Posted on 10/21/2005 11:04:48 PM PDT by NapkinUser
Matthew R. Limon had just turned 18 when he had consensual oral sex with a boy just shy of 15 at a Kansas school in 2000. He was convicted of criminal sodomy and sentenced to 17 years in prison. Had the sex been heterosexual, the maximum penalty would have been 15 months.
Yesterday, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the starkly different penalties violated the federal Constitution's equal protection clause. It said the state's "Romeo and Juliet" statute, which limits the punishment that can be imposed on older teenagers who have sex with younger ones, but only if they are of the opposite sex, must also apply to teenagers who engage in homosexual sex.
Mr. Limon will soon be released, his lawyer, James D. Esseks, said. "He's spent an extra four years and five months in jail only because he's gay," said Mr. Esseks, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Waaahhhh comes to mind. That and the need for Americans to file suit against the ACLU.
file suit for what? Sorry I'm so dense but maybe you can explain. I like the idea so far.
"a boy just shy of 15 "
1. That's another way to say an adult had sex with a 14 year old. That deserves a long sentence.
2. The law should be blind to gender - child molestation is child molestation.
3. #2 does not apply to marriage which is a special case - the government has no business encouraging gay marriage... or encouraging gay anything.
17 years? Sorry, at the risk of attracting the mirth of everyone and sounding like a bleeding liberal.... that sounds harsh - even taliban like.
You wouldn't get 17 years for rape with violence or murder over here (you should but thats not the issue).
Flame away! /[Firepants on]
No wonder our kids are continuously in danger from pedophiles let out of jail. I remember being 18 and I knew that if I did anything with a 14 y.o. then I was Fk'd to say the least.
I detest homosexuality, but I have to agree with you on this one.
If the judge wants everything equal than the 18 year old should be tried for rape of a minor.
You like in England (I'm guessing from your screen name,) and England is weak on crime.
That's exactly right. This guy should be in jail for statutory rape.
And he's complaining?
This just makes it worse..
I like your point.
In this case, given the adult vs. minor issues, it is ok to require *equal* punishment whether you are gay or heterosexual. But, the punishment should be the highest common neumerator, and not the least common denominator.
The court is entirely right in this ruling. Of course those with an agenda will say the court was activist, must be impeached, the ACLU is to blame, special rights, homosexual agenda, blah, blah.
Equal protection under law either means something or it means nothing. Now, where are the hypocrites here who scream about "hate crime" statutes and yet would support this law targeting homosexuals?
Hey, that works too. It won't have any support, however. Unfortunately, folks have blinders on as soon as they see "homosexual" and who think "lucky kid" in a nation where many people can't see female teachers preying on male students as molestation or rape. Check one of those stories on FR sometime and you'll see all manner of lewd-minded "attaboy" remarks.
The law should be gender blind. Shouldn't matter if a teacher is female and her victim is a male student, or they're both the same gender. The court recognizes this, imho, and that's why the provision was struck.
The third point has no relevance.
The core issue is should the same "consensual" activity, excluding GENDERS, be worth both 15 months and 204 months in prison? No, of course not. Those sentences aren't even close to being comparable.
Heterosexuals get a 93% discount on the homosexual's sentence for the same activity, same ages, same question of consent.
The Kansas Supreme Court is entirely correct in recognizing unequal treatment under law.
A narrow point. In New York [No Mordor, unfortunately], a 14 year old can't "consent" by reason of age, so unless Kansas' age of consent is lower, the sexual act could not be consentual. And since vaginal intercourse wasn't the conduct, it would be sodomy, not "rape", since some have used the term. Same degree, same penalties. And yes, the penalties should be increased [almost said 'stiffer', don't go there]regardless of the genders of the participants. It was a non-consensual act, at least in my state.
You are the first intelligent shining light on this thread that I have read. I am adamantly opposed to the gay lifestyle, however, this situation is gay/straight neutral, or should be legally. If 18/14 straight sex is 15 mo., 18/14 homo sex should be 15 mo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.