Question: Don't sodomy laws also apply to straight people?

[Coventina]

I know that in reality, the LGBTQ population would be targeted, but technically wouldn't they apply to everyone?

Certain sex toys would probably be deemed illegal, right? Particularly those used in anal and oral sex.
For instance, female strap-ons for pegging (just one of many examples).

Is it possible to get that genie back in that bottle?

I mean, if certain sex acts become illegal, then it has to be applied equally or lawsuits will ensue.


Would that episode of "Broads" no longer be available for broadcast or streaming?

I kind of feel like these idiots on the SCOTUS have no idea the ramifications of their medieval mindset.

[ck4829]

1. "Hi, I'd like to report an orgy at (Abbott's address). Send police now, please."

http://cococo.pbworks.com/w/page/145355868/NOT

[emulatorloo]

7. More like "call the police, the Abbots are having oral sex again"

[peacefreak2.0]

2. I wish it were different, but

THEY DON’T CARE.

[Merlot]

3. Yes they know exactly what they are doing and don't care

Their ideology is more important than our petty rights.

SCOTUS does understand completely the ramifications. They may be a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. At times they will play willfully ignorant.

[emulatorloo]

12. Indeed, and Alito's argument is clearly Willful Misinterpretation

[emulatorloo]

4. Yes. Scotus is anti-sex, except for procreation.

[RockRaven]

5. Scumbag cops and prosecutors have no problem selectively enforcing laws, regardless of the

theoretical risk of being sued or otherwise scrutinized for unfairness. Just look at drug laws, stop-and-risk, etc.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

6. Sure. But if you're familiar with the concept of "driving while Black," you'll understand that laws

are applied unequally to better oppress certain populations, with little recourse.

[Wounded Bear]

11. Sad, but true...nt

[Nevilledog]

21. Bad: Driving while black. Good: Blowing while white.

[Effete Snob]

23. Not really

The Texas law in Lawrence v. Texas was specific to members of the "same sex":


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/#tab-opinion-1961305

The applicable state law is Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.06(a) (2003). It provides: "A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." The statute defines "[d]eviate sexual intercourse" as follows:

" (A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or

" (B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object." § 21.01(1).

[Hugh_Lebowski]

8. They can pry my girlfriends strap-on from my cold, dead ass!!!

Sorry, I just had to ...

[leftieNanner]

9. Are you suggesting

that certain SCOTUS members have never engaged in certain (ahem) activities?

Hmmm.

[exboyfil]

14. Straight missionary

all the way and only the number of times they had children.

Don't you know. Sex is evil and only should be used for propagation based upon God's command.

[leftieNanner]

20. LOL!

I have two daughters. So - twice?

Maybe one for practice?

Cute story - a family down the street had six children. One day, my younger daughter (maybe middle school) took me aside. "Mom, do you have to have sex every time you have a kid?" Me - "Yes." Daughter - (eyes wide) "Oh my gosh, that means the Millers had sex SIX TIMES!!"

[exboyfil]

22. Also Monty Python has a skit in The Meaning of Life

Definitely not PC. That is where I stole the joke from. I mean if you are going to steal, steal from the best.

Birds and bees. I actually did the instruction for my younger daughter's sex education for homeschooling (complicated but it involved getting her ahead in science). It went well. I wonder if that is why she is a nurse now. Still refuse to watch anything with sexual content with her though (no go movies like A Clockwork Orange).

[leftieNanner]

31. Monty Python is the best!

I had "the talk" with both of my daughters. My husband had a wonderful illustrated book on all the different systems in the body, including endocrine etc. One was obviously reproductive. I used that book to teach about male and female parts. It was easy to point to the illustrations (not photographs) and explain everything.

I wanted them to get accurate information from me. Told them to ask me anything - ever. And told them that their friends might have some inaccurate information and they could ask me about that as well.

I think well informed young people will be more likely to make good choices about their own sexual behavior.

[exboyfil]

10. I think the roll back, if any, will be in legal recognition

of same sex unions. This court is retrograde, but I don't think that retrograde (maybe I am naive).

You are right their are neutral sodomy laws that can apply to heterosexual couples. Could be they will go back and rewrite those laws to make them only apply to same sex couples (it seems the GQP is capable of anything). Right now the base probably thinks that stuff is icky anyway (or at least they say they do). I remember my grandma being more disturbed about the type of sex that Clinton was having versus the fact that he was actually having sex with an intern.

[Effete Snob]

26. That's what those laws said in the first place

The key case in this area involved a Texas law that expressly applied only to same sex couples. Nobody has to "rewrite" them, since that's what they said in the first place:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/#tab-opinion-1961305

The applicable state law is Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.06(a) (2003). It provides: "A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." The statute defines "[d]eviate sexual intercourse" as follows:

" (A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or

" (B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object." § 21.01(1).

[exboyfil]

29. That is the Texas law

There are other states that aren't specific to same sex couples. Those are the ones that might be changed if the Court goes totally retrograde (who knows what they are capable of).

About half of the Bible belt, WI, MI, MD, and MA all have sodomy laws that aren't specific to same sex couples.

