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 😉
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:
