Santorum rips gay sex ruling

The Tribune-Democrat ^ | 6/28/03 | Kirk Swauger

[aristeides]

Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times agrees with me that the Supreme Court vacated the Kansas court's conviction of Limon (for sodomizing a 14-year-old boy) and that it told the Kansas court to reconsider both the conviction and the sentence in light of Lawrence. Justices Extend Decision on Gay Rights and Equality.

[aristeides]

Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times agrees with me that the Supreme Court vacated the Kansas court's conviction of Limon (for sodomizing a 14-year-old boy) and that it told the Kansas court to reconsider both the conviction and the sentence in light of Lawrence. Justices Extend Decision on Gay Rights and Equality.

[aristeides]

Nothing to do with pedophilia? Why then did the Supreme Court on Friday in Limon vacate a conviction for sodomizing a 14-year-old boy and tell the state court to reconsider in light of Lawrence?

[milan]

However, this is nation of laws not of religions.

Where do you think those laws are founded? What do you think the book of Deuteronomy in the Bible is? Read it some time.

[AntiGuv]

Linda Greenhouse is wrong. Period. Which partly explains why she's a journalist and not a lawyer. As this Washington Post article makes clear:

Gay Rights Ruling Affects Kan. Case

The Supreme Court announced yesterday the first ripple effect of its landmark decision on gay rights, ordering a Kansas court to reconsider its approval of a 17-year sentence meted out to an 18-year-old man for having consensual sex with a 14-year-old boy.

Without comment or published dissent, the court vacated the Kansas Court of Appeals' ruling last year that Matthew Limon's sentence was constitutional even though the same conduct between two persons of different sexes would have received a far lighter penalty under Kansas law.

In fact, as that excerpt makes clear, there was never even a slightest question of vacating the original conviction, because the Kansas ruling under appeal itself only dealt with the constitutionality of the sentence disparity. To reiterate yet again, the conviction has not been vacated no matter how many ways you figure out to suggest otherwise.

[AntiGuv]

Ping to #145.

[WOSG]

"This must be great for the hetrosexual pedophiles takes the heat off of them. "

IMHO, the radical homosexual agenda with a component emphasis on lowering age of consent and 'opening our eyes' to sexualizing the young fits RIGHT IN with protecting the predators and pedophiles of all types/inclinations.

[speedy]

We only just met on this thread, I swear!!

[speedy]

It felt like a phone book, but I think it was something by Tolstoy. Next time she does it, I'll try to get a quick glance at the binding.

[gcruse]

Nope, don't know whatcha mean. Hardly know Rod Stewart.

[oceanperch]

When I was young Rod Stewart was a "hottie" back then.

He had an album out that shows him holding a Lowenbrau, so it was an in beer. (youth and advertising)

Then out of the blue he went through a Drag Queen phase and claimed to be "bi".

I know it turned us off and we stopped buying his records I am sure it lost him a lot of young female fans.

I had you put in the wrong age group so sorry Challie.

[gcruse]

Okay. Thanks for the update. :)

[BlueNgold]

That case was a boy 1 week past 18 who was involved with another boy, 14. Hardly a case of pedophilia. And his case was not asked to be overturned, just to have the sentence reviewed to ensure that it is in line with similar heterosexual statu-rape sentences. The ruling essentially said the 18 yr old cannot be treated more harshly because the act was homosexual, however, it is still a crime and the boy will not have his conviction overturned.

[Jorge]

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum is sharply criticizing a Supreme Court decision outlawing a Texas anti-sodomy law, saying in a local visit it will open the door to same-sex marriages.

Right. Perhaps the way to ward off gay marriage is to arrest as many gays as we can for sodomy.

I don't see where a ruling that says we will not bust down bedroom doors of gay people...therefore means we must now adopt a new definition of marriage that is opposed to our personal moral beliefs.

There is no logical connection, that says we must do such a thing.

[mdmathis6]

hah! hah!...Wasn't sure at first if there was a hsuband and wife freeper conversation going on or just some kidding around...then I read how you are married 24 years and she was married a year, so I'm the one with keyboard in mouth disease....sorry! Pretty funny exchange you had going there though!

[I_Love_My_Husband]

LOL!

[speedy]

Yo, no problem. Just some good-natured Freepery. Nice talking to you!!

[aristeides]

I don't understand why you're saying this was not a case of pedophilia. Do you prefer "child molestation"? (By the way, the child was retarded.)

Here are the Supreme Court's words:

LIMON, MATTHEW R. V. KANSAS.
No. 02-583.
June 27, 2003.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of Kansas for further consideration in light of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003).

You seem awfully certain of what a very terse (and enigmatic, at least in terms of the reference to Lawrence) order means.

[aristeides]

Also, even if all the Supreme Court objected to in the Limon case was the sentencing disparity with heterosexual statutory rape, that sentencing disparity in the past would have been upheld under rational-basis review. Only heightened scrutiny (in name or in fact) can explain what the Supreme Court did. That means that one of the things that enjoy at least a certain level of legal protection under Lawrence is the homosexual sodomization of a 14-year-old boy.