|
|
Post by RS Davis on Sept 2, 2004 3:13:54 GMT -5
Kansas Supreme Court Hears Appeal of Teen's 17-Year Sentence Matthew Limon Got 16 More Years than if He were Heterosexual
Compiled By GayToday
Topeka, Kansas-- The American Civil Liberties Union yesterday asked the Kansas Supreme Court to reduce the sentence of a young man who is serving 16 years more in prison than he would if he were heterosexual because of Kansas's so-called "Romeo and Juliet" law.
The law makes sexual relations with a minor a lesser crime if both people are teens, but only applies to opposite-sex relations.
"The Constitution guarantees that all citizens are supposed to be treated equally, but Matthew Limon is set to be in prison until he is 36 years old, while he would have been released before turning 20 if he were heterosexual," said Dick Kurtenbach, Executive Director of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri.
"We're not saying the state shouldn't punish those who break the law. We are only asking that the state do the right thing and treat gay teenagers the same as it does straight teenagers."
In February of 2000, Limon and another male teenager were both students at the same residential school for developmentally disabled youth in Miami County, Kansas. A week after Limon's 18th birthday, he performed consensual oral sex on the other teenager, who was nearly 15 years old - three years, one month and a few days younger.
Because Kansas's so-called "Romeo and Juliet" law gives much lighter sentences to heterosexual teenagers who have sex with younger teens but specifically excludes gay teenagers, Limon was sentenced to 17 years in prison. A heterosexual teenager with the same record would serve no longer than 15 months for the same offense.
After the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld the conviction in January, the Kansas Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The ACLU had taken Limon's case back to the lower court after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the court to reconsider the matter in light of the Supreme Court's decision last summer in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down all same-sex-only sodomy laws.
"The excuses that Kansas is trying to use for sentencing a gay teen to a prison term 13 times longer than a straight teen would receive for the same offense have all been proven wrong by social welfare and public health experts," said James Esseks, Litigation Director of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, who argued the appeal before the Kansas Supreme Court this afternoon. "Equal protection for all citizens means that a state has to justify treating one group of Americans so much more harshly than it does others, and there is no justification here."
In friend-of-the-court briefs filed earlier this month, several social work and public health organizations took the state to task for its attempts to justify the harsher sentences for gay teens. In one brief, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and its Kansas chapter debunked the state's claims that the length of Limon's sentence is justified because young people who engage in same-sex intimacy are so impressionable that they may be swayed into becoming gay. The NASW pointed to social science evidence that same-sex attractions surface much earlier in life - well before puberty - and that one gay sexual experience can't make someone "turn" gay.
In another brief, several public health groups, including the American Public Health Association and its Kansas chapter, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, and the National Minority AIDS Council, analyzed the state's claims that the "Romeo and Juliet" law will help prevent HIV transmission, pointing out that the law ignores the realities of HIV transmission among heterosexuals, particularly women. The public health groups also pointed out that the risk of a male acquiring HIV through unprotected oral sex with another male - precisely what Limon is being punished for - is extremely low.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Sept 2, 2004 11:38:07 GMT -5
I'd hate to be the state's attorney defending that law.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Sept 2, 2004 23:16:33 GMT -5
I'd hate to be the state's attorney defending that law. Seriously. You know, there was a lot of back and forth on this at STLToday, but it was so full of bile, I just really didn't feel like getting too involved. A lot of people were talking about it being his 3rd offense, but I don't know how that is possible, considering he had only been 18 for a week when it happened. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by whatever on Sept 3, 2004 10:38:33 GMT -5
And it was consensual, no less, with a 15 year old. In earlier days, that would have been seen as experimental sex play between teens, little more.
What a travesty of justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Sept 4, 2004 11:49:31 GMT -5
That's why placing civil rights issues in the states hands is bullshit. Until the government of the United States recognizes us as fully equal citizens, the lower courts will cont. to allow their personal religious hatred to dictate unfair and discriminatory laws. It is a travesty and a disgrace that we live in a country that allows it to happen. What makes us think that we have the right to take operation freedom or whatever to the rest of the world when we are not free from religious extremists at home.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Sept 4, 2004 12:05:37 GMT -5
Human rights should be outside the hands of legislative dictate,
- Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Sept 4, 2004 12:39:36 GMT -5
That's why placing civil rights issues in the states hands is bullshit. Until the government of the United States recognizes us as fully equal citizens, the lower courts will cont. to allow their personal religious hatred to dictate unfair and discriminatory laws. It is a travesty and a disgrace that we live in a country that allows it to happen. What makes us think that we have the right to take operation freedom or whatever to the rest of the world when we are not free from religious extremists at home. A couple things: 1. First people have to recognize that it's a civil rights issue. When it comes to gay marriage, for example, a lot of people are not convinced. Goes back to hearts and minds. I think this should be a case where people should be able to get behind a letter writing campaign telling their legislators "Woah! I am not a big supporter of gay rights, but come on. How is this fair? Do the right thing, and change the law." 2. You refer to the "personal religious hatred" in the courts. I don't know the judges, so I can't say if there is hatred there or not, but I am reminded of the saying "never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." ;D 2a. You have not done this, but while we're on the general subject, some people attribute hate where there is no hate. Some people think that if someone is opposed to the "gay agenda", they are a bigot and say so. This is a wonderful way to sabatoge any effort you are making to change hearts and minds, incidentally. It shuts down the discussion and starts up a shouting match (or a flame war). As a Catholic, I believe that homosexual acts are sinful. I have concluded that the only way I can think otherwise is to lie to myself and say that scripture does not say what it says. I may not like what it says, but who am I to argue with God? Maybe someday I'll stand before God in Heaven and ask God face to face. Even if He replies "just because", "because it's icky", or even "42", He has the benefit of being God, and I have the benefit of the wonderful confused look on my face. To be fair, God also said that we're not supposed to fornicate. So even if we get the opposite-sex part down, I better be married to the woman with whom I'm making "the beast with two backs", or God will still be cross about it. Hmm, when talking about God, is that a pun? My point is that you and I can disagree, without me having an ounce of hate in my heart. At the same time, and this is the part that people like Fred Phelps get in trouble, God loves sinners, which is a good thing, because there were only a couple people who were not sinners: Mary, the Mother of God - and Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who often hung out with sinners, because they needed Him. He didn't care for the sin, of course, and told people to go and sin no more (despite the typo in one version that said "go and sin on more"), but Christ loved sinners (whew). Not only does God love sinners (us), but God told us to love one another as He loves us. Picketing the funerals of homosexuals, and erecting statues that say that Matthew Shepherd is in Hell is a usage of the word "love" that I'm not familiar with. I suspect that Fred Phelps' dictionary has a few typos in its definition of "love". So here we are. On one hand, we're told that God really does not like it when people have sex with people that are the same sex as they are, and so if we love God, we won't do that, because he tends to get upset about it...and why would anyone want to deliberately upset someone they love? On the other hand, we're told that God loves us all, and expects us to love one another as well...and we better have a good dictionary too, because I don't think God's dictionary has the same definition that Phelps' dictionary does, and he tends to get upset when people mistreat those He loves. I guess that's enough for now. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Sept 4, 2004 12:59:24 GMT -5
A couple things: 1. First people have to recognize that it's a civil rights issue. When it comes to gay marriage, for example, a lot of people are not convinced. Goes back to hearts and minds. I think this should be a case where people should be able to get behind a letter writing campaign telling their legislators "Woah! I am not a big supporter of gay rights, but come on. How is this fair? Do the right thing, and change the law." I think this is a 14th Amendment violation, which would take it out of the State's hands. Some things are so patently and obviously unfair, public opinion means exactly dick. (If that sounds aggressive toward you, sorry - not my intention) 2. You refer to the "personal religious hatred" in the courts. I don't know the judges, so I can't say if there is hatred there or not, but I am reminded of the saying "never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." ;D Agreed.  I read the court's decision, and it was not very cogent. 