Justices Void Prison Term Given Gay Teenager in Kansas

New York Times ^ | June 27, 2003 | DAVID STOUT

[rwfromkansas]

I thought his warning was a bit exaggerated.

Now I am not so sure.

[MineralMan]

"So if I had sex with your 14yo daughter if you had one you would be ok with it. HMMMMMM
"

When did I say anything like that? However, had this 18 year old done the same thing to my daughter, he wouldn't (couldn't) have gotten 17 years as a sentence. He could have gotten 15 months.

Plus, if you don't think there are lots of 18-year-old boys having sex with 14-15 year old girls, you're way out of touch. It's a terrible idea, but it happens all the time. 18 year olds are seniors in high school. 14 year olds are freshmen. Think about it.

[rwfromkansas]

Talk to the founders.

I like the fact that KS treats homosexuals differently from heteros.

Heck, I remember the KS Supreme ruling that sex change operations are a mockery of nature and they refused to give property to a "wife" of a deceased man. The "wife" changed his sex from male to female. That is some justice that is not afraid of being politically correct.

[AntiGuv]

You're quite welcome. I think what you're remembering is that the Supreme Court first had to rule to revive the case, in order to hear the Constitutional argument (I just saw that in my search). In the vote to revive, Ginsburg & O'Connor were part of a six justice majority; in the eventual resolution, the ruling was unanimous.

[aristeides]

Now, we see that its effects will go much further.

That's what I was trying to tell people yesterday.

The ACLU's ground for objecting to this case may have been that the law is different for heterosexual sex. But that wasn't the basis of Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence yesterday. So, if the Supreme Court told Kansas to reconsider this case in the light of Lawrence, that could not have been because of the differential between Kansas law for heterosexual and homosexual sex with teens. It must have been because prohibiting sex with this male 14-year-old somehow denied the parties in question the right to express their identities in an intimate way.

This makes clear that yesterday opened the door to pedophilia.

[MineralMan]

"So if I had sex with your 14yo daughter if you had one you would be ok with it. HMMMMMM"

How old are you. Since you had a heart transplant, according to your page, you're probably over 18. Lots of 14 year olds have sex with 18 year olds. It's common as dirt. Parents have to deal with that stuff all the time. Very few arrests are made, though.

If you're over about 25, though, you'd be in big, big trouble if you had sex with my 14-year-old daughter, assuming I have such a daughter. At age 57, I'm a little old for kids that young.

[weegee]

"Consenting Adults" had to do with doing away with Texas law. As in "the Supreme Court striking down this law will only be permitting consenting adults to do what they are already doing in their bedroom".

As it stands, the man is required to register as a sex offender, will the ACLU persue striking that down?

[BlueNgold]

How about we establish consent 'zones'
15-17 .. ok
16-18 .. ok
17-20 .. ok
18+ .. ok

I am reminded of a comedian who lamented that 16 year old girls in the mall don't even notice he exists, and it made him feel old, deferring he said, of course I'm don't want to have sex with 16 yr olds. A moment later he stops his routine and says .. Im lying .. of course I want to have with 16 yr olds .. that's why there's a LAW!

[2Smart2BLiberal]

I agree that 17 years is excessive; downright silly, in fact. HOWEVER! If it's OK with an 18 year old, how about a 19 yo? 20? 21? From this point on, there will be no line drawn. How could there be? It's a "private" matter between two consenting individuals. I believe that laws against pedophilia are on the same path. It may take a few years, and a number of lawsuits, but isn't the situation pretty much the same? Who's to say that the youngster didn't consent? And, again, if it's OK with a 14 yo, why not 13 or 12?

There are movements throughout the country to lower the age of consent. Now, I don't see horny middle-age men who want to fool around with little girls spearheading this. No, it's the gay movement. They talk about not condoning pedophilia, but guess who marches in their parades? NAMBLA. In truth, many gay men want to have access to young boys (without fear of arrest) and only the lowering of the age of consent will make that possible. We have always called that for what it is: pedophilia, pederasty. I predict it will undergo a name-change and become a "private" matter, a "choice" that two consenting individuals make.

Nothing good will come of yesterday's SC decision.

[AntiGuv]

As it stands, the man is required to register as a sex offender, will the ACLU persue striking that down?

Probably not, assuming that a similarly situated man who had sexual contact with a 14 year old girl would also have to register as a sex offender. Assuming otherwise, then they will near certainly challenge.

[MineralMan]

"How about we establish consent 'zones'
15-17 .. ok
16-18 .. ok
17-20 .. ok
18+ .. ok"

Actually, a lot of states do have similar laws regarding their statutory rape laws. Within a certain age range between the willing participants, it ceased to be statutory rape. Makes sense, I think.

[AntiGuv]

Of course there's a line drawn. The conviction was not vacated, the disproportionate sentence was....

[Chemist_Geek]

You can be against it all you want but 18 yo people are presumed to know right from wrong, hence the long term.

No, the Kansas law had a long term because it was homosexual statutory rape. As others have pointed out, an identical situation - but with a female minor - would have resulted in a sentence of 15 months, not 17 years.

All the court should have done, is vacate the sentence and send the case back for re-sentencing in a fashion blind to the sexes of the rapist and victim.

[sinkspur]

This makes clear that yesterday opened the door to pedophilia.

It does not. Pedophilia, by definition, is unwanted, and children cannot consent to sex with adults.

[rwfromkansas]

If you don't like justice that the founders would have approved of, I am glad you don't live here in KS.

Go live in Massachusetts and have a good time.

[aristeides]

Certainly the penalty seems excessive. But what makes it unconstitutional? And, to be more precise, what in the reasoning of Lawrence justifies finding it unconstitutional? If it isn't that the Supreme Court thinks that denying this boy the right to have sex with a 14-year-old boy intrudes into his personal and private life in such a way as to deny him the liberty to indulge in a homosexual lifestyle, I don't know what it could be.

[dead]

You're right that the sentence was excessive.

When I was 18, I had sex with a 16 girl.

I didn't get 17 years in prison. I got beers from my friends.

[weegee]

Plus, if you don't think there are lots of 18-year-old boys having sex with 14-15 year old girls, you're way out of touch. It's a terrible idea, but it happens all the time. 18 year olds are seniors in high school. 14 year olds are freshmen. Think about it.

It is still adults preying on minors. The seniors also carry a dominant position over the freshmen. They subject freshmen to cruelties because they have rank. Some freshment girls may think that they can climb the social ladder at school by "dating" a senior.

The seniors will be leaving for college (and sex with women their own age). The freshmen are left behind.

How many teenage mothers have kids by adult men?

Strength the laws against sex with kids, don't weaken them.

[MineralMan]

"If you don't like justice that the founders would have approved of, I am glad you don't live here in KS.

Go live in Massachusetts and have a good time."

Actually, I live in California, thanks. I've been to Kansas. It's not a place that interests me as a place to live, to be frank. More power to those who live there, though.

However, Kansas and Kansas State are going to have to watch themselves this year. Go Huskers! (My father-in-law played for NU in 1940-41, before joining the Army.)

[aristeides]

All the court should have done, is vacate the sentence and send the case back for re-sentencing in a fashion blind to the sexes of the rapist and victim.

But what does Lawrence have to do with that? Lawrence was decided on a due process -- not equal protection -- basis.