CBS News | Kansas Court Setback For Gays | January 30, 2004 18:49:24: Kansas can punish illegal sex with children more harshly when it involves homosexual acts, the state Court of Appeals ruled Friday in a case being watched by national advocacy groups. Judge Henry W. Green Jr. wrote in the 2-1 decision that legislators could justify differing penalties for homosexual versus heterosexual sodomy in various ways, including greater health risks or an attempt to "encourage and preserve the traditional sexual mores of society." The ruling by Kansas' second-highest court rejected an appeal by Matthew R. Limon, who was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison for having sex when he was 18 with a 14-year-old boy in 2000. He was convicted of sodomy. Had Limon's partner been an underage girl, he could have been convicted of unlawful sex under the state's "Romeo and Juliet" law and sentenced at most to one year and three months in prison.
This ... makes no sense. None.
The Supreme Court wouldn't have sent this back to Kansas after Lawrence vs. Texas had they not expected the Kansas courts to overturn their previous decision. The issue at hand wasn't whether or not the statute was in accordance with the Kansas Constitution, but whether or not the statute was in accordance with the federal constitution. The Kansas decision essentially rests on the point that Lawrence referred only to consenting adults, which is true enough. However, surely the fact that one is a minor doesn't give the state carte blanche to say that the same act can be treated differently purely because of the sex of the people involved. Contrary to the appeals court's statement, it is not rational; it is simply blind prejudice.
Tamara Lange, an ACLU attorney representing Limon, said she planned to appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court. "This decision is not a victory for morality or a victory for Kansas," she said. "It's a victory for prejudice and fear."
Kansas' Supreme Court having previously upheld the state's sodomy law (prior to Lawrence), I fear that there will be no justice found for Limon in that quarter. First, there is no guarantee that the court will hear it -- given their demonstrated preferences in this area, I should think the chances that the Kansas Supreme Court would touch this case to be rather small. The case will then have to shift into federal district court, if possible, and then to the federal court of appeals and thence to the Supreme Court. Even if the Kansas Supreme Court does agree to hear the case, assuming that all the people involved are the same, regardless of which way the court decides, the loser will appeal to the US Supreme Court -- one way or another, it's likely that this case is going to get back there one more time -- a process which will take a few more years, no matter which path it follows. Heaven only knows if the composition of the Court will be the same by then; Stevens is currently 84 years old, so I wouldn't be willing to lay odds on his still being there.
It seems odd that Kansas is willing to fight so hard to enforce its unrecalcitrant bigotry upon the body of one person. Or it should seem odd, but it doesn't, really, does it?
Posted by iain at January 30, 2004 07:47 PM