2a. You have not done this, but while we're on the general subject, some people attribute hate where there is no hate. Some people think that if someone is opposed to the "gay agenda", they are a bigot and say so. This is a wonderful way to sabatoge any effort you are making to change hearts and minds, incidentally. It shuts down the discussion and starts up a shouting match (or a flame war). As a Catholic, I believe that homosexual acts are sinful. I have concluded that the only way I can think otherwise is to lie to myself and say that scripture does not say what it says. I may not like what it says, but who am I to argue with God? Maybe someday I'll stand before God in Heaven and ask God face to face. Even if He replies "just because", "because it's icky", or even "42", He has the benefit of being God, and I have the benefit of the wonderful confused look on my face. To be fair, God also said that we're not supposed to fornicate. So even if we get the opposite-sex part down, I better be married to the woman with whom I'm making "the beast with two backs", or God will still be cross about it. Hmm, when talking about God, is that a pun? My point is that you and I can disagree, without me having an ounce of hate in my heart. At the same time, and this is the part that people like Fred Phelps get in trouble, God loves sinners, which is a good thing, because there were only a couple people who were not sinners: Mary, the Mother of God - and Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who often hung out with sinners, because they needed Him. He didn't care for the sin, of course, and told people to go and sin no more (despite the typo in one version that said "go and sin on more"), but Christ loved sinners (whew). Not only does God love sinners (us), but God told us to love one another as He loves us. Picketing the funerals of homosexuals, and erecting statues that say that Matthew Shepherd is in Hell is a usage of the word "love" that I'm not familiar with. I suspect that Fred Phelps' dictionary has a few typos in its definition of "love". So here we are. On one hand, we're told that God really does not like it when people have sex with people that are the same sex as they are, and so if we love God, we won't do that, because he tends to get upset about it...and why would anyone want to deliberately upset someone they love? On the other hand, we're told that God loves us all, and expects us to love one another as well...and we better have a good dictionary too, because I don't think God's dictionary has the same definition that Phelps' dictionary does, and he tends to get upset when people mistreat those He loves. I guess that's enough for now. Exactly why I say you are a true Christian. Even if you think it's a sin, you think we are all sinners, and that God's message, in a nutshell, is for us to love one another as we love ourselves. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Sept 4, 2004 17:13:54 GMT -5
Exactly why I say you are a true Christian. Even if you think it's a sin, you think we are all sinners, and that God's message, in a nutshell, is for us to love one another as we love ourselves. - Rick There's obviously more to Christianity than that...there's a whole area of discussion about justification by faith vs. justification by works, and how we cannot earn our way into Heaven...but I don't think it's an accident that "Love God with your all your heart, mind and soul, and your neighbor as yourself" are considered (by Christ, even) the greatest commandments. You're also probably right about the 14th Amendment issue. If this gets to the USSC, I would hope that they will slap it down and say "you have got to be kidding me". If not, I would hope that the decency of the American people would demand that the law be changed. |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Sept 4, 2004 22:09:47 GMT -5
A couple things: 1. First people have to recognize that it's a civil rights issue. When it comes to gay marriage, for example, a lot of people are not convinced. Goes back to hearts and minds. I think this should be a case where people should be able to get behind a letter writing campaign telling their legislators "Woah! I am not a big supporter of gay rights, but come on. How is this fair? Do the right thing, and change the law." 2. You refer to the "personal religious hatred" in the courts. I don't know the judges, so I can't say if there is hatred there or not, but I am reminded of the saying "never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." ;D 2a. You have not done this, but while we're on the general subject, some people attribute hate where there is no hate. Some people think that if someone is opposed to the "gay agenda", they are a bigot and say so. This is a wonderful way to sabatoge any effort you are making to change hearts and minds, incidentally. It shuts down the discussion and starts up a shouting match (or a flame war). As a Catholic, I believe that homosexual acts are sinful. I have concluded that the only way I can think otherwise is to lie to myself and say that scripture does not say what it says. I may not like what it says, but who am I to argue with God? Maybe someday I'll stand before God in Heaven and ask God face to face. Even if He replies "just because", "because it's icky", or even "42", He has the benefit of being God, and I have the benefit of the wonderful confused look on my face. To be fair, God also said that we're not supposed to fornicate. So even if we get the opposite-sex part down, I better be married to the woman with whom I'm making "the beast with two backs", or God will still be cross about it. Hmm, when talking about God, is that a pun? My point is that you and I can disagree, without me having an ounce of hate in my heart. At the same time, and this is the part that people like Fred Phelps get in trouble, God loves sinners, which is a good thing, because there were only a couple people who were not sinners: Mary, the Mother of God - and Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who often hung out with sinners, because they needed Him. He didn't care for the sin, of course, and told people to go and sin no more (despite the typo in one version that said "go and sin on more"), but Christ loved sinners (whew). Not only does God love sinners (us), but God told us to love one another as He loves us. Picketing the funerals of homosexuals, and erecting statues that say that Matthew Shepherd is in Hell is a usage of the word "love" that I'm not familiar with. I suspect that Fred Phelps' dictionary has a few typos in its definition of "love". So here we are. On one hand, we're told that God really does not like it when people have sex with people that are the same sex as they are, and so if we love God, we won't do that, because he tends to get upset about it...and why would anyone want to deliberately upset someone they love? On the other hand, we're told that God loves us