• The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

The TMF is sponsored by:

Clips4Sale Banner

Imprison all gays (Not a Gay-bashing thread)

Sandman

TMF Expert
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
348
Points
0
Just read about this case in Kansas and thought it might make for some interesting discussion.
An 18 year-old gay teen named Matthew Limon was sentenced to a 17-year prison term because he performed oral sex on a 15-year-old male at a residential school for developmentally disabled youth where they both lived. Now, had he instead performed oral sex on a 15-year-old female, he would have received 12 months in jail under the “Romeo and Juliet Law,” which applies only to heterosexuals.

Under this “Romeo and Juliet” law, consensual oral sex between two teens is a lesser crime if the younger teenager is 14 to 16 years old, if the older teenager is under 19, if the age difference is less than 4 years, if there are no third parties involved, and if the two teenagers “are members of the opposite sex.”

This kid will be 36 years old by the time he’s released from prison, having spent half of his life in prison, while a heterosexual person would have been released before turning 19. The only difference between a year in jail and 17 years in jail is whether or not you’re gay.

The question here isn’t whether young adults should be punished for unlawful sexual activity. It’s whether gay people should be punished more severely than straight people for committing the same crime.

The Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution forbids singling out a group of people, based on bigotry toward that group, and punishing them more severely for the same behavior. Is that not what the State of Kansas is doing here?


That article leads me to believe that they both are "disabled" so why the harsh sentence? I'm not saying if they weren't it should be different but if they both have limited mental capacity, well WTF!!

17 years for this when a drunk driver only gets 3-7 years for manslaughter, Shit, child molesters get less time. This is really messed up.

Now the big question a lot of you are asking most likely is...

Were they both disabled or was he taking advantage of the disabled kid?

From the article I read, it appeared that this was consensual. Unfortunately, I can't find much more on this story than what I already posted. Maybe someone else can fill in the blanks.

Now, does anyone live in Kansas before I slam the state? LOL ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Law and Order?

Hmm...regardless of state, that should be changed. The sentence should be equal, and I would imagine a constitutional challenge will be forthcoming shortly on that and other cases. Q
 
Sounds like we need a lot more information before we can jump to the conclusion that this boils down to anti-gay discrimination. For instance, what is it about the article that leads you to believe they were *both* disabled? And what was their disability (perhaps the older one was AD/HD and the younger one was severely retarded). And why do you assume that it was "consensual"?.

And as for the law in question:

(1) Does the Romeo and Juliet law/exception apply even if the receiver of oral sex is disabled? The R&J exception appears to be quite narrowly drawn. It may have no application whatsoever in cases of disabled persons. So under this scenario, the sentence might have been the same regardless of sexual orientation, assuming the oral sex was performed on a disabled person.

(2) Under applicable law can a disabled person be held to "consent" to sexual contact? Doesn't seem legally possible to me.
 
Just tryin' da help

Hey Sandman,

This is a HOT TOPIC! Thanks for posting it.

No offense to you, but I amended your Subject title so that people would read it and not think that you were starting a flame-war. Reason being, it did not get that much attention and I believe it is because of the title and not the content. You can change it to something more relevent if you'd like. I just think it's a great topic and deserves the chance to receive more attention.

:)
 
Lawyers...

I have one on retainer, but I can't really see bringing this up to him...lol. Any law students or attorneys on the forum? Come on out...we won't do lawyer jokes, I promise! Q
 
Personally, I think that the whole "Romeo and Juliet" law is ridiculous.

IMHO:

18 year old + 14 year old + sexual acts of any nature = MOLESTATION

Call me old fashioned, but that's just sick. An 18 year old and a 17 year old I could see. An 18 year old and a 16 year old... maybe. But 14?!?!

Also, the term "Consensual" has no application in reference to a minor. They can't even sign legally binding contracts.

Kansas ought to wise up and scrap this law altogether. I think Matthew Limon's sentence was completely appropriate, but there's no way others should get away with the same thing just because they did it with a girl. I say lock 'em all up.


ASUTickler


P.S. The only reference to this case that I could find online was from the ACLU, and was highly biased towards their POV...

http://www.aclu.org/news/2001/n092801a.html
 
ACLU...

Actually, for them that's darn near even handed, asutickler...lol. They harbor my favorite sets of lawyers, no doubt about that...things that make you go hmmmm are their specialty. ;) Q
 
Damn. One the one hand, where the hell is the staff that's supposed to be monitoring these kids, and why is an adult (i.e. 18 year old) in any space to accomplish such with a minor?

I agree with Q, that they're gonna end up seein' constitutional challenges on it, and I further suspect the older boy is gonna see less time.

I'm wondering how he could be convicted when he was a resident there. Must've been a worker residin' there, 'cause if they incarcerated a patient, well, that would offend even worse.

Sandman, dunno why this is allowed to happen this way. It's jacked, though, brother. Jacked up like clown sex.
 
The state of Kansas has all but dumped the teaching of evolution, presumably because it directly conflicts with the Biblical assertion of man and all of the animals being created individually and separately.

The Bible calls homosexuality an 'abomination' among other things. Why is there any surprise that they have laws that are virulently anti-homosexual?

I find it surprising that there aren't more laws against people with 'non-traditional' (yet otherwise harmless) sexual desires (you know who you are).
 
Ummm..yeah...

Yeah...what he said! (I think he's talking about dvnc...who else COULD it be?)..... ;) Q
 
Sound and fury........

It was never Shakespeares best work anyway.
 
D V N C

It's possible that the 18 yr old was a patient/inmate/whatever. Mental retardation doesen't eliminate sex drive. As for where were the staff - rape, drug dealing and even murder aren't exactly rare in maximum security prisons, where the supervision is at least theoretically better.

