teen sex - it's more okay if you're not gay - uh huh... - ZEFRANK.COM

lapietra · 02-06-2004, 02:38 AM

Excuse me - which century are we living in? Why is this still happening?

*****************************************

Teen's 17-year sentence for gay sex upheld
Fri Jan 30, 8:01 PM ET

Christopher Curtis, Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network

SUMMARY: Advocates for GLBT rights were outraged after the Kansas Court of Appeals ruled that the state can punish homosexual acts between minors much more severely than heterosexual ones.

Advocates for GLBT civil rights reacted with anger after the Kansas Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the state can punish homosexual acts between minors much more severely than heterosexual ones.

The 2-1 ruling affects Matthew R. Limon, who was sentenced in 2001 to more than 17 years in prison for having consensual oral sex after he had just turned 18 with a boy nearly a month away from his 15th birthday in a home for the developmentally disabled.

According to state law, sexual activity with anyone under 16 is illegal. But if Limon had been having a heterosexual encounter, he would have only faced a sentence of 15 months under the state's "Romeo and Juliet" law, which limits penalties for underage sex between heterosexual teenagers.

This is the second time the Kansas Court of Appeals has heard Limon's case. In February of 2002, the Kansas Appellate court rejected his equal protection claim. But the U.S. Supreme Court remanded Limon's case last year after its historic Lawrence v. Texas ruling, when it ruled laws cannot treat the sexual conduct of gays and lesbians differently than that of heterosexuals.

Mitchell Katine, a Texas-based lawyer who participated in the Lawrence v. Texas case, was disappointed with Friday's ruling.

"The Supreme Court wanted to give the Kansas court an opportunity to correct the case in light of Lawrence," he told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network. "How many Supreme Court cases are there going to have to be before courts get the message that gay and lesbian people are to be treated equally?"

Kansas Judge Henry W. Green Jr. justified his ruling by saying legislators could claim homosexual acts entail health risks. Green also wrote that heterosexual offenses are less objectionable because they could lead to babies being born, and "same-sex relationships do not generally lead to unwanted pregnancies."

"It's insane! It's insane!" reacted Chris Hampton, a spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) (ACLU) Lesbian and Gay Rights Projects. "The state is basically encouraging teen pregnancy."

The ACLU is representing Limon and told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network it plans to appeal Limon's case to the Kansas Supreme Court.

Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Cheryl Jacques said she hoped the ACLU would succeed.

"All people should be equal in the eyes of the law, yet this decision upholds penalties that are designed to target gay and lesbian people simply to show disapproval," she said in a prepared statement.

"As the Supreme Court beautifully articulated in Lawrence v. Texas, mere disapproval is never sufficient reason to treat people differently simply for being gay," she added. "We are hopeful that this case will be correctly decided by the higher courts."

chuckie egg · 02-06-2004, 10:25 AM

That doesn't make sense at all.

pfft

zenbabe · 02-06-2004, 01:00 PM

17+ years for a blowjob?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

WTF!!

lapietra · 02-06-2004, 09:46 PM

It makes one wonder how one qualifies to be a judge... obviously you don't need to be very well-informed or aware, at least in Kansas.

RevEf · 02-13-2004, 03:24 PM

you only need to be well-informed and aware of what kind of attitude will get you made a judge.

lapietra · 02-13-2004, 08:21 PM

touche'

Willow Sylph · 03-12-2004, 05:35 PM

Wow. That's totally amazing. I can most definately agree with the law of an "adult" not being able to have sex with a minor - period. But I can't believe a court of law would be allowed to more severally punish a non-heterosexual who committs the crime. How archaic and ridiculous. Perhaps in their mind they associate it more with pedophilia than just a sexual act between two consenting people. In which case, it shows clearly what that judge (and the jurors) think of homosexuality. Either way, I don't see how they can find legal grounds to punish a gay person more severally than a heterosexual peson. UNLAWFUL. I'll be interested to see if the judge's ruling is overturned at some point.
~Willow

Hyakujo's Fox · 05-12-2006, 01:12 AM

hmmm, teenage sex seems to have become a lot more complicated over the years

rockintom99 · 05-16-2006, 04:49 PM

That's horrible! I really am losing faith in humanity...

Brynn · 05-26-2006, 07:09 PM

Hold the phone. Yes, this ruling was grossly unfair to the rest of the gay population, no doubts there whatsoever.
And yes, the ridiculous justifications for the ruling should be discussed and brought to the forefront, yes.
But sorry, I'm just not going to picket outside the prison for an earlier release of an adult predator who picks out a 14-year-old retarded kid with an emotional age of six to get his rocks off. He can rot there indefinitely for all I care, and I don't care what his orientation is. The fact that his victim was mentally disabled makes all the difference in the world, and this is not the case to hold up and point to in outrage - it only discredits the argument in the eyes of the conservative idiots, and confirms their worst fears.

