More Lawrence Fallout -- Court Cites Scalia in Knocking Down Sodomy Statute
The Kansas Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Kansas courts may not impose harsher penalties for homosexual sodomy among minors, than it does for sex between minors of opposite genders.
Kansas' so-called "Romeo and Juliet statute" permits lesser penalties for teenagers convicted of having sexual relations with a 14- or 15-year-old, when the offender is 18 or younger, less than four years older than the victim, and is a member of the opposite sex.
Matthew Limon was convicted of criminal sodomy and sentenced to 17 years for having consensual sex with a 14-year-old boy. If Limon had been convicted of having sex with a 14-year-old girl at age 18, he would have received a maximum sentence of 15 months -- and more likely probation for this offense. The Supreme Court of Kansas wrote:
During his incarceration, Limon was a cause celeb among gay and lesbian students at the University of Kansas -- who sent him postcards of support during his prison stay.
The High Court ruled that Limon may be re-charged under Kansas' statutory rape statute "without the words 'members of the opposite sex'" in the statute.
Kansas' so-called "Romeo and Juliet statute" permits lesser penalties for teenagers convicted of having sexual relations with a 14- or 15-year-old, when the offender is 18 or younger, less than four years older than the victim, and is a member of the opposite sex.
Matthew Limon was convicted of criminal sodomy and sentenced to 17 years for having consensual sex with a 14-year-old boy. If Limon had been convicted of having sex with a 14-year-old girl at age 18, he would have received a maximum sentence of 15 months -- and more likely probation for this offense. The Supreme Court of Kansas wrote:
[T]he State's interests fail under the holding in Lawrence that moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest. As Justice Scalia stated: "If, as the [United States Supreme] Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest," the statute cannot "survive rational-basis review." 539 U.S. at 599 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
During his incarceration, Limon was a cause celeb among gay and lesbian students at the University of Kansas -- who sent him postcards of support during his prison stay.
The High Court ruled that Limon may be re-charged under Kansas' statutory rape statute "without the words 'members of the opposite sex'" in the statute.
posted by E.L. Lipman | 10/23/2005 09:38:00 AM
This absurd for two reasons
1) Dissents should carry zero weight. It is my understanding that they should have the same weight regarding how a lower court rules as, say, a letter to the editor by Scalia. They are dissents , which by definition are not the opinion of the court.
2) The idea that there is no conceivable rational basis for homosexual statutory rape vs. heterosexual statutory rape is absurd. Two scenarios,
a) you are 14 and the college girl next store gets you drunk and gives you the full Monica
b) you are 14 and the college guy next store gets you drunk and does the same thing.
For most guys, one would be a rather odd, and probably pleasant memory, and the other would require counseling. And the state has no concievable rational reason for treating these two cases differently?
Post a Comment