At age 18, Matthew Limon — a developmentally disabled young man — engaged in voluntary sexual activity with a 14-year-old male. This followed two prior cases where Limon was prosecuted as a juvenile for having sex with someone younger than 16.
A heterosexual Kansan of his age would have been sentenced — at most — to just 15 months for crossing the line of age of consent with a fellow post-pubescent teen-ager. But because the sex was same-gender, Limon was sentenced in 2000 to more than 17 years in prison.
Focus on the Family reacted with glee last year when the 17-year sentence was upheld. In doing so, Focus withheld from its readers key facts: that Limon was just four years older than his counterpart; that Limon was developmentally disabled and functioning as someone younger than 18; that the sex was voluntary; and that heterosexuals would have faced little or no punishment for the same offense.
Today, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state may not punish homosexual conduct more harshly than heterosexual conduct. “The statute inflicts immediate, continuing and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justification that may be claimed for it,” Justice Marla Luckert wrote. “Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest.”
After at least three and a half years of unjust imprisonment, Limon may finally have his sentence reduced.
XGW would be pleasantly surprised if Exodus and Focus experience a change of heart, and join civilized society in treating gay offenses as equal to heterosexual offenses.
What a medieval state Kansas really is, to imprision an 18 year old for 17 years of prision for consensual sex. Shame on the DA and on Focus. I’m sure they all have a place in the Hells waiting for them in the afterlife.
Mike, I just read about this case on 365gay.com and was pleasantly surprised to see that a Kansas court ruled that homosexual and heterosexual sex crimes deserved equal punishment. I am not a proponent of unequal treatment—if you commit a crime, regardless of who it is committed against or by, you deserve to go to jail.
At least on the case of the Kansas court ruling, we agree. Amazing.
Alan,
I’m glad we’ve found an item we agree on. Perhaps this can be a stepping stone. We can next agree on equal treatment outside of jail.
We can agree to oppose sodomy laws because they are based on unequal treatment. We agree that we will not call Lawrence v. Texas the immoral legalization of homosexual sodomy imposed on us by activist judges.
We can agree that laws banning gay marriage are wrong and must be defeated because they apply unequal treatment. We agree to stop pretending that marriage will somehow be harmed if it is equally applied.
I know that you have been on the other side of these issues in the past but let me be the first to welcome you to the fight against unequal treatment.
After all, that is exactly what we want, too, the end to unequal treatment.
However, Alan, what I suspect you mean is “equal treatment for ex-gays”. Guess what… I’m not opposed to that.
I think you should have the right to have form ex-gay groups in school – providing you can find ex-gays who want to create one. I don’t mind your telling folks that “change is possible” – providing you tell them that you mean “chastity is possibly (though nearly all participants drop out) and maybe after many years a VERY small number of people might establish relationships with the opposite sex”. I’m all for letting people know the facts and making informed decisions.
And while we’re at it, let’s impose the same rules on all: we won’t call you immoral, evil, or a destructive lifestyle and you won’t call us that either. We promise not to lie about you, and you don’t lie about us – oh, and Alan, that includes deception, spin, bogus studies, and keeping people’s pictures on your website as “changed” long after they have let you know that they are happily gay, thanks.
So how ’bout it, Alan. Ready to be a champion for equal treatment? It won’t be easy, but then righteousness seldom is.
The lower court appeals judge, Henry Green-had a reasoning that doesn’t make sense even if you considered the social impact.
The GAY encounter had far LESS. But according to HIM, the encounter between these two males was the end of civilization.
However, let’s revisit the case of TWO Matthews.
Matthew Limon, and Matthew KOSO.
Matthew Koso is a 22 year old man that started dating his wife Crys when she was age 11. She became pregnant at thirteen and because the Kansas law allowed thirteen year olds to marry, they went across state lines from their home in Iowa to marry. They are now the parents of newborn girl.
Matthew Koso had been brought up on charges before for lewd conduct with another 12 year old girl.
His parents didn’t send up a RED FLAG to the parents of Crys when he was seen with her.
Crys’s parents were only RESIGNED to the marriage because they didn’t want an unwed young mother on their hands with the baby daddy in jail.
Now, the social consequnces had a far graver impact here than what happened between Matt LIMON and another boy, close to his own age.
1. The physical imbalance of a grown man on a young girl. There is no power this girl could have to avoid or prevent his advances on her own.
2. Pregnancy. This is a profound physical change with hormonal changes occurring, while GROWTH hormones are also occurring. She was at risk for enclampsia, ceasarian and post partum depression or psychosis.
3. Disease not only affects the parties engaged in sex, but babies are infected too.
4. Had this girl been embroiled in an abortion issue, it’s still a profound issue for a young girl to have to handle.
5. Females and babies are more at risk for abuse in situations like this. The husband has already proven to be a menace to underage girls. This could include his own daughter.
Compare this to Matt Limon’s oral sex encounter and it’s not even close to compare situations as having the same impact, even with equal treatment under the law.
If anything…heterosexual sex with the underaged should carry the harsher sentence for all the aforementioned reasons.
My colleagues at LAPD just processed the pictures of the newborn that died in a trash dumpster here in LA.
His mother is a 3 year USC university student, aged 21.
Apparently, she killed another newborn last year.
Had she been a lesbian….this wouldn’t have happened.
So it makes sense to admonish irresponsible HETEROSEX, not homosexual sex-if saving children is the moral agenda.
Timothy,
very well said. I am waiting with bated breath for Chambers’ response on the important issues of equality. He cannot expect much in the way of support for his ex-gay movement until it is presented in an honest manner, and expresses respect for those who are happy and unashamed with their innate characteristics of being gay and recognize the falsehood of the juvenile notion of “heinous sinful lifestyle”. I don’t see that happening though. Denouncing gays, using false data and fear mongering that is religously biased will not win support from gays that they can convert to heterosexual. This along with the fact that one cannot change an innate biological characteristic and physiological function through psychological methods because it is not psychologically based to begin with. Chambers et al are free to claim whatever they want, if they are honest about it and present both sides, that being that most gay people are in fact happy and well adjusted citizens, not monsters out to destroy families. It is those who are not happy with who they are that are free to change( ie go back into the closet and pretend that it doesn’t exist- that is all I see this supposed change to be anyway, at best).
Timothy at October 21, 2005 06:40 PM
Timothy, self-described “ex-gays” are presumptively straight. Who is going to discriminate against presumptively straight people? The (as the anti-gay people put it) 2% of the population who are gay? At some point, this becomes ludicrous. What pratical effect would that have? That they might be denied service by someone at a resort?
Chambers and the other “ex-gay” people are running gigs.
To Mr. Chambers,
and anyone else with ‘moral’ objections to gay people involved even in monogamous, committed and enduring relationships, supported by marriage.
The worst kind of heterosexual has the option to marry, even their own sex crime victims. The worst heterosexual who has murdered a previous spouse has the option to marry. A clinically insane heterosexual can marry and have children and have that marriage sanctioned and legally recognized by the state.
When the absolute worst heterosexual has far more chances to pursue their most basic and legal human choice of spouse and family protections in the law than the best homosexual…
There is no equal treatment under the law. No moral principle of equal standards being applied and no practical social network that’s stronger under these conditions.
This is why the injustice of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation ALONE, is not and never will be right or moral.
And I’m sick to the teeth of anyone lying to our faces like it is.