Last edited: November 24, 2007


  • Statute: 13A-6-65(a)(3), Sexual Misconduct. Unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas
  • Penalty: 1 year/$2000
  • Classification: Misdemeanor
  • Restrictions: Does not apply to married couples.


Section 13A-6-65 

Sexual misconduct.

(a) A person commits the crime of sexual misconduct if:

  1. Being a male, he engages in sexual intercourse with a female without her consent, under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-61 and 13A-6-62; or with her consent where consent was obtained by the use of any fraud or artifice; or
  2. Being a female, she engages in sexual intercourse with a male without his consent; or
  3. He or she engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-63 and 13A-6-64. Consent is no defense to a prosecution under this subdivision.

(b) Sexual misconduct is a Class A misdemeanor.

(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §2318.)


Section 16-1-28

No public funds or public facilities to be used to promote lifestyle or activities prohibited by sodomy and sexual misconduct laws.

(a) No public funds or public facilities shall be used by any college or university to, directly or indirectly, sanction, recognize, or support the activities or existence of any organization or group that fosters or promotes a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of Sections 13A-6-63 to 13A-6-65, inclusive.

(b) No organization or group that receives public funds or uses public facilities, directly or indirectly, at any college or university shall permit or encourage its members or encourage other persons to engage in any such unlawful acts or provide information or materials that explain how such acts may be engaged in or performed.

(c) This section shall not be construed to be a prior restraint of the first amendment protected speech. It shall not apply to any organization or group whose activities are limited solely to the political advocacy of a change in the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of this state.

(Acts 1992, No. 92-439, p. 869, §§1-3.)


            1822     Despite a clear law adopting the English common law (which makes sodomy a crime), the Alabama Supreme Court rules that the common law is not in effect in the state. Because there is no specific sodomy law at the time, this prohibits prosecution for sodomy in the state. In 1830, the Court reverses itself.

            1854     Alabama enacts the nation’s first law giving a spouse the right to sue for divorce if the other spouse committed sodomy, either before or after the marriage.

            1933     Alabama enacts a unique law banning a “conspiracy to commit the crime against nature.” This law is not defined and it is unclear if there ever was a prosecution.

            1935     The Alabama legislature passes a revised sterilization law to cover any “sexual pervert, Sadist, homosexualist, Masochist, Sodomist, or any other grave form of sexual perversion [sic].” Concerned that there are not sufficient due process guarantees in the bill, Governor Bibb Graves asks the Alabama Supreme Court for an advisory opinion. The Court agrees with the Governor that the bill would be unconstitutional on due process grounds. When the legislature adds due process guarantees, Governor Graves, who has changed from a sterilization supporter to an opponent, vetoes the bill again. The legislature never enacts this bill.

            1952     An escaped prisoner caused the word “homosexual” to appear in a U.S. Supreme Court decision for the first time. A man fled Alabama for Ohio and tried to prevent his return to the Alabama prisons, claiming he had been used as a “gal-boy” by the “homosexuals among the prisoners.” The Court rules against him.

            1984            An Alabama appellate court upholds a sodomy conviction after a trial in which the mother of a 17-year-old partner was permitted to ask “what men can do with other men.”



Politicking Performers Walk the ODE Carpet
In light of Sunday’s Academy Awards, the Emerald is proud to announce its awards for the best political performances of the week. And the winners are...
Supreme Court for “Best Letdown in American Jurisprudence”
: The High Court refused to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of an Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys on Tuesday. Listening to Justices Scalia and O’Connor discuss whips and vibrators would have been the most entertaining moment for Supreme Court watchers since Lawrence v. Texas tackled gay sex. Justice Thomas’ insights would have been particularly illuminating.
Oregon Daily Emerald, February 28, 2005

[Home] [News] [Editorials] [History]