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

[Effete Snob]

30. Okay, now, answer the question in the subject line of the OP

"Do sodomy laws apply to straight people?"

Yes or no?

It's not a yes or no question. It has the form of one, but is not capable of being answered that way.

In the Supreme Court case relevant to the question, they considered the Texas law and found it to be an equal protection violation.

[usedtobedemgurl]

13. Yes, it applies to everyone.

So, when I use my two way dildo on my submissive, that is illegal - when they pass judgement. When I put a guy in hospital because he kept saying not to stop, even though there was blood, there would have been an investigation. I probably would have been arrested. They want to control everything but let them break in behind my locked doors!

[Cuthbert Allgood]

16. Perfect time for a reminder of Scalia being asked if he sodomized his wife

As he often is when the subject relates to gay rights, Scalia was furious, writing: “so imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously ‘mainstream’; that in most States what the Court calls ‘discrimination’ against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal.”

When the time came for audience questions, a student named Eric Berndt stood up in the packed auditorium and pressed Scalia to explain his dissent, particularly his opinion as to whether it was constitutional for the government to peer into the bedrooms of consenting adults and punish them for what goes on in there. When Scalia did not answer to the student’s satisfaction, Berndt asked him, “Do you sodomize your wife?”

It was a breathtaking moment (Scalia simply glowered at Berndt without responding), and it triggered days of news coverage and weeks of hot-blooded recriminations at law schools across the country. After the shock of the question had worn off, some criticized Berndt for being so disrespectful of an august public official, but a larger number of students spoke out in his defense.

In retrospect, that exchange, and the response to it, revealed a key weakness in Scalia’s continued stance regarding gay rights in America.

Full article

[inthewind21]

17. Yes

It would. However, the sexually repressed right apparently isn't clued into the fact that it's not an identifier specific to orientation.

[onenote]

27. Not necessarily. See posts 19 and 24.

[hatrack]

18. "Yes, so I'm afraid it's medical experiments for the lot of you!"

[Effete Snob]

19. WHICH sodomy laws?

Obviously there is no sexual act which is exclusively gay or straight.

In Lawrence v. Texas, the statute in question made it illegal for persons of the same sex to engage in defined sexual activities.

So, no, it did not apply to straight people.

What a law "applies to" depends on specifically what it says.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/#tab-opinion-1961305

The applicable state law is Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.06(a) (2003). It provides: "A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." The statute defines "[d]eviate sexual intercourse" as follows:

" (A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or

" (B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object." § 21.01(1).

[onenote]

24. Not necessarily. It depends on the specific terms of the law in question.

Despite a few posts here suggesting that sodomy laws apply to everyone, not all sodomy laws are the same. Some specifically are limited to certain sexual practices between individuals of the same gender. Others apply only to unmarried persons.

So the answer to your question is :"It depends."

[Eugene]

25. Yes they certainly did. Anything other than a man-woman married couple in the missionary position

has been criminalized at least somewhere in the United States. Michigan (5-year felony) and Virginia are notorious examples.

These laws were enforced especially, but not exclusively, against gay sex. Interracial sex was also a favorite target in the bad old days too.

Anal sex, oral sex, fornication, cohabitation, adultery, contraception, sex toys... You name it, they outlawed it.

[madinmaryland]

28. Wait. Didn't Ted Cruz want to ban dildos?

[exboyfil]

32. Ban himself?

[IjustDontlikeRepugs]

36. He would have to start by banning himself.

[malthaussen]

33. Yes, they do.

Further, "sodomy" has varying definitions in various legal codes. In the UCMJ, for instance, it includes oral sex as well as anal. The UCMJ even prohibits "sodomy" between married couples. Of course, the law is never enforced, but it is bad practice to leave laws on the books that are not enforced.

-- Mal

[Act_of_Reparation]

34. Yes, but no.

On paper, they applied to everyone. In practice, they were deployed almost exclusively against non-heterosexual sex.

[Ms. Toad]

35. The law used in the Lawrence case was specifically directed to homosexual sodomy.

In her concurrence, Sandra Day O'Connor noted that in addition to being a privacy violation it was also a violation of equal protection rights. The majority did not join her in that opinion.

So, under Lawrence laws can be written to prohibit homosexual - but not heterosexual - sodomy without violating the equal protection clause. Will there be suits? Yes. Will they be successful - under both precedent and this particular court - probably not.

[Marthe48]

37. The scene in Pirates of the Caribbean

"Elizabeth must go free." And how it ends up: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1015718012684870

The r.w.s.c did not, are not ruling from the bench. They are ruling what they want with no regard for jurisprudence, or consequences. I don't recognize r.w. authority over my body, and no one else should either.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

38. Yes they do

[walkingman]

39. Wow, I learn something every day on DU. I had never even heard of "pegging"

but googled it. I thought had seen and experienced it all after the sexual revolution of the 60's.

To be clear - Sex is another thing that the government should stay out of...why do they care? Is it the government's job to be our moral police?

[msongs]

40. sodomy is a religious concept applied to everyone non believers included. Jesus strikes again

[milestogo]

41. Technically yes, but I don't think they are directed at heterosexuals.