[aristeides]

I'm saying the Supreme Court in Limon made it clear that Lawrence means that homosexual child molesters (unlike heterosexual child molesters) are constitutionally protected against unequal sentences. I suggest to you that if Kansas law treated heterosexual child molestation more harshly than homosexual, the Supreme Court would not have given such protection and would not have vacated the judgment. So, under Lawrence, homosexual child molesters enjoy special constitutional protection.

And a constitutional amendment against gay marriage might persuade the Supreme Court not to interpret Lawrence so broadly as to give special constitutional protection to homosexual child molesters.

[solomangrundy]

So again I must ask you, do you advocate that heterosexual child molesters be treated more leniently than homosexual child molesters? Do you have some reasoning for advocating that heterosexual molesters be treated more leniently?

[NittanyLion]

So, under Lawrence, homosexual child molesters enjoy special constitutional protection.

As near as I can tell homosexual and heterosexual child molesters are subject to identical criminal standards and sentencing rules. Am I missing something?