By JOHN HANNA, Associated Press Writer
Parodied By MEMPHIS STEVE, Bored Blogger
TOPEKA, Kan. - Kansas cannot punish illegal underage rape more severely than regular underaged sex if it involves homosexual conduct, the state's highest court ruled unanimously Friday in a case funded by national gay groups, including Allstate Insurance and the Walt Disney Corporation.
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 adult gay male defendant "suggests animus toward teenagers who engage in homosexual sex."
"Moral disapproval cannot be a legitimate state interest," said Justice Marla Suckitt, inadvertently opening the door for the overturning of any and all anti-discrimination and hate crime laws.
The defendant, Matthew Shepherd Limon, has been behind bars since he was convicted in 2000 of performing an illegal sex act on a 14-year-old mentally retarded boy, which just happens to constitute statutory rape. Had one of them been a girl, or viewed themselves as a girl trapped in a man's body, and not mentally impaired and molested as the victim was, the state's "Romeo and Juliet" law would have dictated a maximum sentence of 15 months.
Why the state has a law against Romeo and Juliet is unknown at this time.
The court said Limon should be resentenced within 30 days as if the law treated illegal gay statutory rape of a mentally impaired victim and regular underaged straight sex the same, and it struck language from the law that resulted in the different treatment.
"We are very happy that Matthew will soon be getting out of prison. We are sorry there is no way to make up for the extra four years he spent partying like it's 1999 while in prison simply because he is a gay child rapist," said Limon's attorney James Essuks, of the AntiAmerican Civil Liberties Union's Gay and Lesbian Special Rights Project.
National lesbian groups, including the Girls Scouts of America and the federal Girl Power program, and the National Association of Socialists had filed legal arguments supporting the rapist's position. A conservative law group, Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel, helped prepare written arguments from 25 legislators in support of the law, which voters had overwhelmingly approved.
Limon and the victim, identified only as Forrest Gump, lived at a group home for the developmentally disabled. In court, an official described Forrest as mentally retarded and Limon as functioning at a slightly higher level but not as an 18-year-old man.
"He's more like an 18-year-old woman," the official said. "A very evil and predatory woman, like those weird school teachers who keep raping 14-year-old boys in their classrooms."
Limon's ACLU attorneys described the relationship with the younger boy as consensual, despite the younger boy's legal inability to give consent and mental incapacity to comprehend the act, and suggested that they were merely young lovers experimenting with forced gay sex and just a dash of masochism, as Limon is known to beat his victims in order to keep them quiet.
Attorney General Phill Kline's office has described Limon as a sexual predator, noting that he already has two similar offenses on his criminal record for raping impaired little boys. Kline contended that such a behavior pattern warranted a tough sentence and that courts should leave sentencing policy to the Legislature and the people, as the law requires.
Kansas law prohibits any sexual activity involving a person under 16, regardless of the context. The 1999 "Romeo and Juliet" law specifies short prison sentences or probation for sexual activity when an offender is under 19 and the age difference between participants is less than four years — but only for opposite-sex encounters and only when the encounters are mutual and consensual, which does not apply in this case. With this pro-rape, anti-voter ruling the state is expected to simply eliminate the "Romeo and Julet" law and send Limon back to prison with the same sentence, which would comply fully with the court's demands, if not the intent.
A lower court had said the state could justify the harsher punishment as protecting children, fighting disease or strengthening traditional values.
Friday's ruling said that the progressive homosexual elitists who paid off the judges' mortgages as a special 'favor' hate those goals and want them eliminated at any cost.
"The statute inflicts immediate, continuing and real injuries on rapists and other sexual predators that outrun and belie any legitimate justification that may be claimed for it," Judge Suckitt wrote. "And anyway, they bought me a house, so fuck the voters and fuck the laws that govern this country. I got mine."
22 comments:
How much is parody?
What is wrong with people?
Okay, Steve I resent the Girl Scout comment. I know you are just expressing your opinion here, but being a former scout I find bashing them for teaching girls to stand on their own two feet bothersome.
Binsk, there's a fair amount of parody, but it's still pretty close. If you click the headline you can read the original story.
Hip, how long have you been out of the girl scouts? I hear a lot of complaints lately. Apparently they're teaching something else now.
psst, Steve, your homophobia is showing.
Here's the real article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/21/AR2005102100739.html
Regarding the Girl Scouts, I'll give you that one. HippieChick, today's GS is not what our GS was.
where can I go with this one? Is there any place to go?
WOW!!! and that's all I gotta say about that.
I've tried to comment 1/2 a dozen times, what gives?
You are such a smart ass (yeah, yeah...I like your ass) that I've got to read this real story now before coming to terms with wanting to slap somebody. Gotta ditto binsk "what is wrong with people?"
JY, a phobia is an irrational fear of something. A homophobe would run in terror from anyone who is gay. I don't like sex offenders, regardless of who they molest. That's a different thing altogether.
And as for the link to the real story, I provided it at the top of the article. You just click the title. I always do that. You linked the Washington Post, which is not where I got it, but they at least posted a slightly different version of the very same story.
