Kansas Overturns Anti-Gay Statutory Rape Law
The Kansas Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the state’s statutory rape law, which had a so-called “Romeo & Juliet” exception for youth-to-youth heterosexual intercourse but not for homosexual intercourse, is an unconstitutional equal protection violation that punishes someone simply for being gay.
The case in question concerned Matthew Limon, who at 18 engaged in oral sex with a 14-year old boy. He was sentenced to 17 years in prison. Had it been a 14-year old girl, the sentence would have been 15 months. For details and analysis, see my previous post.
Anyone even vaguely familiar with the facts or the holding of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), knew immediately that such a differential is now indisputably unconstitutitional. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court had originally overturned Limon’s sentence and expressly ordered the lower Kansas courts to reconsider the case “in light of Lawrence.” The lower appeals court’s response was to uphold the sentence, responding with the insolent assertion that “Lawrence does not apply.”
The Kansas Supreme Court, having somewhat more respect for the U.S. Supreme Court, has now gotten it exactly right.
Matthew Limon spent four extra years in prison for being gay. He will soon be free.
Remind me again how it’s all “too much, too soon”?
The case is State v. Matthew R. Limon, No. 85,898 (Kansas, 2005).
More thoughts at Ex-Gay Watch, SCOTUSblog.
Similar Posts:
- Fifteen Years for Gay Sex: Part Two
- What’s the Matter with (Statutory Rape in) Kansas?
- Matthew Limon Update
- From the Archives: What’s (Really) the Matter with Kansas?
- Does One Incestuous Couple Equal Millions of Gays?
Filed under: Uncategorized
Good news!
What pisses me off about this ruling is that this case was argued almost a full 15 months ago. FIFTEEN MONTHS it took the Kansas Supreme Court to write a unanimous opinion. Maybe Limon isn't the one that is mentally challenged. Limon has served more than 2 years beyond what he would have gotten if his sexual partner had been female. The opinion indicates he should be re-sentenced as though the Romeo & Juliet law didn't exist. My question is is the Court going to order such re-sentencing (which would almost certainly result in a longer term) for every other teen that had been prosecuted under that law and therefore served a shorter term than they would have otherwise gotten or is Matthew Limon going to continue to get a raw deal?
I'm sorry, but isn't this "legislating from the bench"?
Shouldn't we allow the Kansas legislature to rule on this (again) before the courts jump in and decide?
And if a local community has already decided what is right or wrong, shouldn't the Federal government respect that?
Didn't little Matthew break a law? Should he not serve out his duly appointed sentence? Were not worthy, respectable, admirable, competent judges, lawyers, and jury involved in the decision?
Who are we to question their judgment?
Isn't that what the Republican party is all about?
Just wondering….
Jack: The bill of rights guarantees everyone a variety of basic human rights. That is part of the reason why a state can't just proclaim a state religion, or allow slavery. Every person in the United States has fundamental human rights which cannot be breached. This is a good thing.
Kip: Do you think that local election based pressure was a factor in the lower court's recalcitrance?
[Kip replies: First of all, I think (hope?) that Jack was being sarcastic. As for the lower court's "recalcitrance," having read their decision, I have to say no, they were just flaming bigots. But the opinion also shows the folly of the "deference at all costs" school of judicial
submissioninterpretation. The desperate desire to buy into supposed "legitimate state interests" into order to meet rational basis review was utterly astounding in that opinion.]No this isn't legislating from the bench, this is an example of enforcing the Constitution. To draw distinctions for the same crime is clearly a violation of teh 14th amendment, the only ones who can't see it are those who seek to impose their morality on others. The court made the right move without question.
In the 14th amendment is says "No State Shall make or enforce which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States: Nor shall any state deny such persons life, liberty, and property without due process of the law."
That says that no1 nomatter their background or orientation will be treated differently because of such a thing. Lawerence v. Texas was with adults but is still proves the same thing, that sodomy laws (no matter of age) are unconstitutional!