Anti-Sodomy Laws: Unconstitutional Shift And Its Impact

In 2003, anti-sodomy laws became unconstitutional in the United States when the Supreme Court struck them down in Lawrence v. Texas. The ruling deemed that such laws violated the right to liberty and privacy guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The decision was a landmark moment for the gay rights movement, paving the way for the recognition of same-sex marriage as a fundamental right under the United States Constitution.

The US Supreme Court declared anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003

The US Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas declared anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional, reversing its previous stance in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). This ruling invalidated all remaining anti-sodomy laws in 14 US states: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.

The Lawrence v. Texas case originated from an incident in 1998, where John Lawrence, Tyrone Garner, and Robert Eubanks were charged with violating Texas's anti-sodomy law. The law, Texas Penal Code Annotated section 21.06(a), stated that "a person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." The case made its way through the Texas legal system, eventually reaching the US Supreme Court.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy framed the issue as one of individual liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He argued that sodomy laws sought to control personal relationships and were motivated by animus towards homosexuals, arising from religious and moral condemnation. Kennedy asserted that these beliefs should not be applied to society as a whole.

The Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck down not only the Texas law but all anti-sodomy laws in the US. This ruling was a significant moment in the advancement of LGBT rights and brought legislation more in line with contemporary sexual norms. However, it is important to note that while these laws are now unconstitutional, some states have not removed them from their legal codes, leaving them as potential restrictions if the Supreme Court's ruling is ever revisited.

Anti-sodomy laws originated in the 17th century

Anti-sodomy laws, which originated in the 17th century, have been used to prosecute LGBTQ+ people by banning certain sexual acts. These laws have existed for hundreds of years, stemming from religious prohibitions against non-procreative sexual acts.

In the US, anti-sodomy laws were inherited from colonial-era laws in the 17th century. While they often targeted sexual acts between people of the same sex, many statutes were broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between people of different sexes, and in some cases, even between married people.

In the mid-to-late 20th century, the gradual decriminalization of American sexuality law led to the elimination of anti-sodomy laws in most US states. However, it wasn't until 2003 that the US Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws as unconstitutional in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating all remaining anti-sodomy laws in 14 states.

The decision in Lawrence v. Texas was a breakthrough for the gay rights movement, and it helped set the stage for Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized same-sex marriage as a fundamental right under the US Constitution.

Anti-sodomy laws were rarely enforced in private settings

In the 19th century, sodomy laws were intended to protect "public morals and decency" and to safeguard women, "weak men", and children against sexual assault. Court records from this time show that consenting adults who engaged in sodomy within their homes were considered immune from prosecution.

In the 20th century, the addition of oral sex to many sodomy laws and the creation of police forces in urban areas led to a sharp increase in arrests and imprisonment for violations of these statutes. However, influential legal authorities such as the American Law Institute criticised the persecution of private sexual acts between consenting adults, and in 1955, the American Law Institute voted to decriminalise consensual sodomy.

In 1962, Illinois became the first state to remove criminal penalties for consensual sodomy from its criminal code. By 2002, 36 states had repealed their sodomy laws or had them overturned by court rulings. By the time of the 2003 Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, the laws in most states were no longer enforced or were enforced very selectively.

The Lawrence v. Texas case invalidated anti-sodomy laws in 14 states

On June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional, invalidating such laws in 14 states: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.

The case involved John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, two gay men who were arrested in Lawrence's apartment in Houston, Texas, in 1998. They were charged with a misdemeanour under Texas' anti-sodomy law, which prohibited "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex". Both men pleaded no contest and received a fine.

With the help of Lambda Legal, an American civil rights organisation, Lawrence and Garner appealed their sentences to the Texas Courts of Appeals, which initially ruled the sodomy law was unconstitutional. However, the state appealed, and in 2001, the court overturned its prior judgement and upheld the law. Lawrence then appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which denied his request.

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. On June 26, 2003, the Court issued a 6-3 decision in favour of Lawrence, striking down Texas' statute. Five justices held that it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while a sixth, Sandra Day O'Connor, held it violated the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court ruled that Texas' law prohibiting private homosexual activity between consenting adults violated the Due Process Clause, which protects personal autonomy and privacy. The Court noted that anti-sodomy laws had often been unenforced and that there was a tradition of avoiding interference with private sexual activity between consenting adults. The Court also cited two previous cases involving sexuality, Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Romer v. Evans, which had weakened the jurisprudential foundation of Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 case in which the Court had upheld a challenged Georgia statute and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.

The Lawrence v. Texas decision invalidated similar laws throughout the U.S. that criminalised sodomy between consenting adults acting in private, regardless of the sex of the participants.

Anti-sodomy laws were used to justify discrimination against gay people

In the 1970s, nine US states—Kansas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Tennessee, and Texas—explicitly rewrote their sodomy laws so that they only applied to gay people. In two other states, Maryland and Oklahoma, courts decided that sodomy laws could not be applied to heterosexual conduct, effectively making them same-sex-only laws. In many other states, government agencies and courts treated laws that applied to all couples as if they were aimed at gay people.

These laws were used to discriminate against gay people in several ways. Firstly, they were used to limit the ability of gay people to raise children. They were used to justify denying custody to gay parents, refusing to allow gay people to adopt, and preventing gay people from becoming foster parents. Secondly, the laws were used to justify firing gay people or denying them jobs. The FBI explained this idea in a case it won in the late 1980s, stating that it couldn't be illegal to discriminate against gay people because they are a class "defined" by conduct that could be made a crime. Thirdly, the laws were used in public debate to justify denying gay people equal treatment and to discredit LGBT voices. For example, in Utah, the sodomy law was used to argue against protecting gay people from hate crimes.

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws as unconstitutional in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating all such laws in the remaining 14 states that still had them: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. This decision meant that laws could no longer be used to justify discrimination against gay people.

Frequently asked questions