 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
Click here
|
Kansas Appeals Court Rehears Same-Sex Child Molestation Case 12/26/2003 CWA Commentary: Supreme Court’s ruling in Texas sodomy case continues perverse impact. CWA Commentary: Supreme Court’s ruling in Texas sodomy case continues perverse impact.
A three-judge appeals panel heard arguments December 2 in the case of Kansas v. Limon. Limon was 18 years old when he was convicted in 2000 of having oral sex with a 14-year-old boy at a private group home for people with developmental disabilities in Paola, Kansas.
During oral argument, Kansas Court of Appeals Judge Joseph Pierron told Deputy Attorney General Jared Maag, who was representing the state, that the state's reasons for doling out harsher punishment for illegal sex involving homosexual acts are "utterly ridiculous. … I'm just trying to come up with a reason, other than you don't like homosexuals." The Kansas court earlier rejected Limon's challenge of his conviction, but the U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down a Texas law that criminalized gay sex and returned the Limon case to the Kansas courts for reconsideration.
Limon was convicted and received five years for the offense plus 12 years based on two prior convictions for sodomizing children. The 12 years have nothing to do with Limon’s sexual orientation, which is what the ACLU defense claims.
The felony statute under which Limon was convicted and sentenced, K.S.A. § 21-3505 (a) (2), states, “Criminal sodomy is sodomy with a child who is 14 years of age but less than 16 years of age.” Limon complains that he is excluded from sentencing under another felony statute with a lesser penalty, K.S.A. § 21-3522, known as a “Romeo and Juliet law.” It prohibits “engaging in sodomy with a child who is 14 years of age but less than 16 years of age and the offender is less than 19 years of age and less than four years of age older than the child and the child and the offender are the only parties involved and are members of the opposite sex.”
Here’s where the spin begins. The ACLU is arguing that the case is about discrimination against a “bisexual teen” who can’t be charged with the lesser felony under § 21-3522 (a). Read the statute again—“sexual orientation” is not an element of the offense—a heterosexual who has sex with a minor of the same-sex is also excluded from being charged with the lesser felony.
Limon may be what experts classify as either a “morally indiscriminate” or “sexually indiscriminate” molester who targets his victims based on the situation rather than their sex. This time he targeted a developmentally disabled boy of the same sex who doesn’t function as a “normal” 14-year-old. The institution had repeatedly disciplined Limon for sexual misconduct with other residents before this crime.
Limon appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals, arguing that because he and the victim are the same-sex he couldn’t be sentenced under the “Romeo and Juliet” law, which violates his equal protection rights. The court affirmed his conviction, and the Kansas Supreme Court declined review. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted review.
The day after the Court issued its decision in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down Texas’ same-sex sodomy statute, the Court vacated Limon’s conviction and remanded the case to the Kansas Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurring opinion in Lawrence. O’Connor, who provided the sixth vote to strike the Texas statute, relied on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Both the majority and O’Connor emphasized that Lawrence is limited to its facts— two adult men, “who with full and mutual consent from each other engaged in sexual practices common to the homosexual lifestyle.”
So once again, the Kansas Court of Appeals is being asked to strike down the “Romeo and Juliet” statute and Limon’s conviction and/or sentence. Hopefully the court will take the Supremes at their word and refuse to extend Lawrence to Limon’s sexual abuse of a child.
The Lawrence Court did not rule that sodomy is now a fundamental right or that homosexuals are a “suspect class” requiring the highest level of judicial review—strict-scrutiny to claims of discrimination. The Court didn’t even apply an intermediate level of review. The Court applied its lowest level of review—rational basis, but held that morality alone is not a sufficient rational basis to justify criminalizing private, consensual sex between adults in the home. It’s unfathomable that a serious crime against a child should require any higher level of review.
The attorney general is absolutely right. The Kansas Court should not read Lawrence to require Kansas to justify its “Romeo and Juliet law” on anything more than a rational basis, such as regulating public morality or other rational, if not compelling state interests, such as protecting children from the added psychological impact of same-sex molestation by perpetrators who engage in unhealthy sexual practices.
John R. Diggs Jr., MD, writes in “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” published by Corporate Resource Council (2002): “Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span.”
Although homosexuals account for less than 2 percent of the population, they constitute about a third of child molesters, according to K. Freund and R.I. Watson, “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study,” J. of Sex & Marital Therapy 18 (1992), and K. Freund, and R.I. Watson, “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” 10 J. of Sex & Marital Therapy 197 (1984).
The Journal of the American Medical Association published an analysis of 166 studies between 1985 and 1997 of sexually abused boys. The analysis concluded that sexual abuse of boys often goes undetected and untreated. Sexually abused boys are at increased risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression, anxiety disorders, paranoia, dissociation, somatization, bulimia, anger, aggressive behavior, poor self-image, poor school performance, running away from home, and legal trouble. “The perpetrators tend to be males who are known but frequently unrelated to the victims. The abuse typically occurs outside the home, is repeated and involves penetration.” See Sexual Abuse of Male Children Common, Under-Recognized, Under-Treated (Science News Update: www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/sci-news/1998/snr1202.htm)(visited Feb. 24, 1999).
The statute and Limon’s conviction and sentence should be upheld. This 21-year-old multiple sex offender should reside in the state prison for the term imposed—not in an institution where he can continue to sexually abuse the most vulnerable among us—developmentally disabled children. |
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 |
Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives
