Matthew Limon was convicted of having consensual but criminal sex with a nearly-15-year-old boy when he was 18 and both lived at a group home for the developmentally disabled. He was sentenced to a 17+ year prison term despite a Kansas “Romeo and Juliet” statute — which sharply reduces penalties for sex between a sub-16-year-old and a partner within 4 years of his/her age — because it applies only to opposite-sex activity.
Limon’s case has been returned to the Kansas Court of Appeals in the wake of Lawrence v. Texas, where Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline held a news conference to publicize his arguments in support of Limon’s sentence. As reported by the AP:
Kline said today that if the state loses a sodomy case currently before a state appeals court, Kansas marriage laws and laws against sex with children will be nullified.
Kline said the American Civil Liberties Union is attacking the state’s prohibition of same-sex marriages as well as laws against polygamy, incest, bestiality and sex between adults and children.
The ACLU described his statements as distortions and acts of desperation.
As if oblivious to the ACLU’s specific actions, Kline continues:
“I’ll tell you what: I would be deeply offended if, when my daughter turns 13, she walks out the door to meet her 30-year-old boyfriend, and I say ‘no,” and she says, ‘I’ve got a 1-800 number for the ACLU; it’s my constitutional right,”‘ Kline said. “That’s their argument. They have to live with it.”
In fact, the ACLU isn’t challenging the Kansas law which makes sex between someone under 16 and anyone else a crime. If Kline’s 13-year-old daughter aggressively pursued a 16-year-old boy for sex and got it, the ACLU isn’t impeding his ability to charge the boy with unlawful sexual relations with a sentence of up to 15 months. If the boy was was 4 years and a day older than her, he could get the same 17-year sentence Limon got.
It’s enough to leave a person thinking that Kline is employing the same strategy that Al Franken ascribes to right-wing media (parenthesized examples mine):
They “concoct an inflammatory story that serves their political goals.” (The ACLU is pro-child-sex.) “They repeat it.” (The ACLU wants my 13-year-old to have sex with 30-somethings!) “They embellish it.” (Will the ACLU stop at incest? Polygamy? Bestiality?) “They try to push it into the mainstream media.”
Early headlines about Kline in mainstream Kansas news outlets emphasized Kline’s fears; their focus seemed to shift to conflicting claims by him and the ACLU:
- KCTV5 News, Kansas City MO and Dodge City Daily Globe:
Kline Says Marriage, Consent Laws in Danger; ACLU Disputes Claim
(Earlier headline at KCTV5: “Kline: KS Marriage Laws Could be in Danger”) - Topeka Capital-Journal:
Kline: Kansas marriage laws could be in danger
(Headline later changed to “Kline, ACLU dispute marriage, consent laws”)
Phill Kline may not be an inflammatory fear-monger, but he seemed to relish that role yesterday.
Don’t forget, Kansas was the state whose state board of education removed any requirement for teaching evolution as part of the high school biology curriculum. Evilution, of course, being the basis for any modern study of biology.
To me, the Matthew Limon case and the laws that make that kind of thing prosecutable are ridicules at many levels.
Firstly because ANY teenage, regardless of their sexuality, should be trusted with making their own decisions about sex. I have never once seen a legitimate reason to think otherwise; all the arguments I’ve seen are “they aren’t responsible” or “its just common sense” with no evidence or attempt at any kind of reasoning to support the opinion. Weren’t these people ever children themselves?
Secondly, what’s with all these victimless crimes? If it’s victimless where’s the crime? Think about it, two people engage in consensual sex. Regardless of age, gender, method, where’s the harm done? But still, in many cases they would be persecuted. Can anybody justify that?
Thirdly, even if you make the incorrect assumption that teens are irresponsible and there is a need to set ages of consent, what’s with all the over 18-under 18 bans? Two people a week apart in age could have been legally having sex since they were 15 or 16, then suddenly one of them has a birthday, and it becomes a crime punishable by prison time (decades more of it if they are gay)
Lastly, ignoring the morality of all of that, how is it that straight teens are protected in most states by so-called “Romeo and Juliet” laws (a step in the direction of sanity, if only a small one,) and in many states, the equivalent “Romeo and Mercutio” laws simply don’t exist? It’s just downright immoral, illogical, unequal, prejudiced, and, to many, harmful.
Well, I’ve said my lot. But as a gay teenager in today’s society, I’m rather frightened of what could happen to me, of losing decades in prison, or in a mental asylum, simply for leading out my sexual life as any teen must do.
All men are created equal?
The land of the free?
Someday, I hope, someday…
Michael
“ANY teenage[r], regardless of their sexuality, should be trusted with making their own decisions about sex.”
Depends on the teenager. I have a 15-year-old daughter. God love her, and I adore her, but do I trust many of the decisions she makes? Nope. She, like many kids her age, is impetuous, sometimes immature, and YOUNG. She doesn’t have the experience and wisdom to think about the big picture. And that is a very important consideration, though I can understand why teens don’t wish to hear that.
“Weren’t these people ever children themselves?”
I was. And I made some damn fool choices that, at 42, I regret. Thankfully, however, I waited ’til my 20s to make them.
“how is it that straight teens are protected in most states by so-called “Romeo and Juliet” laws (a step in the direction of sanity, if only a small one,) and in many states, the equivalent “Romeo and Mercutio” laws simply don’t exist? It’s just downright immoral, illogical, unequal, prejudiced, and, to many, harmful.”
I don’t disagree with that, in principle. Kids of all orientations should be treated equally.
“Two people a week apart in age could have been legally having sex since they were 15 or 16, then suddenly one of them has a birthday, and it becomes a crime punishable by prison time”
Very true, however, many states have laws that include stipulations that there has to be a four year age gap to prevent that kind of thing from happening.
“leading out my sexual life as any teen must do”
As any teen must do? Uh, no. Not every teen has sex. And not every teen should.
Michael, thanks for your comments. One of the things that public conversations about gay issues have had in common with those about youth-related issues is that too much talk is *about* the folks in question, and too little is *with* them. Your thoughts from the reality of your own life are valuable.
I don’t have specific answers handy, but I think fairness, consistency, proportionality, and reasonability all matter tremendously in the definition of laws. Youth issues get tricky because of the obligation to protect as well as be fair to folks who are not yet adults.