There have been more recent challenges to laws based on the arguments presented in Lawrence v. Texas and yet the laws were upheld. It isn't a safe bet either way. Also, it is far easier to show harm from allowing adultery compared to what was covered under Lawrence v. Texas.
Well, on the face of the statutes, yes, but unlike statutes criminalizing adultery, those criminalizing consensual sodomy have been pretty clearly struck down as unconstitutional, so the fact that they remain "on the books" does not actually mean that they are criminal, since the law purporting to make them so is itself invalid.
(There's some debate about the Constitutional status of adultery statutes, but AFAIK no federal court has yet stuck them down for violating the federal Constitution.)
No federal court but pretty much every state court has.
The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.
In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
Up until the mid 20th century most US states (especially Southern and Northeastern states) had laws against fornication, adultery or cohabitation.
These laws have gradually been abolished or struck down by courts as unconstitutional.
> No federal court but pretty much every state court has.
No, that's not true.
> The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery. In the United States, laws vary from state to state. Up until the mid 20th century most US states (especially Southern and Northeastern states) had laws against fornication, adultery or cohabitation. These laws have gradually been abolished or struck down by courts as unconstitutional.
True (and, unlike the first sentence, a direct quote from Wikipedia) but also potentially misleading as to the trend with regard to adultery specifically by lumping together those three different things into a collective group.
