No, Jefferson would not have legalized sodomy. Jefferson had a gigantic Mind; and, as sometimes happens with gigantic minds, it was sometimes "all over the place". Patrick Henry is an even better example; while many libertarians will often appeal to Mr. Henry on many matters (being as he was opposed to the very concept of any "federal" Government which was not a strictly voluntary association of Sovereign States), the fact remains that Henry was an Establishmentarian advocate of publicly-funded State Churches (ahhh, but Henry believed that these Churches should be Established by the individual States... so, as the commensurate "States-Rights" advocate, Henry was quite "intellectually consistent" in his own quirky way)...
But all of that is a little besides the point. We know that Great Men have often harbored certain contradictions of thought (excepting only the man Jesus Christ -- if you're Christian, that is). The question is, in the progression of philosophical development, do we choose to divest ourselves of their contradictions, or do enshrine those contradictions as though they are the very Word of God? (Even Jefferson himself would not have claimed to be a Prophet, after all...)
Or put another way, the question is: What are your Principles?
Do you, personally, believe that sodomy should be punished by the State?
If so, why?
But you don't claim to be a Christian at all, do you, Roscoe? In truth, you admit no legitimate Biblical constraints on the authority of the State... you are a pure Democrat, in the classical Athenian sense. If the Popular Will condemns Socrates to death by hemlock, you have no principled, moral objection to the Will of vox populi (your chosen "god") at all. It is, after all, the "democratic" thing to do.
"Whatever is.. is Right".
Those are your "principles".