I am so dizzy. Just finished a sodomy discussion with the parents (rarely has the phrase "no, I'm not going into details" been used so often, and with such vehemence on my part).
However, it was my understanding that there are states in which sodomy is illegal, and homosexuality is not. But I'm drowning in google semantics -- I was thinking sodomy as in anal sex, gender irrelevant, but the dictionary (I understood) is a lot looser, and a site like sodomylaws.org equates sodomy with homosexuality (including female).
There are states where anal sex is illegal, right? How can I find out which ones?
Oh yeah, I totally got you were both being funny (and gently teasing on the size-of-states issue - hey, size doesn't matter).
The recent Supreme Court ruling declared all such laws unconstitutional, if I'm not mistaken.
It was illegal until a few years ago in Texas. The case that struck down the anti-sodomy law was big news.
tries not to ask ita if she's planning a vacation
There are states where anal sex is illegal, right? How can I find out which ones?
ita, about a year and a half ago, the U.S. Supreme Court found that anti-sodomy laws, regardless of the genders of the practitioners, are unconstitutional as applied to what consenting adults do in private.
Yes, there's a constitutional right to have sex.
(ETA: Xpost, of course.)
The recent Supreme Court ruling declared all such laws unconstitutional, if I'm not mistaken.
Also, wasn't oral sex included under the rubric "sodomy"?
ita, my understanding of the legal definition of sodomy was yours (gender irrelevant), but I've seen it used most commonly in reference to gay male sex (as in the somewhat antiquated epithet "sodomite").
The recent Supreme Court ruling declared all such laws unconstitutional, if I'm not mistaken.
Huh. I google and ...
Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four -- Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri -- prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.
Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws, as well.
Emphasis mine.
Would that mean that in, say, Alabama (I apologise to Georgia, I thought it was one of those states) it may still be on the books, but challengeable if one got brought up in charges? Or do the states then go through and strike them from the books later.
Why apparently? Why wouldn't it be definite? The article sure makes it sound definite, up to the bit where they say "apparently."
Where are the lawyers?
