Agreed.
A law that will apply to many, but only be enforced against a few, is a bad law. Giving the state such power to pick and choose invites abuse and tyranny.
I’m presuming that it wouldn’t actually be enforced against married couples, many of whom do these very things. If it is, that makes the law all the more tyrannical.
I don't agree that if anti-sodomy laws are less likely to be enforced against married couples (man-and-woman ones), that makes them tyrannical. Privacy happens. Married couples are entitled to a great deal of privacy, and unmarried couples, quite a bit less. Part of this has to do with public order, and the fact that you need to shield that order against scandalous behavior in order to protect nearby children and adults from its consequences. Unchaste or perverse acts have consequences—a kind of ripple effect of coarseness and recklessness that emanates from people whose lives revolve around gratification for its own sake.
Acts between people who aren't married are intrinsically more "public," because their relation to each other isn't permanent. A gay bar is a lot more public, and that's why the cops used to bust them. As they did non-gay bars that were essentially prostitution shopping centers.
Societies disappear and die without children. We have slipped below replacement level in our society, I think because our idea that various intoxicating substances and various acts against the natural law, because they can be gratifying to individuals, are a public right under all circumstances. They're not rights, but wrongs.
Locales always used to limit these activities and others such as loitering, by local codes, and under the U.S. Constitution, they have every right to do so. The Founders would have been appalled had they not—religious people, who are the intended beneficiaries of the USC, do not casually tolerate open immorality. If we want to follow the Constitution, we have to pay attention to where it says "Congress shall pass no law . . ." and where it explicitly leaves the rest "to the States and the People, respectively." If we don't like the blue-noses upstate, the USC allows us to move to Greenwich Village, where the local codes are very different indeed.