High court rejects gay sex ruling / LJWorld.com

Archive for Saturday, October 22, 2005

Homosexual teen could be released after serving five years

By John Hanna - Associated Press Writer

October 22, 2005

Topeka — Atty. Gen. Phill Kline doesn't plan to appeal a unanimous ruling Friday by the Kansas Supreme Court that the state cannot punish illegal underage sex more harshly if it involves homosexual acts.

The American Civil Liberties Union hopes to get the case to a lower court next week to obtain the release of Matthew R. Limon, serving a prison sentence of 17 years and two months for performing a sex act on a 14-year-old boy in 2000.

Had one of them been a girl, Limon could have faced only 15 months behind bars under a special "Romeo and Juliet" law allowing lighter punishment for teenage sex. He already has served more than five years, and national groups on both sides of the gay rights debate were watching his case.

Kline said in a statement that while he needs to review the decision further, he doesn't anticipate asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. Kline has repeatedly described Limon as a predator because Limon's criminal record already contained two similar offenses.

In a unanimous decision, the court ordered Limon resentenced as if the law treated illegal gay sex and illegal straight sex the same and gave the state 30 days to act. It also struck the language from the law that resulted in the different treatment.

Constitutional rights

Kansas' high court said the different treatment violated Limon's constitutional right of equal protection.

Justice Marla Luckert wrote the "immediate, continuing and real injuries" caused by the law outweighed "any legitimate justification" for it. Lower courts ruled the state could justify the law as protecting children's traditional development, fighting disease or strengthening traditional values.

The law's language "suggests animus toward teenagers who engage in homosexual sex," Luckert wrote, adding, "Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest."

The case will return to Miami County District Court. County Atty. David Miller said he hasn't decided how he'll respond because he wants to thoroughly review the decision first.

Even if the prosecutor decides to charge Limon anew, he's already served longer than the maximum sentence allowed under the Romeo and Juliet law. Limon is now at the state's medium-security prison in Ellsworth.

"We are very happy that Matthew will soon be getting out of prison," said James Esseks, of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, who represented Limon. "We are sorry there is no way to make up for the extra four years he spent in prison simply because he is gay."

Consensual or exploitation

Both Limon and the other boy, identified only as M.A.R. in court documents, lived at a Paola group home for the developmentally disabled. In court, an official described M.A.R. as mildly retarded and Limon as functioning at a slightly higher level but not as an 18-year-old.

Limon's attorneys described the relationship with the younger boy as consensual and suggested that they were adolescents experimenting with sex. Kline said Limon was exploiting the younger boy and said Limon's previous offenses demonstrated a pattern of such behavior.

Kansas law makes any sexual activity involving a person younger than 16 illegal.

The 1999 Romeo and Juliet law mandates lesser penalties for illegal sex when partners are age 14 to 19 and their ages are less than four years apart. As written, it specifically applies only when the partners are of the opposite sex.

"This law was specifically designed to treat gay kids worse, and what this decision says is that is not a legitimate state interest," Esseks said.

As a House member, Kline voted against the Romeo and Juliet law and said he does not support different sentences for same-sex or opposite-sex couples.

"However, I defended the actions of the Legislature," he said.

Critics speak

Rep. Mike O'Neal, R-Hutchinson, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, criticized the court's decision.

He said the court had the authority to declare the "Romeo and Juliet" law unconstitutional, but not the authority to basically rewrite the statute. That should be left to the Legislature, he said.

"The court right now is a moving target. We can't predict what they are going to do," said O'Neal, who has been critical of recent court decisions that overturned the state death penalty and ordered more funding for schools.

The Kansas Court of Appeals rejected Limon's appeal in 2002. A year later, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law criminalizing gay sex, setting the stage for Friday's ruling.

Matt Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said the Texas decision and Friday's ruling "shore up the principle that gay people are entitled to equal protection."

"But no one's quite sure how firm that foundation is," he said.

Mathew Staver, attorney for the conservative Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel, said the different treatment was justified by the state's interest in protecting children and families. He also said the court doesn't have the right to rewrite the statute.

"That's a legislative function," he said. "This is clearly a sign of an activist court system."

But Patricia Logue, a senior counsel for Lambda Legal, said she hopes the decision will slow efforts in various states to enact legislation targeting gays and lesbians.

"A lot of the reasoning used here by the state comes up again and again," she said. "What the court is saying is, 'If you've got a better reason, you would have told us by now. The ones you've come up with are not good enough, and they amount to not liking gay people."'

Staff writer Scott Rothschild contributed to this story.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

22 October 2005
at 9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

John1945 (Anonymous) says…

Once again the Seven Dwarves have usurped the power of the legislature. And the statement “Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest.” is utter nonsense.

All law is based on the moral disapproval of certain types of conduct. Are laws against pedophiles now out the door thanks to moral pygmies like Luckert? How about those against bigamists? Where does this idiotic logic end?

Our culture is being destroyed by these black robed monsters and its time to fight back. Impeach the Seven Dwarves, or better yet put these monsters in the same institution with Limon and the other predators they want to turn loose on our children.
22 October 2005
at 9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Jeez, John, he was a developmentally disabled kid in a group home. Perhaps the supervision of these kids was lacking, but there is absolutely no evidence that he is a sexual predator on the prowl any more than any other kid (as in most kids) who experiments with sex.
22 October 2005
at 10:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

John1945 (Anonymous) says…

Ahh so the other two convictions were also flukes?

Weren't you aware of those, or are those acceptable to you also? Which position are you taking here, ignorance of the facts, or moral depravity?
22 October 2005
at 11:20 a.m.

Permalink

John1945 (Anonymous) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
22 October 2005
at 1:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“The court right now is a moving target. We can't predict what they are going to do.” So says the chairman of the Kansas House Judiciary Committee. It seems that Incompetents can be elected as well as appointed.

The unanimous outcome of this case after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 was as predictible as the rising of the sun. (The Court said it also violated the Kansas bill of rights.)

Limon deserved a full 15 months of imprisonment. Each day after that served only to provide depraved delight to the state's bigots.

In the U.S. we do not have a criminal sentencing code based upon social classification (whether we have a conviction process based on such classification is another issue). Black rapists are not sentenced to 30 years while white rapists are out after 5. Female murders do not get the electric chair while male murderers serve 15-30. So too now in Kansas will we not sentence same-gendered statutory rapists to 17 years and 2 months while opposite-gendered statutory rapists walk the streets after 15 months.

Why the taxpayers were compelled by the State (no doubt by those same officeholders in the State who constantly complain about high taxes) to defend such an uncommonly stupid law is the real scandal. Not just hypocrisy but double-hypocrisy right before our eyes!
22 October 2005
at 1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

One further point (lest my words be twisted by agenda-seeking liars):

Fair-minded persons may (or may not) think that the punishment in this case matched the context of the crime, i.e, this was less a statutory rape case than a child molestation case. Fair enough.

Such persons are perfectly free to seek revision of the criminal statutes of Kansas in a manner than treats opposite-gender and same-gender criminals equally or to prove the higher burden of the molestation charge (statutory rape is a 'no proof' charge - sex either happened or it didn't, there is no defense other than age-ignorance). In contrast, punishments tied to a classification of the offender are suspicious and are very unlikely to survive review.
23 October 2005
at 1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jak (Anonymous) says…

Rep. O'Neal and other right-wingers like him do not understand the role of the judicial branch. Everytime the court makes a decision that contradicts their viewpoint, those people claim “judicial activism”. However, when a decision is made that agrees with them, the court is suddenly acting on behalf of what is good for society. People on the left do not partake in this ignorant activity. When a decision is made that the left disagrees with, the decisions are appealed and the disagreements go through the proper channels of the judicial branch rather than trying to legislate/interfere with the role of the judicial branch. I congratulate the unanimous decision in this case.

23 October 2005
at 10:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jak (Anonymous) says…

Yet another right-winger calling the court “activist”. It is your right to vote no on their retention, but understand the facts before voting. First of all, I would hardly call the Kansas Supreme Court “leftist”. This court has justices appointed by both Democrat and Republican Governors who chose them from a pool developed by a committee of legislators—Kansas is not exactly known to have many “leftist” legislators. If one looks at previous rulings on other cases, one would notice that many decisions were made with a right bias. And, yet, this one case (or perhaps two cases) suddenly sets right-wingers on a war footing with the court. I suggest looking at more than one ruling before developing a knee-jerk opinion.

As for child molestation, I agree with you parkay, “We cannot allow repeat child molesters to continue being a threat to our children anywhere.” However, we cannot treat child molestation with differing severity. ALL molestation is severe. The vast majority of child molestations are of heterosexuals. By your logic, the majority of molestations should be treated with a slap on the wrist and a minority with a heavy sentence. Look at police reports and crime statistics.
23 October 2005
at 10:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jak (Anonymous) says…

This was posted on a different but similar article by MyName. I believe it is fitting for this one too:

“What really amuses me, is your complete ignorance of the legal reasoning behind the KS Supreme Court's decision. You act like these people are the ones blinded by ideology, when in fact only someone blinded by their own ideology could take a well reasoned, unanimous decision by the Court and turn it into some kind of liberal vs. conservative celebrity deathmatch.”

Thanks for letting me borrow from you MyName. I hope you don't mind.