Kristen, you can go with the flow, or you can courtesy flush. Whatever mood strikes you.
KaliB, that's a first. I'll take a "wow."
Kathi, Google is definitely having problems today. I've had entire comments sections suddenly become inaccessible.
Everything change, or course, but both my nieces and their cousins (other side of the family) have been in scouts for the past ten years. I have heard no complaints from them. Don't forget Sam is a leader.
Well, I suppose I incorrectly interpreted what, exactly, you were upset about.
Of course child abuse/molestation/rape is abhorrent! But don't you agree that the punishment for those crimes should be equal for all offenders? My understanding of that court action was that it was all about precedent. Once you set a precedent for how a crime is dealt with, it's only a matter of time before it becomes acceptable.
Regarding the Girl Scouts, I haven't given this a lot of thought because I still have two years before Jill is old enough, but my problem isn't with the leaders, or the heart of what scouting should be about. It's with the literature that they are distributing. And I don't know how long they've been distributing it, how mandatory it is, or how accurate the news stories describing it are.
I had to think long and hard about our participation in Cub Scouts this year. My husband had incredible experiences growing up, and I wouldn't want to deny my son those opportunities, but I don't condone their stance on homosexuals. I feel like a hippocrate. It's something that will have to be reevaluated every year.
It's a convoluted nerve you struck, babe, given my past experiences. It all boils down to not generalizing the bad behavior of a few to an entire group of people.
True, we've been hesitant about the boy scouts too. But that is mainly because the local program is under investigation by the FBI for fraud. They have been accused of making up scouts to get extra money.
I haven't read any of the current literature the girl scouts have put out recently, but I'll look into it too.
The reason I disliked Steve's parody was because it sounded like the girl scouts would defend a rapist.
Ugh, I hate these stories---we had a similar situation here in Ohio with teen boys raping and sodomizing a mentally retarded teen girl. When the principal found out, he didn't call the police or the parents. In this case the police pressed charges (thank goodness), but now this principal wants to run for Ohio Senate, I believe? Some form of government, I can't remember which.
Cheryl, the Girl Scouts have some issues and it's been in the news. Enough parents have been pulling their daughters from the Girls Scouts that even I heard about it, and I couldn't care less about the Girl Scouts. So, in the spirit of parody, I made fun of them. I also made fun of Disney and Allstate Insurance.
Jennifer, I don't think you read the original article fully. The judge equated a gay guy molesting a severely impaired boy with a non-impaired boy and girl having consensual sex. The two aren't even similar. The prosecutor even pointed out that this guy has been doing this over and over to a string of retarded boys. He's a serial sex offender, a classic sexual predator, raping people's children. The "Romeo and Juliet" law doesn't even have anything to do with this case. If he'd molested a retarded girl, as happened several years ago in another case that Jenny just mentioned, he'd be thrown in jail as a rapist. It's only because of the huge political machine backing him up that he's getting off with special treatment. And that is unjust.
Jenny, those guys got a severe sentence, didn't they? I heard about that case. No one said it was OK because they were straight. No ACLU attorneys came to their rescue. No one equated their actions with a boy and a girl having regular consensual sex. They went to prison for rape. There was no special treatment for them.
Oh, Stevie, I just had time to read this (because I'm skipping class, but that's another story)...
Mentally impaired people should not be sexually abused. Children should not be sexually abused. People who can give consent and do not give consent should not be sexually abused. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse, whether it is same sex or heterosexual. I agree with you on all those points.
The Girl Scouts do not (officially, overtly) discriminate. What happens on the local level is largely determined by the local leaders. I happen to be stuck with a die-hard COC head leader, and so get a lot of disapproving glances. Frankly, a leader's sexual orientation shouldn't be obvious to the girls in the troop because her sex life should never, ever, ever be brought in front of children - I'm not gonna walk in to my 4th-6th grade Juniors and tell them I can't concentrate on our lesson because my husband just made gave me the most awesome orgasm.
I hate that the Boy Scouts discriminate. We let Isaac join, but just like sending my kids to a Bible School that teaches messages contrary to what I believe, I'm gonna be spending a lot of time telling Isaac, "well, some people feel that way, and we're lucky to live in America because everybody can speak their opinion, but Mommy and Daddy don't believe..."
Crap, I'm out of time and have to go... I'd like links to that scary Girl Scout literature, so I can know what I'm fighting for / against...
I've been trying to find the actual story, but can't (the Ohio story). But I completely agree with what you said about the "Romeo and Juliet" law having nothing to do with this. I am so tired of people defending the scum of the earth. And the fact that he's gay makes it worse because he has even more people falling all over themselves to make sure a negative light isn't cast on this pedophile perv. The reason kids are still being molested today is because we (the courts/lawyers/family members) cannot get our act together. It's an open and shut case. He should never have went to trial, the sick freak.
