A little good news to lighten the load

The Kansas City Star reported on October 22 that in 2000, an 18-year old boy named Matthew Limon, residing in the advanced state of Kansas, had consensual sex with another boy, then aged 14. The act was discovered; he was arrested, tried, and convicted of criminal sodomy. He was sentenced to 17 years in prison.

If 17 years in the slammer for teen sex isn't shocking enough, consider that had his partner been a girl instead of a boy, the maximum sentence would have been just 15 months. That's because Kansas has a so-called Romeo and Juliet statute, which

allows for lesser penalties for teenagers convicted of having sexual relations with a 14- or 15-year-old, so long as the offender is 18 or younger and less than four years older than the victim, and is a member of the opposite sex.

Limon's attorneys argued that the last distinction violates the state and federal constitutions by holding out different penalties for a separate class of citizens.

The good news here is that on October 21, the Kansas Supreme Court agreed, ruling not only that the law is unfair but that

[t]he statute violated a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that made it illegal for states to penalize homosexual activity.

Everyone on both sides agreed the ruling is a victory for gay rights and its strong language - the Court declared that "moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest" - could be the basis for further gains. Still, the history of the case shows not only how far we've come but how far we haven't:

Lower courts had ruled against Limon, arguing the distinction was necessary to protect traditional sexuality, to protect children and teenagers and to prevent the spread of diseases such as HIV. They had also ruled that softer penalties for straight offenders were justified because those offenders might have impregnated their young partners and have a child to care for.

"Protect traditional sexuality?" Isn't that the same kind of argument that was used for years to claim that it was impossible for men to rape their wives? To criminalize anal and oral sex, even between married couples? To ban birth control?

"Protect children and teenagers?" From what? From learning that the notion that gays are more likely to exploit children or be predators is a bigoted fantasy?

"Prevent the spread of diseases such as HIV?" Are they still living in the old ignorance that HIV is a "gay disease?" Do they not care about syphilis, gonorrhea, genital herpes? Is it okay for those diseases to spread?

"Straight offenders ... might have ... a child to care for?" Do you really want some 17-year old supporting the child of a 15-year old? Is that wise or in most cases even possible? Aren't you really proposing rewarding the boy for impregnating the girl? ("Atta guy! Way to go!") And isn't the "logic" the same sort as that once used to justify paying men more than women for the same job? ("He has a family to care for.")

And, of course, there was the typical slogan-smeared soundbites about "activist judges" from the friends of bigotry:

I'm outraged," said Matt Staver of the Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel, which filed a brief supporting the law on behalf of 25 Kansas lawmakers. "The court essentially rewrote the law and clearly usurped the power of the Legislature."

Let me explain something to all the Matt Stavers out there. I'll try to say it clearly and simply enough so your limited grasp of reality can encompass it.

The Legislature does not have the power to override the rock-bottom principle of equal treatment before the law! The Legislature does not have the power to override the US Constitution! The Court did not "usurp" any power of the Legislature because the Legislature does not have the power to establish lawful bigotry.

Is that simple enough for you?