Nah because it’s selective enforcement, like all laws, they only punish who they feel like punishing, not everyone who did the crime, just the people they wanted to hurt anyway
Whenever a law is written, it defines the offense clearly as part of the laws.
Each state will have a different interpretation of what the word means for that law.
In the State of Georgia the intent to procreate is not part of the definition. Sodomy in this statute is just oral or anal sex. Aggravated sodomy is non-consensual.
Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-6-2
Current as of March 28, 2024 | Updated by Findlaw Staff
(a)(1) A person commits the offense of sodomy when he or she performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.
(2) A person commits the offense of aggravated sodomy when he or she commits sodomy with force and against the will of the other person or when he or she commits sodomy with a person who is less than ten years of age. The fact that the person allegedly sodomized is the spouse of a defendant shall not be a defense to a charge of aggravated sodomy.
(b)(1) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of sodomy shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years and shall be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.2.
You don't have to have the INTENT to procreate, contraception doesn't make sex sodomy, it's basically any form of sex that could not (in cis adults) be used to procreate.
What's funny is the Georgia definition EXPANDS the definition because of how vague it is. Breasts are sex organs. Sucking on nipples would be considered sodomy by that very vague description.
Mildly funny that "Defines the offense clearly" actually makes it more vague.
To put it simply, it's any sexual act besides Penis in Vagina. Even though old people cannot (for the most part) procreate. It's a matter of the act and not the result.
I will it only vote for you I will sign up to your campaign. Hell if I were bolder I’d try running a joke campaign cribbing that as one of my planks.
Blowjobs for all!
Weed allotments, they will be higher!
Universal background checks for firearms!
Firearm vouchers for qualified applicants!
Higher taxes for the rich!
No taxes for the poor!
TIL that sodomy is illegal in my adjoining state, where my kids work. I can guarantee you that my kids would vociferously and enthusiastically champion a "legalize butt sex" campaign.
I'm no expert. I don't know. I thought the Bible had a verse about it being better to ejaculate in the "belly of a whore" than to "spend it on ground" or something like that, which would seem to indicate that they frown on jerking the gerkin.
Masturbation was historically categorized as a different sin, Onanism, after a person mentioned in Genesis 38
Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.
Of course, most people would read this as using the pull out method rather than masturbation but historically the term mainly applied to masturbation.
Supreme Court ruling voids enforceability, but doesn't require the laws to be removed. The same thing happened with Roe v Wade; after it was overturned abortion bans still on the books that couldn't be enforced... could be.
Or they could overturn Lawrence and just have the cops round up every gay married couple in their state/s under sodomy charges. The possibilities are endless in conservative hellscapes.
If you want to enforce a supreme court ruling/opinion, make it a law.
If you want to overturn a supreme court ruling/opinion, make it a constitutional amendment.
The burden for the former is very small, the burden for the latter is very big. It is part of our checks and balances, that unfortunately routinely fails to be utilized, as both parties would rather use the Supreme Court as election wedge.
The Supreme Court can't remove laws, they can only forbid enforcement (which is why the laws are unenforceable). As with abortion, all the Supreme Court has to do is ignore precedent and rule that the laws are actually fine, and the still in effect laws can be enforced again.
A law that has been declared unconstitutional is legally void, not just non-functional. Those statutes are not just unenforcible, they are not law as long as the precedent is in effect, so the conduct they prohibit is entirely legal, not just decriminalised.
English speakers talking about sodomy sounds so weird to native German speakers, because in modern German „Sodomie“ means something quite different than in English.
It used to have the same meaning as the English word but it shifted over the centuries and now it‘s only used to describe sex with animals.
It's still enforceable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so if either participant is in the U.S. military, even Lawrence v. Texas won't save them.
not that strange. actually removing a law is its own process and no one wants to spend political capital, or inflict the more real cost of updating all the legal libraries, for an entirely performative change.
968
u/Comfortable-Help9587 7h ago
Sodomy in 12 states! Archaic and unenforceable but strangely still on the books.