[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.

[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.