AHC: Earlier Decriminalization of Homosexuality in UK and US

OTL, the first US state to decriminalize consensual sodomy was Illinois in 1962, while Britain did so in 1967; the US and UK were unusual in this respect, since much of the rest of the world had made these changes to their penal code throughout the larger 19th Century (1791-1917). In a manner of speaking, the Anglo nations did not catch up to the rest of the world in terms of lgbt rights until the 1960's, generations after decriminalization as such managed to be un-controversial for most everyone else.

So what needs to happen for to shrink this gap, preferably considerably (by at least 30 years, preferably more)?
 
This seems a bit of an over simplification, there are many places where Homosexuality is still illegal, even a few where it has been recriminalized, most notably India.
And plenty of non-Anglo countries had it on the books after Britain and the US, for example Spain 1979, Portugal 1983, Norway 1972, Finland 1971, Malta 1973, Panama 2008, Cuba 1979 & China 1997.
 
@edgeworthy Some of those places had decriminalized it before decriminalizing it -- it was legal in Portugal, for example, between 1852 and 1886, while much of Germany (e.g. Bavaria) had decriminalized it prior to German unification (which re-criminalized under Prussian influence). China, FWIG, has flipped a few times on this -- legal for most of its history, it was (according to Wikipedia) outlawed in 1740, before being decriminalized with the new penal code following the 1911 Revolution, only to be re-criminalized in 1979 (where it was referred to as "hooliganism"), before finally being re-de-criminalized in 1997. (India, of course, was part of the British Empire, so doesn't figure into the earlier time period we're talking about.)
 
Britain decriminalising it in the 1960s always struck me as quite progressive - while it was no longer a crime, it remained very much "outside" polite society for decades afterwards.

Compare New Zealand, which didn't decriminalise until 1986. Rob Muldoon used it as a weapon against Colin Moyle.
 
British and American homosexuqal decriminalisation was indeed much earlier than in many other nations. i don't even think that it can happen much earlier as it happened in OTL.
 
Circa WWI, outside of the British Empire and the United States, most of the nations of the world had either decriminalized, or had experience with decriminalizing, homosexuality (in part of their country if not in full); yes there were other exceptions, like Spain, but am I wrong that Victorian Britain was particularly homophobic in its time?
 
Why are using "decriminalize" instead of "legalize"? They are not the same thing. When the Illinois legislature revised its criminal code and removed the prohibition against sodomy it legalized it.
 
...Whilst I'm not in anyway denying anyone's rights to debate this topic in anyway, can I caution that we're discussing a very complicated topic in a very scatter-gun and general way.

A couple of points worth making:

We've already tossed around the term LGBT, which meant absolutely nothing in the 19th century. Yes, you can argue that it is a useful short-hand for the issues we are talking about, but in Victorian Britain, for example, the links between lesbianism and homosexuality among men to pick two parts of what is now considered the core of LGBT were not necessarily assumed to be linked. We're using modern terminology and ideas to talk about issues in the past, which never goes well.

Second, you can't use whether homosexuality is legal or not as a completely accurate yard-stick on how liberal as society is towards gay rights. You just can't - its too complex. Recent research, for example, looking at 19th century trials of homosexual men found that both juries and judges proposed and confirmed very minor punishments as often as they could out of sympathy with the defendants.

One of the problems with projecting back on the 19th century is that, in many countries, the legislation on homosexuality shifted back-and-forth in the period. Britain had been relatively permissive until a swing towards harsh punishment in the early 1800s, this then began to turn more lenient from the 1850s, although it was still illegal, and arguably the early 20th century was more intolerant of homosexuality than the late 19th if you look at sources like trials and public debates.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
If you want earlier decriminalisation in the UK, you need to have an earlier equivalent of the Wolfenden Report and the culture to shift towards sympathy for the plight of male homosexuals. What it took for the Wolfenden Report to be commissioned was a string of high-profile cases where prominent public figures were taken to court for being gay, notably Turing, so you may need a similar series of outings and arrests during the late twenties and early thirties for Parliament to commission a report. You also need there to be a desire, either politically or personally, for the Government and Home Secretary of the day to support an alt-SOA.
 
If you want earlier decriminalisation in the UK, you need to have an earlier equivalent of the Wolfenden Report and the culture to shift towards sympathy for the plight of male homosexuals. What it took for the Wolfenden Report to be commissioned was a string of high-profile cases where prominent public figures were taken to court for being gay, notably Turing, so you may need a similar series of outings and arrests during the late twenties and early thirties for Parliament to commission a report. You also need there to be a desire, either politically or personally, for the Government and Home Secretary of the day to support an alt-SOA.
Maybe if Oliver Baldwin had a more successful political career, perhaps if he had won his seat in the 1935 election which he narrowly lost, and his political enemies attempt to use his homosexuality to attack him? Such an attack would have had plenty of publicity and there would be plenty of people in high places who would defend him, both in the Labour Party and even the Conservatives, especially if his father is still alive at the time.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Maybe if Oliver Baldwin had a more successful political career, perhaps if he had won his seat in the 1935 election which he narrowly lost, and his political enemies attempt to use his homosexuality to attack him? Such an attack would have had plenty of publicity and there would be plenty of people in high places who would defend him, both in the Labour Party and even the Conservatives, especially if his father is still alive at the time.
Oliver is a good start, but part of the issue becomes on of sheer volume of men being outed and arrested during the 50s. That said if Oliver is outed during this period, it would more than likely a trigger to a Lavender Scare, his outing leading to further outings across both parties- John Keynes, Chips Channon, Harold Nicolson, Gerald Wellesley, to name a few- and leading to an alternate Wolfenden Report. However his outing would also lead to his father having his political capital diminished, and there is no telling what the alternate report could look like. It may be undertaken with the same rigour that Wolfenden undertook, but it may also be undertaken by someone less scrupulous with more of a homophobic agenda in mind. It would also depend on if the Government would implement it- after all, it took a decade for the IoTL Wolfenden report to reach legislation.
 
Top