Wow, interesting how the article fails to make that distinction, I wonder why...
Yes, as I read it, the title of the article is wrong - ‘homosexuality’ wouldn’t be illegal at all. It’s homosexual acts that would be illegal.
So a homosexual wandering through the jurisdiction wouldn’t be criminally culpable for being homosexual, but he or she would be potentially crimiinally culpable for engaging in particular homosexual acts in the jurisdiction.
It’s a distinction that the AP couldn’t, or wouldn’t, make.