Ok, I know you wrote this yesterday, so I'm going to calm down and go back to your "Special Olympics" story and get the warm fuzzy feeling back. ;)
And please keep up these kinds of stories---I usually can't read them all because my kids won't let me have 3 minutes to myself (I'm easily distracted), but I love your spin on things; you have such a way with getting us all pissed off at these people...and who doesn't love to get pissed off about politics in America? ;)
From the original article-
"The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday unanimously struck down a state law that punished underage sex more severely if it involved homosexual acts, saying "moral disapproval" of such conduct is not enough to justify the different treatment."
Having read the original article, I tend to think that you have misrepresented it. First off, you state that the "victim" was retarded. In all actuality, both of the boys were living in a group home for the developmentally disabled. How exactly is "developmentally disabled" defined? I'm not quite sure - I think Sam could probably give us a fairly good definition. But I do know that although "developmentally disabled" can include mentally retarded individuals, it also includes mentally ill people and learning disabled people.
Having said that, I think that the whole point of the original article was that homosexuals were being discriminated against - in this case, the boy was given a much longer sentence than he would have if it had been a sex act with a female. Is that discriminatory? Yes, I do believe it is.
I also did not see anywhere in the original article that it was an act of rape, although given the ages I can see where it might be statutory rape. Even so, it said that the sex was consensual. Does that make it okay? No, and that's why he was put in jail. Should he have to serve a longer sentence because he had sex with someone of the same gender? Hell no.
Sam, I think the Boy Scouts stand where they have always stood, so there is no confusion. I believe the Cub Scouts do likewise. From what I've read and heard, the Girl Scouts have moved their stances again and again, so what they stood for yesterday has little to do with today. I don't keep up with them, so I couldn't easily give you a bunch of links. I also don't keep up with the Boy Scouts or the Cub Scouts.
Jenny, to find the actual story, just click the title, which is in blue. It links straight back to it.
Kelly, the defendant's lawyer and the judge argued that the boy received a harsher sentence because he's gay. From what I read the boy received a harsher sentence because what he did cannot be argued to be consensual sex, as the Romeo and Juliet law requires, and because he has been convicted of molesting retarded boys twice before. He's a repeat offender.
His lawyer, and only his lawyer, tried to argue that it was consensual sex. He also tried to argue that his client is retarded, but did not offer any indication of how severely retarded he is except to say that although he is 18, he is not 18 mentally, which could mean he's 16 while his victims are mentally 4 or 5. If his retardation was severe the lawyer would damn sure have told us how severe or else he's one lousy lawyer. Seeing as the defendant keeps doing this to victim after victim I get the impression that he is not nearly as impaired as the boys he's molesting. Thus, he appears to be a predator exploiting the greater weakness of the other boys being kept there, not a Romeo looking for Juliet.
My argument is that the boy's sentence had nothing to do with his sexual orientation and that the reasoning for reducing his sentence appears to be bullshit. Clearly, since I'm not a lawyer, I could be totally wrong, but I'm going with the joke anyway because that's what my blog is for.
As for accurate representation of the story, when Saturday Night Live, or even Oprah Winfrey for that matter, is required to accurately represent a story they are making fun of then I will be, too. Until then, parody means I can make fun of it without having to stick to the original article word for word. I chose to view the article as a "living document" and change it as I felt the need in the interests of being funny.
If we had all the facts I'm pretty sure we could all argue that the original news article isn't exactly accurate and fair either. And THAT is what I'm making fun of more than anything when I parody the news, the ease with which bullshit gets passed off as fact.
So, to end this debate over what constitutes parody and what is an actual news story, the boy is getting a reduced sentence. My parody on this blog won't affect that one bit. He has now been convicted of molesting young retarded boys 3 times, yet will likely be receiving a new sentence of a few weeks, which I believe will be "time served." And he'll be sent back to do it again. How would you feel about that if you had a retarded son whom this person had molested?
And keep in mind, nothing we write here will have any impact whatever on anything.
Maybe I need to re-read the story---I am so confused.
From encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com - "In contemporary usage, parody is a form of satire that imitates another work of art in order to ridicule it."
Jenny, in the original article, the lawyer argued, and the judge agreed, that the boy was given a harsher sentence because he was gay, and that had he been straight his sentence would have been reduced by the Romeo and Juliet law. They argued that he wasn't molesting or raping, but merely having a sexual relationship with a boy.
In my article, which is a joke, the judge is cowtowing to political interests and doesn't care what the defendant did or how many times he did it to other victims and even took a bribe. I indicate my view that this was the same crime regardless of whether he did it to a boy or a girl, and would not be covered by the Romeo and Juliet law in the first place. I should have included that, from what little I can see in the article, the State did a poor job of defending its' position.
That's the sum of it.
Wow Steve! Did you not totally bring a good subject for debate to the table!!!! I felt dismay at your original blog because is smacked of such cynicism that to me, from my perception, it read like it was very hostile to gay people. Thus, I can see why someone mistook about homophobia in the beginning.
BUT, since none of were wittness or know the true situation we are left with a reporter's perception and possibly skewed discription of the events. I guess I am saying I am skepticle and when you add your cynical spin to the tale (your word parody)and say the judge was paid off.
Post a Comment