02-06-2004, 02:38 AM	#1
lapietra half baked Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: just ducky Posts: 12,078	teen sex - it's more okay if you're not gay - uh huh... Excuse me - which century are we living in? Why is this still happening? ***************************************** Teen's 17-year sentence for gay sex upheld Fri Jan 30, 8:01 PM ET Christopher Curtis, Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network SUMMARY: Advocates for GLBT rights were outraged after the Kansas Court of Appeals ruled that the state can punish homosexual acts between minors much more severely than heterosexual ones. Advocates for GLBT civil rights reacted with anger after the Kansas Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the state can punish homosexual acts between minors much more severely than heterosexual ones. The 2-1 ruling affects Matthew R. Limon, who was sentenced in 2001 to more than 17 years in prison for having consensual oral sex after he had just turned 18 with a boy nearly a month away from his 15th birthday in a home for the developmentally disabled. According to state law, sexual activity with anyone under 16 is illegal. But if Limon had been having a heterosexual encounter, he would have only faced a sentence of 15 months under the state's "Romeo and Juliet" law, which limits penalties for underage sex between heterosexual teenagers. This is the second time the Kansas Court of Appeals has heard Limon's case. In February of 2002, the Kansas Appellate court rejected his equal protection claim. But the U.S. Supreme Court remanded Limon's case last year after its historic Lawrence v. Texas ruling, when it ruled laws cannot treat the sexual conduct of gays and lesbians differently than that of heterosexuals. Mitchell Katine, a Texas-based lawyer who participated in the Lawrence v. Texas case, was disappointed with Friday's ruling. "The Supreme Court wanted to give the Kansas court an opportunity to correct the case in light of Lawrence," he told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network. "How many Supreme Court cases are there going to have to be before courts get the message that gay and lesbian people are to be treated equally?" Kansas Judge Henry W. Green Jr. justified his ruling by saying legislators could claim homosexual acts entail health risks. Green also wrote that heterosexual offenses are less objectionable because they could lead to babies being born, and "same-sex relationships do not generally lead to unwanted pregnancies." "It's insane! It's insane!" reacted Chris Hampton, a spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) (ACLU) Lesbian and Gay Rights Projects. "The state is basically encouraging teen pregnancy." The ACLU is representing Limon and told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network it plans to appeal Limon's case to the Kansas Supreme Court. Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Cheryl Jacques said she hoped the ACLU would succeed. "All people should be equal in the eyes of the law, yet this decision upholds penalties that are designed to target gay and lesbian people simply to show disapproval," she said in a prepared statement. "As the Supreme Court beautifully articulated in Lawrence v. Texas, mere disapproval is never sufficient reason to treat people differently simply for being gay," she added. "We are hopeful that this case will be correctly decided by the higher courts." __________________ “As long as the world is turning and spinning, we're gonna be dizzy and we're gonna make mistakes.” ~ Mel Brooks Last edited by lapietra : 02-06-2004 at 03:00 AM.

02-06-2004, 01:00 PM	#3
zenbabe Lollypop! Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: we are all made of stars Posts: 11,690	17+ years for a blowjob?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! WTF!! __________________ Be yourself, because the people that mind don't matter, and the people that matter don't mind. -Dr. Seuss

02-06-2004, 09:46 PM	#4
lapietra half baked Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: just ducky Posts: 12,078	It makes one wonder how one qualifies to be a judge... obviously you don't need to be very well-informed or aware, at least in Kansas. __________________ “As long as the world is turning and spinning, we're gonna be dizzy and we're gonna make mistakes.” ~ Mel Brooks

02-13-2004, 08:21 PM	#6
lapietra half baked Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: just ducky Posts: 12,078	touche' __________________ “As long as the world is turning and spinning, we're gonna be dizzy and we're gonna make mistakes.” ~ Mel Brooks

03-12-2004, 05:35 PM	#7
Willow Sylph monkey Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 2,608	Wow. That's totally amazing. I can most definately agree with the law of an "adult" not being able to have sex with a minor - period. But I can't believe a court of law would be allowed to more severally punish a non-heterosexual who committs the crime. How archaic and ridiculous. Perhaps in their mind they associate it more with pedophilia than just a sexual act between two consenting people. In which case, it shows clearly what that judge (and the jurors) think of homosexuality. Either way, I don't see how they can find legal grounds to punish a gay person more severally than a heterosexual peson. UNLAWFUL. I'll be interested to see if the judge's ruling is overturned at some point. ~Willow __________________ Knight 1: We are now no longer the Knights who say "Ni". Knight 2: NI! Other Knights: Shh.... Knight 1: We are now the Knights who say.... "Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-PTANG! Zoom-Boing! Z'nourrwringmm!"

02-06-2004, 10:25 AM	#2
chuckie egg a peach Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 4,627	That doesn't make sense at all. pfft

02-13-2004, 03:24 PM	#5
RevEf Descendant of the lings Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 237	you only need to be well-informed and aware of what kind of attitude will get you made a judge.

05-12-2006, 01:12 AM	#8
Hyakujo's Fox left hanging Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: between the click of the light and the start of the dream Posts: 10,071	hmmm, teenage sex seems to have become a lot more complicated over the years

05-16-2006, 04:49 PM	#9
rockintom99 Registered User Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3	That's horrible! I really am losing faith in humanity...

05-26-2006, 07:09 PM	#10
Brynn constantly amazed Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: in the labyrinth of shared happiness Posts: 6,206	Hold the phone. Yes, this ruling was grossly unfair to the rest of the gay population, no doubts there whatsoever. And yes, the ridiculous justifications for the ruling should be discussed and brought to the forefront, yes. But sorry, I'm just not going to picket outside the prison for an earlier release of an adult predator who picks out a 14-year-old retarded kid with an emotional age of six to get his rocks off. He can rot there indefinitely for all I care, and I don't care what his orientation is. The fact that his victim was mentally disabled makes all the difference in the world, and this is not the case to hold up and point to in outrage - it only discredits the argument in the eyes of the conservative idiots, and confirms their worst fears.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: