Overview
For much of U.S. history, state laws regulated private sexual behavior between consenting adults. Their wording, scope and enforcement varied significantly, but some specifically targeted same-sex couples while others applied to everyone.
These statutes were commonly described as “sodomy laws.” Some prohibited particular acts regardless of the participants’ sex. Others drew an explicit distinction between same-sex and different-sex couples. Broadly written provisions sometimes labeled consensual private conduct a “crime against nature.”
Terminology and context
The historic legal label is retained here because it appeared in statutes, litigation and commentary. It has carried different meanings across periods and jurisdictions, so it should not be treated as a precise description of one act.
The word derives from interpretations of the biblical account of Sodom in Genesis 19. Religious interpreters have long disagreed about that story’s central wrongdoing. Readings have focused variously on attempted sexual violence, humiliation of strangers, inhospitality, injustice and sexual conduct. Applying the term broadly to consensual relationships therefore combines a later legal category with a disputed religious interpretation.
Contemporary writing generally uses “same-sex marriage” rather than the less precise phrase “gay marriage.” The broader term describes the spouses without assuming their individual sexual orientation.
From colonial law to repeal
Regulation of same-sex behavior in the colonies drew on English legal and religious traditions. When the original states ratified the Bill of Rights, criminal prohibitions were widespread. Over time, state codes developed differently, and punishments and enforcement patterns changed.
By the early 1960s, every state retained some form of prohibition, as did military law. Illinois became the first state to repeal its provision in 1961. Other jurisdictions gradually followed through legislation, court decisions and criminal-code reform.
These laws had consequences beyond prosecution. Their existence could support discrimination, police surveillance and unequal treatment, while reinforcing the idea that LGBTQ+ people’s private relationships lacked legal protection.
The constitutional turning point
In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the Supreme Court upheld Georgia’s law as applied to same-sex conduct. That decision framed the claimed liberty narrowly and permitted states to regulate conduct on moral grounds.
Ten years later, Romer v. Evans (1996) struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that prevented state and local protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Although not a direct challenge to a criminal intimacy law, the case became important to the Court’s equal-protection jurisprudence.
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court reviewed a Texas statute that prohibited specified conduct between people of the same sex while not imposing the same criminal rule on different-sex couples. The majority concluded that adults possess a protected liberty interest in private, consensual intimate conduct. The ruling invalidated the Texas law and made comparable state prohibitions unenforceable.
Scope of the 2003 ruling
The decision addressed consenting adults in private. It did not remove laws concerning coercion, abuse, conduct involving minors or public acts. Nor did it decide every legal question involving relationships or marriage.
Later significance
Contemporary commentary recognized that Lawrence would affect wider debates about legal recognition and equal treatment. The majority’s liberty analysis and the dissent’s concerns were later discussed in litigation involving marriage equality. Those arguments are summarized here rather than reproduced as direct quotations.
The legal history is also a reminder that a statute can remain printed in a code after courts have made it unenforceable. Readers researching a current issue should distinguish between the text appearing in a state code, its legal enforceability and any later legislative repeal.
Sources and further reading
- Historical reporting on the 2003 decision and its possible implications, including coverage by the Washington Post.
- Retrospective legal reporting on the dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, including coverage by U.S. News & World Report.
- The U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Bowers v. Hardwick, Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, summarized in neutral archive language.
This page provides historical education, not legal advice. Laws and their interpretation can change; consult a qualified legal professional for guidance about a specific situation.