Discrimination against gays okay, says Kansas -

[imrthr]

Official justifies harsher penalties for gay sex

Says promoting traditional values is reason enough

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 Posted: 10:14 AM EDT (1414 GMT)

 

 

Sex Crimes

 

 

TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- The State can punish sex acts more harshly when it involves homosexual acts, even if the only goal is promoting traditional values, said the Kansas Supreme Court on Tuesday.

 

Deputy Attorney General Jared Maag said legislators have broad latitude in setting policy that "any conceivable, rational basis" would justify the different treatment.

 

Maag argued in favor of upholding a sentence of more than 17 years in prison for Matthew R. Limon, convicted of criminal sodomy for having sex at age 18 with a 14-year-old boy in 2000.

 

Had the victim been a girl, Limon could have been sentenced to one year and three months in prison under a 1999 "Romeo and Juliet" law that gives shorter sentences to heterosexuals if the partners' ages are within four years and under 19.

 

Limon's attorneys argued the different treatment represents discrimination against gays and lesbians and is unconstitutional.

 

But Maag said the different treatment is acceptable if legislators can argue there's a rational reason -- including promoting traditional values.

 

"If you admit there's a conceivable basis that's at least arguable, then that is enough to uphold the statute as constitutional," he said.

 

James Esseks, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing Limon, said the state has "fanciful justifications" for the harsher sentence.

 

Esseks said the state is basing its law on "private prejudice," which is constitutionally unacceptable.

 

The Kansas Court of Appeals rejected Limon's appeal in 2002. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law criminalizing gay sex and returned Limon's case to the state courts.

 

But in a 2-1 decision in January, the Kansas Court of Appeals noted that the U.S. Supreme Court case involved consenting adults and sided with the state again. Limon then appealed the state Supreme Court, which could rule as early as October 15.

__________________________________________________________________

 

Not a pretty picture by any means - By the way, what are "traditional values?"

[bigguyinpasadena]

Welllllll If I really needed another reason NOT to spend my leisure dollars in Kansas(like THAT was going to happen)there it is!

Jesus save me from your followers.

[Guest ncm2169]

So much for being a "Friend of Dorothy." x(

[trilingual]

Well, the fat lady hasn't sung yet, so wait and see what the Kansas Supremes do. They aren't "friends of Dorothy" either, but the U.S. Supreme Court gave Kansas a very strong nudge about this case when it decided the Texas sodomy case. Of course, the state attorneys are obligated to defend the state's current law, but I notice they presented a kind of weak argument which will make it easier for either the Kansas or U.S. Supreme Courts to eventually rule against this conviction.

[+ Lucky]

"The State can punish sex acts more harshly when it involves homosexual acts, even if the only goal is promoting traditional values, said the Kansas Supreme Court on Tuesday."

 

Where did the Kansas Supreme Court say this? I thought they hadn't ruled yet...

[imrthr]

>"The State can punish sex acts more harshly when it involves

>homosexual acts, even if the only goal is promoting

>traditional values, said the Kansas Supreme Court on

>Tuesday."

>

>Where did the Kansas Supreme Court say this? I thought they

>hadn't ruled yet...

>

 

Interesting that you noticed this. I went back to the article after seeing your posting. Someone changed the last sentence to read - "a state official told the Kansas Supreme Court on Tuesday."

 

You are correct. Adding that sentence to the article clarifies that the Kansas Supreme Court has not yet ruled. The first version of the article must have been written in a hurry. You can find the repaired article on CNN & Reuters.