Amazingly, This from Kansas

Kansas cannot punish illegal underage sex more severely if it involves homosexual conduct, the state’s highest court ruled unanimously Friday in a case watched by national groups on both sides of the gay rights debate.

The Supreme Court said in a unanimous ruling that a law that specified such harsher treatment and led to a 17-year prison sentence for an 18-year-old defendant “suggests animus toward teenagers who engage in homosexual sex.”

“Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest,” said Justice Marla Luckert, writing for the high court.

The defendant, Matthew R. Limon, has been behind bars since he was convicted in 2000 of performing a sex act on a 14-year-old boy. Had one of them been a girl, the state’s “Romeo and Juliet” law would have dictated a maximum sentence of 15 months. (source)

I’ve been following this story for awhile now. I made three previous entries concerning it. This is a final update.

Previous Entries
December 3, 2003 - Appeal Begins For Teen Sentenced To Prison For Gay Sex
January 31, 2004 - Sterner penalty OK’d in same-sex relations
September 3, 2004 - ACLU again fights teen’s 17-year jail term

If Mr. Limon had been treated with equality, instead of the 17 year sentence that he received, he would have received 15 months.

The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that the double standard is unconstitutional.

The Kansas Supreme Court decided the clause, as applied to only heterosexuals, violated the equal protection clause.

That was based on a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas ruling a Texas law against gay adult sex unconstitutional.

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline said the state high court ruling would lead to incest and “other less-than-desirable couplings” but said he probably won’t appeal. (source)

I guess that makes Kent and myself, along with other gay couples, “less-than-desirable couplings”? Some people seriously need to get a life and get out more.

At least Matthew can now get on with his life, and that’s the important thing.

But as long as we are talking about Kansas... I remember when we were bidding on a new mortgage for our home, the best rate came from a company located in Kansas. I tried to explain to the man why, even though he was giving us a better rate for the mortgage, I would not put my money into any institution that discriminated against people based on sexual orientation.

He kept telling me that they don’t, and can’t discriminate against anyone, by law. He said, “We don’t discriminate against anyone.” I asked him, “Does your state have a provision in state code that specifically states that people working for the state can’t be fired for being gay, or denied housing, or accommodations?” He had no idea what the hell I was talking about. I answer the question for him and told him that, although I thought he was very nice to work with, the state they are situated in is not very nice to people like me. I am simply returning the favor by taking my business elsewhere.

What goes around comes around. The world is a smaller place now. Companies in the individual states can do as they please. But people like me, who are paying attention and actually check the track record of the company I’m about to put money into (not a difficult task on the Internet), will pay for those decisions by not gaining my business. And if we’d all do that...