If the man performs cunnilingus in the other woman, he will not be charged with sodomy.
Nevertheless, if his wife performs cunnilingus on the other woman, she will be charged with sodomy.
Therefore, you have a case where a married woman and a married man are not being given equal protection under the law.
You are conflating racial and gender differences. For instance, abortion restrictions do not apply to men, do they? If you're pro-life, or at least against partial birth abortion, then you are conceding that certain restrictions apply on the basis of gender. But even beyond the pro-life question. For instance, we prudentially observe that women should not be placed in forward combat units, i.e. the SEALS. Only men are eligible for the draft, etc. We do not discriminate on the basis of race (although there are minor physical differences between the races, i.e. African-Americans are more likely to have sickle-cell anemia), but it is impossible to not do so on the basis of gender. Therefore, your admittedly well constructed analogy ultimately fails.
Women and men are equal before the law in almost all regards, however they cannot be in reproductive issues because of the physical differences between men and women.
The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, earlier upheld the state’s same-sex sodomy prohibition under the state and federal constitutions. The court’s majority disagreed with a decision by its three-judge panel, which had found that the law violated the rights of the two men arrested at home for private, consensual sex.I'm going to say it for the last time.The three-judge panel had held that the “Homosexual Conduct” law violated the mens’ right to equal protection under the Texas Equal Rights Amendment by criminalizing conduct between same-sex partners but leaving the identical conduct legal for different-sex couples. On rehearing, the full court held that the law does not violate the right to equal treatment under the laws or to privacy from government prying into intimate adult conduct.
In a strong dissent from the en banc decision, Justice John Anderson said that the “Homosexual Conduct” law’s prohibition on sodomy for same-sex couples “cannot... be explained by anything but animus toward the persons it affects” - which is not a legitimate motive for government discrimination against one group of people.
I do not see anything unconstitutional in banning sodomy across the board, at the state level or county level.
Nevertheless, banning sodomy between woman and woman, or man and man, wil not survive constitutional scrutiny.
My personal views on whether cunnilingus is a sin or unnatural or acceptable will have little to do with the Supreme Court's decision.