". Glapn.org. Archived from the original on 2011-10-04. Retrieved 2011-08-31 .
  68. ^ Weiner, Rachel (half dozen March 2014). "Virginia lawmakers repeal sodomy ban". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on vii March 2014. Retrieved 18 May 2014.

Further reading [edit]

  • Ellen Ann Andersen, Out of the Closets and Into the Courts: Legal Opportunity Structure and Gay Rights Litigation (University of Michigan Press, 2006), ISBN 0-472-11397-6, Ch. iv "Sodomy Reform from Stonewall to Bowers," Ch. 5 "Sodomy Reform from Bowers to Lawrence", available in part online, accessed August 26, 2010
  • Carlos A. Ball, From the Closet to the Court: 5 LGBT Rights Lawsuits that have Changed our Nation (Buoy Press, 2010), ISBN 0-8070-0078-seven
  • Patricia A. Cain, Rainbow Rights: The Role of Lawyers and Courts in the Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights Movement (Bedrock, CO: Westview Press, 2000), ISBN 0-8133-2618-4, Ch. 4 "Individual Rights: 1950-1985", available in office online, accessed August 26, 2010
  • William N. Eskridge, Dishonorable Passions: Sodomy Laws in America, 1861-2003 (NY: Viking, 2008), ISBN 0-670-01862-7
  • Leslie Moran, The Homosexual(ity) of Law (NY: Routledge, 1996)
  • Martha C. Nussbaum, From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Constabulary (NY: Oxford Academy Press, 2010), ISBN 0-nineteen-530531-0
  • Jason Pierceson, Courts, Liberalism, and Rights: Gay Constabulary and Politics in the United states of america and Canada (Philadelphia: Temple Academy Press, 2005), bachelor in function online, accessed Baronial 26, 2010
  • Daniel R. Pinello, Gay Rights and American Law (Cambridge Academy Printing, 2003), available in part online, accessed Baronial 26, 2010
  • Jerald Sharum "Controlling Conduct: The Emerging Protection of Sodomy in the Armed forces" in Albany Law Review, vol. 69, No. 4, 2006

External links [edit]

  • Sodomy Laws in the United States
  • The Sensibilities of Our Forefathers: The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States by George Painter

fragawiterfes.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

0 Response to "Why Is Is Still Illegal Again"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel