Kansas Law on Gay Sex by Teenagers Is Overturned

The New York Times ^ | 10/22/2005 | Adam Liptak

[CGTRWK]

For a kid, not old enough to drink, who made a terrible error of judgement.

This wasn't a terrible error of judgement. The perpetrator had been caught and convicted of indecent homosexual contact with different victims TWICE before this incident where he was finally given a real punishment.

[FormerACLUmember]

Crooked democrats once again victorious in their support of NAMBLA access to young boys.

[garbanzo]

If people wish to live in countries where the state is judged the voice and instrument of Gods Will

Welcome to Free Republic...

[MarkL]

I LOVE playing "devils advocate," thanks!

I have asked this before, and I'll ask it again. If what is "good" builds society up, and what is "bad" destroys society, what is "good" about gay sex?

Frankly, I can't think that anything good can come of it, but then I'm not a homosexual, either.

1) promotes promiscuity = marriage devalued as institution (1/3 of all kids have a venereal disease of some kind)

I hate to tell you, but any out-of-wedlock sex has this effect, not just homosexual sex.

2) results in no children = workforce not replaced

So should sex be outlawed if people are incapable of conceiving? What about once the woman goes through menapause? What if the guy in not capable of fathering children, due to illness or injury? Should these people be banned from ever having sex? And what about birth control. Since it allows people to have sex while minimizing the chance of having children, should birth control be outlawed?

3) disease transmission = health care costs spiral

Again, this is similar for heterosexual, out-of-wedlock sex, although anal sex does bring with it a whole host of other diseases and problems. But then again, there are an awful lot of heterosexual couples, married and otherwise, who engage in this icky act (sorry, not a prude, but I've got Crohns disease, and frankly, I've had WAY TOO MANY medical procedures "down there" to ever imagine that anyone could have fun doing that, but that's just me. Did I share too much? lol)

4) contempt for Christ = contempt for all the virtues of the Bible, all of which build society up (faith, love, forgiveness, hard work, study, charity, ...)

So are we supposed to legislate the "virtues of the Bible?" Exactly what do you mean by that. While I agree that living by many of the virtues extolled by the Bible is a good thing, and the world would probably be a better place if people did so voluntarily, I don't know that forcing people to do so via legislation would be a really bad thing.

A person can't rise above sin without Christ. HIS strength helps you do it. Trying to be a Christian in your own strength is a frustrating excercise in futility.

So are we going to legislate against "sin?" Not a good idea. For instance, whos definition of sin will we be using. For some, it would be working on the sabath. For others, it would be eating pork. Or serving meat and dairy together.

On the other hand, the ACLU would have a cow, and just watching that would be fun!

Mark

[sure_fine]

there was a time, not that long ago, Kansas was a proud state

[Antoninus]

17 years? Sorry, at the risk of attracting the mirth of everyone and sounding like a bleeding liberal.... that sounds harsh - even taliban like.

Didn't your country recently lower the age of consent for homo butt-sex to 12? Considering homos reproduce by molesting children, this seems like a suicidal idea to me.

Homolesters--which have utterly infested my Church--should be punished very severely. Seventeen years is probably not enough for this guy. I might go as far as Justinianic law in terms of punishing homolesters--castration.

[NRA2BFree]

Democrats Gone Wild

LOL!

[jwalsh07]

Yes, I agree that cases can be reviewed under C&U clause in Constitution.

In this case it does not apply. A little history on Mathew Limon. Twice convicted of aggravated criminal sodomy and a regisstered sex offender at the time he raped this particular kid who happened to reside in a home for the developmentally disabled.

Up to me? I throw the key away.

[Torie]

Facts matter don't they? The teenager was certainly precocious.

[jwalsh07]

No 17 years for a two time loser convicted of aggravated criminal sodomy and a registered offender who molested yet another young boy who happened to reside in a home for the developmentally disabled.

Seems a bit too lenient for my liking.

[jwalsh07]

BTW, his attorney argued the case based on Kennedy's loquacious writings in Lawrence. Lo and behold.....

[gidget7]

The answer is more time for heterosexual sex with a child, not less for buggering.

[Torie]

Kind of like a virus isn't it? Oh, how to do good on the bench without doing bad, and keeping the genie in the bottle. It takes a genius.

[Nowhere Man]

The hypocracy on this in astonishing. I had sex when I was 14 with a 16 year old girl (the age of consent in the UK) and looking back over the years I have no regrets whatsoever! Yet *legally* I was a victim of child molestation, and *legally* she was peadophile. With the benefit of years of adulthood, I neither consider myself a victim nor her a peadophile. We were teenagers being teenagers to the horror of our parents. It was ever thus. Indeed to apply such terms in that case diminishes the full horror of the real child molestation and peaodphilia that exists in the world.

I could have picked out others to reply to but what we are discussing here is kind oif interesting although it is sort of like the "snake" chasing it's tail and when you ger 5 people together, you come up with 7 different opinions. I know in the time of 70 to 100 years ago and futher, people getting married at the ages of 14, 15, 16, sometimes even a little younger was a bit more common. I know I'm talking about marriage but I want to ease into this and this is a good tart as I branch out. My great uncle was a Russian Jew and a violinist, immigrated to the US and was active in the Jewish community. Like in the movie, "Fiddler on the Roof," he was matched to marry a 16, 17, or 18 (we are not sure exactly) young lady, he was like 45 or so, it was done through a matchmaker which was common in the community at the time. I believe David Sarnoff who later founded RCA and NBC got his wife that way too.

Back in those days, in many ways people "grew up" (for lack of a better term) faster then so mental maturity matched physical maturity (at 13 14 and above, most people are equipped to reproduce although the question of should is another matter, I'm sticking to raw science for now) to where many did go out and get starter jobs to help support a family, work their own plot of land on the family farm and so on. I think in today's world, we have pushed back the envelope of resposibility to an older age, even though we are still the same physically. We mature at 16, 18, 21, sometimes never on a mental basis. Add in the lack of a society with a strong set of morals as a guide and structure, I think we have a lot of problems today, many of which we are discussin here. My great uncle and his wife had the community and society to back them up, today we largely lack that outside small insular groups, say a Hasidic Jewish community or a Christian commune. I know nothing is perfect, even in the old days as anything touched by the human hand always has some flaws, but in some ways, things were better off then.

So in today's world, I can't see a 16 year old getting married let alone living on their own or getting jobs with great responsibilities. I'm sure there are some out there that can batter up to the plate of some resposibility but the most I have run into are immature. (Note: Exceptions are the teenaged Freepers and Freeper kids here, I'm just observing general society at large).

Heck, my buddy met a girl from Canada online and brought her down here to live, she's 24 yet she acts and talks 13 or 14. Her speech inflections and actions make her that way. I think a huge part of it is she wanted to get away from her family and my buddy was her ticket.

I think as a society, due to the efforts of liberals, the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the removal of morals from our lives, and so on, we are raising people who lack the ability to make decisions with a goof foundation of having a good judgement to go with it. The 14/16 year old of 1900 seems to be better equipped to make some life decisions and own up to many responsiilities than the 18, 21 or even some 25 year olds of 2005.

I often wonder how "the powers that be" determine ages to do various things like age of consent, age to get a driver's license and so forth. Here in Pennsylvania, the age of consent is 16 as it is to get a driver's license. I know in the UK, like Pennsylvania, the age of consent is 16, at least hte last time I loooked it was. Why 16? Why not 15 or 14? Better not when you think of it. Well in today's society and the putting off of mental maturity, let's go the other way, how about 17 or 18?

Getting back to laws, either apply the law equally or not at all, why punish one offense if it is politically correct to do so while not punishing another because it isn't politically correct? It seems like since the 1960's, we have become more schizoid on this issue.

I know things were not perfect before the 1960's, far from it, but at least society was better equipped to self regulate itself unlike today. Plus too, this case seems to be part of the homosexual agenda as well.

[DBeers]

Now, where are the hypocrites here who scream about "hate crime" statutes and yet would support this law targeting homosexuals?

I have not read the law that targets homosexuals -I am under the assumption that the law targets those who sodomize. The romeo and juliet law targets hetrosexuals. Comparing the two laws and contriving conspiracy against homosexuals seems far fetched; however, you seem to do this?

[Paloma_55]

"---- Justice Marla Luckert wrote for the court. "Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest." ----

Not moral disapproval of a group... moral disapproval with an action!!! Statutory, homosexual rape. That is a reprehensible and permanently damaging action."


Is heterosexual rape any better?

Man, this is a really good question. Really good because it forces me to admit that yes, heterosexual rape is better than homosexual rape... as if the term "better" really applies. I think a better way to put it is, homosexual rape is WORSE than heterosexual rape because it introduces a young boy to something that should never be done to him whether forced or friendly.

[DBeers]

"Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest," said Justice Marla Luckert, writing for the high court.

The judge is basing her illegitimate decision upon her guess as to why the law that she ignores was legitimately enacted. Was the law enacted against the activity it penalizes or against some supposed group that identify themselves by the act? Dumb decision...

[ROTB]

Bottom line. If everyone in the USA started having gay sex exclusively from this point forward, this country would die/collapse/get-taken-over in 40 years give or take. This would not happen with hetero sex, no matter who is sterile, impotent, or infertile.

Biblical values are not true because they work, they work because they are true.

I remember reading that the children of homosexuals are much more likely to have sex before they are ready, to prove that they are not.

We can legislate morality. Do you run red lights? You don't need the fear of God to fear a ticket and a point on your driving record. Laws are for the lawless, so we can put the lawless away so the rest of us can live in peace.

The Church can also get off the bench and take the Bible seriously (I'm working on the "man in the mirror." No, I am not MJ).

Thanks for playing devils advocate. Had I been younger, I might have tried to rebut you point by point. I'll leave you with some quotes about Christianity in the USA.

ROTB

---

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams, October 11, 1798

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship.
Patrick Henry (1736-1799)

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

– U.S. Supreme Court 1892, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States

[Antoninus]

The penalties should be equal for hetero and homo sexual liasons between adults and minors.

So you're saying that homosexual acts are the same has heterosexual acts? Sodomy is the same as sexual intercourse?

The equal protection clause here is a red herring and the court is utterly wrong to treat this as an equal protection case. Homosexual acts are NOT the same as sexual intercourse.

[Zeroisanumber]

If an 18 year old man sexually molests a 14 year old girl here that is statutory rape!

I don't think that anyone is saying that it wasn't statutory rape, what they're saying is that it isn't right that gays who are convicted of statutory rape are given much longer sentances that heteros. And I agree, gays who break the law should recieve the same sentance as hetros who break the law.