Toto, I think we’re back in Kansas
A judge on the Kansas Court of Appeals questioned the legislative intent of a law that lessens penalties for heterosexual sex with a minor but excludes homosexual sex:
Justice G. Joseph Pierron, the presiding judge of a three-judge Court of Appeals panel hearing the case of Limon v. Kansas, repeatedly questioned the legislative intent behind a law that lessens the penalty for teenagers who engage in voluntary sexual relations but specifically excludes homosexuals.
“I’m trying to find what the real reason was other than, ‘We just don’t like homosexuals,’ ” Pierron said at one point.
Matthew R. Limon was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison after he engaged in voluntary sexual relations with a 14-year-old boy just after Limon turned 18. Had Limon’s partner been female, Limon could have been sentenced to about one year in prison.
As you would expect from lawyers who marry church, heterosexuality and state:
But Deputy Attorney General Jared Maag argued that the Legislature has the authority to determine the punishment for minors who engage in sexual acts in order to teach moral values to children, including “traditional family roles.”
Maag said the different penalties for same-sex teenage couples would promote marriage, encourage procreation and discourage the spread of disease.
If you had any doubts that our legal system serves religious mommies and daddies who want everybody to act just like them, think again.
| Go to Home - Most Recent Posts