| Home / Blog
Sodomy Discriminations in the United States

Sodomy Discriminations in the United States

Posted by-Lawerslog
Member Since-29 Dec 2015


Legislation prohibiting sodomy exist from the penal codes of several US countries for at least a hundred decades, criminalizing this sexual behavior between same-sex and opposite-sex partners. Two challenges to those laws finally made their way to the Supreme Court, illuminating not only the way the Court saw the legislation's purpose and usefulness but also how American societal norms had evolved because the laws were placed on the novels.

A Brief History of Sodomy Laws in America

Although disagreements about sodomy laws throughout the latter half of the twentieth and the ancient twenty-first centuries concentrated nearly entirely on their criminalization of homosexual behavior, nineteenth-century laws construct as"crimes against nature, committed with mankind or with the beast." This affront to the character has been generally not characterized by penal codes therefore American courts relied upon the well-established common-law significance of sodomy that entailed the penetration of a"manhood within the anus of a creature, a lady or woman, or a different person or a boy."

Punishing"homosexual sodomy" wasn't the driving force behind the implementation of the laws that meant to achieve two purposes. To begin with, sodomy legislation sought to protect"public morals and decency"; sodomy was recorded alongside bigamy, adultery, the production, and dissemination of obscene literature, incest, and general public indecency. 

Secondly, these laws utilize to guard girls, "weak guys," and kids against sexual attacks. Court records in the nineteenth century show that those laws were used to violate nonconsensual action which consenting adults who participate in sodomy inside their houses believe immune from prosecution.

The character and enforcement of sodomy laws shifted radically within the following century. The inclusion of oral intercourse to a lot of sodomy laws--that enlarged the group of possible violators to comprise, as an instance, men participating in sexual activity with other guys in public areas like baths --and the development of police forces in America's rapidly growing metropolitan regions fueled arrests and imprisonment for violations of those statutes. 

City and state authorities vigilantly apprehended supposed offenders in reaction to public outcry against indecency, sexual solicitation from the country's cities, and the predation and molestation of minors. Throughout the 1950s, McCarthyism led to state- and nationally witch hunts of male "homosexuals" the acts of anal and oral intercourse between consenting adult men conflated with child molestation.

This persecution of sexual acts between consenting adults created criticism from exceptionally powerful legal authorities like the American Law Institute--a company containing legal scholars, professionals, and judges responsible for drafting the Model Penal Code (MPC), that state legislature frequently adopted in part or its entirety in creating their criminal legislation --and many state commissions which contended for its decriminalization of personal sodomy between consenting adults.

In 1955 the American Law Institute voted to decriminalize consensual sodomy, and the MPC then failed to consist of this legislation in its statutory language. In the base of the Court struck down state laws that tried to prohibit the use of childbirth and invisibly to marital privacy, restricted access to contraceptives for unmarried individuals, also limited a woman's right to get an abortion. 

Even though these rulings didn't touch existing sodomy laws, the'60s and'70s saw momentous actions in decriminalization: eighteen states decriminalized consensual sodomy in accord with the MPC.

Other nations, however, balked at these suggested reforms, arguing that modifications to sodomy laws encouraged homosexuality and unnatural behavior. Countries that adopted the revised MPC saw enormous protests from religious groups and right-wing governmental pursuits. States such as Idaho reinstated the former version of this MPC (comprising the criminalization of consensual sodomy) and Arkansas, which embraced the revised MPC, reacted to public outrage by recriminalizing same-sex consensual sodomy with the consent of then-State Attorney General Bill Clinton.

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

Facts of this case. Back in 1982, a 29-year-old homosexual man employs as a bartender at a gay bar in Atlanta, Georgia. One night, as Hardwick was leaving the pub, he threw a beer bottle into a garbage can in the front of the institution. Viewing this, police officer Keith Trick mentioned Hardwick for drinking in people despite Hardwick's protestation that this wasn't true. Officer Torick accidentally wrote the wrong court date on the summons, and, when Hardwick didn't appear in court, an arrest warrant is issued. Torick's first effort to trace down Hardwick in his home was ineffective, however, on the next effort, Torick entered Hardwick's unlocked apartment and opened a bedroom door, where he discovered Hardwick engaging in oral sex with another guy.

