The law of sodomy prohibits consensual sex between two men.
In other words, it is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison.
The law does not define the act or the people who commit it, and it does not specify when the act can be committed.
It also does not cover relationships between consenting adults who are not married.
In fact, some people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender are not legally married under state law, even though their sexual orientation is protected by the law.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that laws prohibiting sodomy violate the rights of gays and lesbians, but it was not clear if that ruling applied to the federal government.
Many states and the federal courts have interpreted the law of the land as prohibiting sexual activity between consented adults who have not married or who are living apart.
The Supreme Court has not yet addressed the question of whether such laws are constitutional.
While a federal court has struck down laws that criminalize consensual same-sex sex acts, states have challenged such laws in court.
Most recently, the U.K. Supreme High Court ruled that a man’s right to marry his partner of five years without any legal impediment violates the law because it violates the constitutional right to equal treatment.
The ruling did not specify what rights the man’s partner has under the law, but the court said the man has the same right to privacy and other rights as a married person.
The United States has been debating a similar law in recent years.
But in February, the Supreme Court denied a petition to hear an appeal from a Texas law that requires gay men to use condoms and other birth control.
The justices said the law violated a man who had a relationship with his partner, and the U,S.
Constitution does not require states to give same-gender couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.
The court said states have no constitutional authority to regulate marriage and birth control, and they should not be given the authority to do so.
“This decision does not end the debate,” the justices wrote in their opinion.
“It simply reaffirms the core of our First Amendment jurisprudence: that state governments may not impose burdensome and unnecessary burdens on marriage and family.”