News > February 27, 2004

No Romeo

Appeals court defies Lawrence v. Texas

By Melissa Pavolka

Defying the U.S. Supreme Court, the Kansas Court of Appeals in late January again upheld the legality of a state law mandating stricter sentences for gay youth engaged in sex with younger teens.

Under Kansas’ so called Romeo and Juliet law, sexual relations with a minor is a lesser crime if the older teenager is under 19 and if the age difference is less than four years—so long as the youths are of the opposite sex.

In its 2-1 decision, the Kansas court affirmed the original 17-year sentence of Matthew Limon, who turned 18 the week before he performed consensual oral sex on another boy, then nearly 15, while the two were at a private group home for people with developmental disabilities. Had Limon engaged in sex with an underage girl, he would have faced a maximum sentence of 15 months.

Because Romeo and Juliet explicitly excludes gay sex, Limon was charged with criminal sodomy. Before his trial in 2000, his attorneys moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The court disagreed and Limon was convicted on the criminal charge.

He appealed through the Kansas courts, which upheld the conviction and sentence based on Bowers v. Hardwick—the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld anti-gay sodomy laws—and asked the Supreme Court to hear his appeal in 2002.

In June of that year, the High Court decided Lawrence v. Texas, overturning Bowers and striking down Texas’ sodomy laws, and remanded Limon’s appeal for reconsideration to the Kansas courts. The Kansas court this January affirmed the original sentence.

In its decision, the court offered three justifications for upholding more severe sentences for gay youth: it severely reduces the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, it encourages “traditional sexual mores,” and it promotes procreation and marriage.

In his opinion, Justice Henry W. Green Jr. noted: “Throughout history, governments have extolled the virtues of procreation as a way to furnish new workers, soldiers, and other useful members of society. The survival of society requires a continuous replenishment of its members.”

Justice Joseph Pierron initially upheld Limon’s sentence but reversed course in January, writing: “Persons in power and authority have historically been tempted to discriminate against people they do not like or understand. … This blatantly discriminatory sentencing provision does not live up to American standards of equal justice.”

Limon’s attorneys plan to appeal. If his conviction is upheld, upon his release at age 36 Limon must register as a sex offender and undergo another five years of supervision.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Outrageous! How dare they twist the law to serve their own out-dated and immoral political bigotry, that is the injustice.
  ~coyote wisdom~

  Posted by COYOTE on Feb 27, 2004 at 9:29 PM

  It’s disgraceful that President Bush bemoans the decisions of “activist judges” in the U.S. who make their decisions based on the tenets of the Constitution, yet would never think to complain about those judges who blatantly disregard the Supreme Court in order to push forward their own moral agenda. Even worse, I’m pretty sure half the country is worried now about these “activist judges” and how they are all going to tell us how to live our life. If liberals could only be half as passionate about their rhetoric, we could probably scare some people into thinking like us as well.

  Posted by rikov on Mar 2, 2004 at 11:58 AM

  This is scary.  The courts are being filled with ultra-right wing idealogues.  Their job is to interpret the law, not bring their bias to life.  I see that the courts are more and more places where civil rights and individual rights are just ignored in the name of morality and right-thinking.  If they can come after the rights of one group, they can come after the rights of any. 

  Posted by Michele on Mar 3, 2004 at 1:39 PM

  This is scary.  The courts are being filled with ultra-right wing idealogues.  Their job is to interpret the law, not bring their bias to life.  I see that the courts are more and more places where civil rights and individual rights are just ignored in the name of morality and right-thinking.  If they can come after the rights of one group, they can come after the rights of any. 

  Posted by Michele on Mar 3, 2004 at 1:39 PM

  Bigotry in motion. 

  Posted by Amber on Mar 5, 2004 at 5:23 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 9 posts.

Member Login

Also by Melissa Pavolka

• Vermont Progressives Counter GMOs
  
• No Romeo
  Appeals court defies Lawrence v. Texas