all, and expects us to love one another as well...and we better have a good dictionary too, because I don't think God's dictionary has the same definition that Phelps' dictionary does, and he tends to get upset when people mistreat those He loves. I guess that's enough for now. ;D I understand what you're saying. This is not new to me. I grew up memorizing scripture in my southern baptist bible study. That's why I don't believe in the bible. It talks of homosexuality as if it is sin. It's not something bad that I do. It's not like stealing or lying. It's not an act. It's who I am. It is an identity that goes beyond a sexual act. Am I a sinner if I only lust after women in my heart, like Jimmy Carter. I'm gay. Even if I don't have a girlfriend, I'm still gay. I refuse to believe that my very existence is wrong. I do not know the judge either but it's a pretty good guess that he's a christian and he would have to hate homosexuality to hand down a sentence like that to that kid. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Sept 4, 2004 22:48:35 GMT -5
You're also probably right about the 14th Amendment issue. If this gets to the USSC, I would hope that they will slap it down and say "you have got to be kidding me". If not, I would hope that the decency of the American people would demand that the law be changed. I'm pretty sure they sent it back down, but that may have been the appellate court, so I'm really not sure. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Sept 5, 2004 0:18:05 GMT -5
I understand what you're saying. This is not new to me. I grew up memorizing scripture in my southern baptist bible study. That's why I don't believe in the bible. It talks of homosexuality as if it is sin. It's not something bad that I do. It's not like stealing or lying. It's not an act. It's who I am. It is an identity that goes beyond a sexual act. Am I a sinner if I only lust after women in my heart, like Jimmy Carter. I'm gay. Even if I don't have a girlfriend, I'm still gay. I refuse to believe that my very existence is wrong. I can't speak for the Baptists, I can only speak for myself, and inform you of what Catholic teaching is. I do not believe your very existence is wrong. It's not sinful to be gay any more than it is sinful to be straight. Neither is a choice, therefore neither is a sin. That's why I'm (usually) careful about how I write. Unless I slip up, I do not say that homosexuality is a sin. I say that homosexual acts are sinful. Again, heterosexual sex acts are also sinful - if not between a man and his wife. According to Catholic teaching, then, the only (non-sinful) option available for single heterosexuals and homosexuals (married or not) is...celibacy. Is that fair? Maybe not....but it's not a belief that's held because we're mean-spirited or hateful. If God says "don't do this", we don't have the authority to say that He didn't say that. Anyhow, I'm not trying to judge you, make you feel bad or angry. I'm not trying to set myself up as holier than thou. I hope I'm not coming across that way. |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Sept 5, 2004 1:48:50 GMT -5
That's why I'm (usually) careful about how I write. Unless I slip up, I do not say that homosexuality is a sin. I say that homosexual acts are sinful. Again, heterosexual sex acts are also sinful - if not between a man and his wife. According to Catholic teaching, then, the only (non-sinful) option available for single heterosexuals and homosexuals (married or not) is...celibacy. Is that fair? Maybe not....but it's not a belief that's held because we're mean-spirited or hateful. If God says "don't do this", we don't have the authority to say that He didn't say that. Anyhow, I'm not trying to judge you, make you feel bad or angry. I'm not trying to set myself up as holier than thou. I hope I'm not coming across that way. No. You're not coming off that way but dude, I can't get married because of man made laws. If gay marriage became legal and I could meet and marry the woman of my dreams (alicia keys) would the church accept me according to the bible. I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by maylily on Sept 5, 2004 8:15:12 GMT -5
Well, I have enough to worry about with myself, I can't worry about whether someone else's sexuality is what God wants or not. I think its one of those things that is between God and the person themselves.
I don't think that it's as much a Christian thing anymore as the current political climate has made it "okay" for people to be discrimanatory against gays. People who aren't practicing Chrisitans but who are afraid of gays or just don't like them for whatever reason are jumping on the bandwagon and using all the buzzwords, etc to justify their behavior. It's disgusting and sickens me.
At work, when I enter people into the computer and it is a gay couple, I sit there grinning as I link them in our system as a spouse. I feel like I'm, in a small way, striking a blow for gay rights. Does that make sense? I think its because when we send out an invitation or a mailing, we recognize that these two people are a couple and treat them as such. I think that's what makes me feel like I'm doing something instead of sitting here moaning about the situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Sept 5, 2004 8:40:45 GMT -5
No. You're not coming off that way but dude, I can't get married because of man made laws. If gay marriage became legal and I could meet and marry the woman of my dreams (alicia keys) would the church accept me according to the bible. I don't think so. It depends on what you mean by accepting you. The Church teaches that marriage is an opposite sex deal. Even if the laws change, the Sacrament of Matrimony will be restricted to man/woman relationships, and homosexual sex acts will still be considered a sin, since it's considered a sin regardless of whether there is a marriage. However, the Catholic Church is not a Fred Phelps church. We do not believe that "God hates fags". <Touched by an Angel Mode> God loves you. You are one of his daughters. You are one of our sisters. <end Touched by an Angel Mode> Here's what our Catechism says on the subject: I'm sure there are parts of that you don't like, but I'm sure you expected that. As for whether the Church would accept you...I refer you to paragraph 2358. |
|
...when he's around