The statute, Georgia Annotated Code section 16-6-2, given that"an individual commits the crime of sodomy when he performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth and anus of the other" and"someone convicted of the crime of sodomy shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor over 20 years".

Initial court proceeding. Michael Hardwick's challenge to the Georgia sodomy law has been dismissed without a trial with a federal district court, however, on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, a split panel of judges seemed to the justification of these cases throughout the 1960s and 1970s where the US Supreme Court had discovered and elegant a basic right to privacy. The appeals court found that the Georgia sodomy statute imposed Hardwick's basic rights because his homosexual activity was a"personal and intimate association that's beyond the reach of state law by the Ninth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment". Georgia's Attorney General disagreed with the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit, because additional federal circuit courts of appeals had upheld the constitutionality of comparable state regulations, and he petitioned the Supreme Court to review the situation to solve the differences among the judges.

The commanding opinion of the Supreme Court didn't frame the question ahead of it concerning a basic privacy dilemma. The solution to this query was"no." Though the Georgia sodomy law criminalized the behavior of heterosexuals and homosexuals, the Court's majority fixated on how the situation before these involved a homosexual man.

In its investigation, the court declared the precedent that basic liberties under the Constitution are"implicit in the idea of ordered liberty," such that"neither liberty nor justice would exist if [they] were sacrificed" and these liberties may be distinguished as"deeply rooted in the country's history and tradition". However, in this situation, the court declared that"it is clear to us that neither of those formalities will extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy." The Court grounded its justification on the fact that nations had experienced sodomy laws in place because of the country's heritage, and, thus, a right to homosexual sodomy couldn't be"deeply rooted" in history or tradition.

While Hardwick also contested the statute because his behavior has been completed in the solitude of his residence, the Court responded that"victimless crimes, like the ownership and use of prohibited drugs, don't escape the law by which they're perpetrated in house". Finally, Hardwick claimed that the law needs to have a rational basis for its existence and that there's not any for the Georgia statute aside from the public's opinion that homosexuality is immoral and improper.

The court maintained and deemed constitutional the Georgia sodomy law. This decision, which alarmed many in the legal and civil rights communities, wouldn't be revisited by the US Supreme Court for 17 decades.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Facts of this case. On September 17, 1998, John Lawrence spent the afternoon with Tyrone Garner and Robert Eubanks, that had been in a tumultuous relationship. Following a drunken argument erupted over if Eubanks, Garner, or both will stay the night in Lawrence's location, Eubanks stormed from their flat. Just when the deputies entered a rear bedroom failed to locate Lawrence and Garner allegedly engaged in sexual activity.

The Texas legislation in question,'' Texas Penal Code Annotated section 21.06(a), said that"an individual commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person of the identical gender," with"deviate sexual intercourse" defined as"any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the anus or mouth of another person" or"the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another individual with an object."

Initial court proceeding. The reduction before the Supreme Court at Bowers v. Hardwick dealt a catastrophic blow to the homosexual community in the United States. In a bid to stop the Court from seeing the transgressions as only sexual and also to frame the legal problem in another light, the short for Lawrence and Garner concentrated on intimacy, solitude, and connections. From there Lawrence and Garner's attorneys were uncooperative in attractive rulings against them, carrying the situation into the Texas Criminal Court, the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals, the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, and, eventually, into the US Supreme Court. The petitioners claimed that the Texas law-abiding citizens' houses, moving into"their most romantic and personal physical behavior and dictating with whom they could share a deep part of maturity."

The court enforced legislation targeted toward same-sex couples as prompted by animus towards homosexuals that originated from spiritual and ethical condemnation. Regardless of the value of those beliefs, Kennedy argues they shouldn't place on the whole of society. 

Last, the court then struck down the Texas sodomy law, and, finally, all legislation of its kind:

The petitioners are entitled to respect for their personal lives. The state can't demean their existence or control their individuality by making their private sexual conduct a crime. 


The rise and fall of sodomy laws in the USA exemplify the ways that the legislation use to legitimize the sexual standards of a society or signify the idealized standards it attempts to promote. However, these laws, such as many legal tools, became largely resources of oppression which were wielded by most towards members of minority groups, along with the sexual standards they promulgated arrived to bear less and less resemblance to the prevailing faith in US society. The passing of those laws throughout the legal struggles of Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas not brought legislation more in line with modern sexual standards, but also revealed how much acceptance of homosexual citizens came.