Rather than decrease penalties for homo molestation, why not increase them for straight molestation? As a parent, my view is that child abusers should be hunted down with dogs, and then gutted and broiled.

Re. ACLU, their purpose in life is to throw sand in society's gears. If I'm ever infected with rabies, I plan to bite as many of them as I can catch.

BTW, is there any way you could change the title of this thread? The title doesen't describe it very well.

Strelnikov
 
Rabies?

Just what the heck do you DO down there in Bama, Strel? :confused: Q
 
If I Told You...

...well, I wouldn't have to kill you, but I might have to wing you with this-here assault rifle.

Strelnikov
 
Yeah, the title don't do it well any longer, but it did, initially.

Regardless, I'm for increasing the consequence against child molesters. Kids oughta be able t'get t'adulthood without such crud.

Strel, if the staff lets it happen, they deserve punitive measure. I don't give a rat f*** what they're doin'. They're RESPONSIBLE for whomever is in there. RESPONSIBLE. That means they're RESPONSIBLE for the consequence, in my view. If it means separatin' solo time wit' the post-pubescent patients, well, get to it. I have less patience wit' those folk screwin' around. Those patients have no other means, and DESERVE the help. Prisons are, to my mind, a different deal.

I ain't, however, about t'sweat the ACLU. SOME of what they do is good, and none, as I view it, is harmful. Beats havin' NO one do so. Ask any of us of minority races. Ask anyone whose melanin ain't of the predominant content

Definitely another $0.02,

dvnc
 
Responsibility

Yes indeed. Maybe the pshrink who placed an 18 yr old in with the littlies deserves some punishment too, for having bad judgement. I'd settle for bastinado.

D V N C, it never occurred to me to comment about anyone's ethnicity here unless it's explicit in their handle, i. e. BlackStar. Doesen't matter to me...more interested in what's inside your head than what color it is.

Strelnikov
 
Leap of logic, Strel. My apologies for the span, brother. ACLU fights for a great many groups' rights, and the ethnicities came to mind quickest, due largely to friends that benefited from such. I'd not stand against 'em, 'cause they do so well for so many.

Clearly, I've issues with folks messin' wit' kids. In seein' my post, I'm recognizin' the fervency with which it was posted. Hope folks recognize that there's nothin' 'gainst ole Strel here. I just have very strong opinions concerning folks messin' wit' babies. My apologies, though, for the zeal of the tone. Seems a bit overstated of me.

Like you, though, I'm more interested in the gears that get the body in motion. I just want everyone on the same playin' field, whenever possible.

Nice punitive measure, too, sir. :)

dvnc
 
ACLU

My objection to them is two-fold: (1) They're a left-wing advocacy organization masquerading as disinterested defenders of all of our rights, and (2) The establishment media never question the masquerade, since it's useful and they're sympathetic.

The ACLU will take any case involving rights the Left happens to like, or that have a Left spin. To my knowledge, they have never taken on a mainstream conservative case - for example, landowner rights, individual (not group) employment rights, Second Amendment rights, the right to religious expression in public venues, the right to peacefully picket abortion clinics, PC speech codes in schools. Instead, they pick nut cases from the extreme fringe - for example, the right of all 50 of America's Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood. That lets them posture as evenhanded, when in fact the Nazis are politically unimportant and almost universally regarded with contempt. ACLU's defense of them does nothing except throw sand in society's gears.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with being a left-wing advocacy group. They should just lay off the hypocrisy and be what they are, without pretense.

Strelnikov
 
I used to have a tiny shred of respect for the ACLU, due to their past efforts on behalf of civil rights.

That was until I read an article in the USA Today about a Canadian couple who was suing an organization known as NAMBLA, because two NAMBLA members had raped and murdered their 10 year old son. (NAMBLA is an acronym, it stands for: North American Man-Boy Love Association) Guess who had been named as NAMBLA's valiant defenders? Yup. The ACLU. They claim it's a "free speech" issue.

Consequently, I (along with lots of people who cancelled their ACLU memberships upon hearing the news) now think that the ACLU can pretty much go and screw themselves.

Here's a link to the story. It's from the AP, not USA Today, but it says the same thing. Be warned, it's pretty awful.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38540,00.html


ASUTickler
 
Ew... That's NASTY. Sad to see that group standing up for something that actually breaks known laws. One thing to stand up for folks bein' oppressed, but proppin' up a group that supports sexual activities with kids is just NASTY.

Like I'd said early, though, I've issues wit' folks that mess wit' kids. Glad I don't belong t'that organization.

dvnc
 
Ok........

I am just gonna voice my entire opinion.....I imagine that it WILL be offensive to some......but I dont care. I am tired of holding back. If I EVER saw two gay guys doing thier thing in school, or anywhere else in public, I would probably go to prison cause I would BEAT the living shit outta them. I dont think that gay people should be shown in ANY media, its just not right. I imagine some people here at the TMF will call me immature, I expect that. I also think that some people here are being a little to nice and are acting like a person they are not. I took a chance and shared my honest opinion, and if I become an enemy for it, then so be it.
 
Ok Krokus, so what if you saw two females doing the same in public? What would you do? Beat the shit outta them? I hope not.. Sit back and enjoy it??
 
No

I am not a sex addict.....I would probably call the police on them. I am just being honest and if you dont like it than oh well.
 
You would call the police if you saw two ladies kissing in public???? LOL...
 
You Misunderstand

I didnt mean kissing dude, I mean like oral sex......thats what I thought you meant.:wow:
 
What's New

3/29/2024
The TMF Gathering forums keep you up to date on where and when folk are meeting up.
Tickle Experiment
Door 44
NEST 2024
Register here
The world's largest online clip store
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top