John Hanna reports for the Associated Press on a recent ruling in which the Court Rules Kansas Can’t Single Out Gay Sex. In its laws regarding underage sex, Kansas had a stiffer penalty for underage homosexual sex than it does for underage heterosexual sex. The Kansas Supreme Court rightly ruled that a state law as moral disapproval of homosexual conduct is not enough to justify discriminatory treatment. Kansas law prohibits any sexual contact with a person who is under sixteen. Matthew R. Limon, eighteen at the time, was sentenced to seventeen years of prison for having sex with a fourteen year old boy but had either of them been female, the maximum penalty would have been fifteen months. Fifteen months if you’re straight and seventeen years if you’re gay? Limon has already served five years of his sentence and the court has ruled that he must be resentenced as if sexual orientation of the act was irrellevant:

The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday unanimously struck down a state law that punished underage sex more severely if it involved homosexual acts, saying "moral disapproval" of such conduct is not enough to justify the different treatment. In a case closely watched by national groups on all sides of the gay rights debate, the high court said the law "suggests animus toward teenagers who engage in homosexual sex." Gay rights groups praised the ruling, while conservatives bitterly complained that the court intruded on the Legislature’s authority to make the laws. The case involved an 18-year-old man, Matthew R. Limon, who was found guilty in 2000 of performing a sex act on a 14-year-old boy and was sentenced to 17 years in prison. Had one of them been a girl, state law would have dictated a maximum sentence of 15 months. The high court ordered that Limon be resentenced as if the law treated illegal gay sex and illegal straight sex the same. He has already served more than five years. Limon’s lawyer, James Esseks of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, said: "We are very happy that Matthew will soon be getting out of prison. We are sorry there is no way to make up for the extra four years he spent in prison simply because he is gay." Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline said in a statement that he does not plan to appeal. A lower court had ruled that the state could justify the harsher punishment as a way of protecting children’s traditional development, fighting disease or strengthening traditional values. But the Supreme Court said the law was too broad to meet those goals. "The statute inflicts immediate, continuing and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justification that may be claimed for it," Justice Marla Luckert wrote for the court. "Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest." The Kansas court also cited the landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas law against gay sodomy. Limon and the other boy, identified only as M.A.R., lived at a group home for the developmentally disabled. Limon’s attorneys described their relationship as consensual and suggested that they were adolescents experimenting with sex. Kline’s office described Limon as a predator with two previous such offenses on his record. Kline contended that such a behavior pattern warranted a tough sentence and that courts should leave sentencing policy to the Legislature. Kansas law prohibits any sexual activity involving a person under 16. However, the state’s 1999 "Romeo and Juliet" law specifies short prison sentences or probation for sexual activity when an offender is under 19 and the age difference between participants is less than four years _ but only for opposite-sex encounters. Matt Foreman, 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 does not have the right to rewrite the statute. "That’s a legislative function," he said. "This is clearly a sign of an activist court system." Patricia Logue, a senior counsel for the gay rights organization Lambda Legal, said she hopes the decision will slow efforts in various states to enact legislation targeting gays. "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.’"

It seems pretty straightforward to me that this is a case of anti-gay discrimination on nothing more than the grounds of some sort of dark moral umbrage. The disease prevention and noninterference with upbringing arguments are flimsy at the best. If these arguments were valid, they would apply to heterosexual sex at that age as well as homosexual acts. Also, there is a degree of singling out homosexual acts that would most definately backfire in the development of some young people as most studies have shown that many young people who develop into self-identified heterosexuals do indeed experiment with lesbian or gay sexual behavior when they are younger. To stigmatize their behavior overly harshly if they are involved with someone who is older than them would do more damage than the court case already would do. Best to speak to the act and not the orientation, albeit councelling is a good idea all around.

Kansas is one of the Bible Belt states sot these attitudes are not surprising coming out of the legislature . . . I’m a Kansas boy from a small town and grew up around a lot of antigay sentiment . . . heck, when I was a kid I thought gays were rare freaks . . . now, I know there were a LOT more gays around me than I would have ever dreamed, including very very few of the so-called fringe types and mostly regular folks getting by or pillars of the community with a very tightly locked closet such as city councilmen, teachers, policemen, lawyers, upstanding citizens, regular folk, and fellow students (which included some of the more obvious delicate or sensitive types but also a few of the macho jocks who used to beat the crap out of "faggots" (real or imagined, albeit more often than not just an excuse to pick on someone weaker) and make the lives of others hellish). Desipite what some conservatives or moralists may wish to believe, homosexuality is very pervasive in our culture . . . it may be swept into the closet in some areas but it is most definately there. There are more gays around you than there are members of most minority groups. The Kansas law in question never would have been passed if it had been aimed at an ethnic group . . . there certainly are more gays in Kansas than Chinese, for instance, so if the law had singled out Chinese underage sex it would have caused a hue and cry (well deservedly too). However, too many folks like to pretend that being gay is a moral issue when it most certainly is not. People don’t choose to be gay any more than they choose to be Chinese or White or stupid. They just are . . . but, if being gay really were a matter of choice alone, people certainly should have the right to make that choice.

Sheesh.

See the complete piece at the Washington Post or other AP feeds. Thanks to Viviane for the headsup.

All the best,
Brian