Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

I bet we can all guess where Fred and his family will be protesting next! LOL.
 

Under the Biblical principles that a sin is a sin is a sin, I would have to concur, but the fact that the gay rights people and the ACLU are praising the decision makes me think something is very wrong with it.

But, the article says: "The Kansas court also cited the landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas law against gay sodomy."

I am from Kansas, and maybe the law has been changed, but Kansas used to have a law against gay sodomy also. The article doesn't say, but was the Kansas anti sodomy law struck down by the same decision? If not, why was it not cited along with the Texas law? If so, why would they not have cited that instead of the Texas decision? It seems to me that the Kansas law would be more pertinent.

That kind of sounds like citing international law to make a decision in the SCOTUS.

Just thinking out loud.
 

This is the first good news that has come out of Kansas for many years, methinks. I wouldn't have expected the Ks. Supreme Court to go this way. Viewed purely as an "equal protection" matter it is absolutely correct. More intriguing is the court's statement that moral disapproval of a particular group is an inadequate basis for the legislature passing such a law in the first place. Amen to that, I say.
 

Mark, they quoted the SCOTUS case in which the Texas anti-sodomy law was struck down because SCOTUS could reasonably be expected to similarly rule in the event the Kansas law was challenged in SCOTUS. Equal protection applies to ALL U.S. citizens, not just those in Texas. So Kansas courts would be mindful of a precedence such as the Texas case.
 

After five years in prison he probably won’t want to come out.
 

A serious subject ER.
Oklahoma also had a law against sodomy. It was illegal regardless of the sex of the participants or their marital status. Although it passed the equal protection clause of the Constitution, it failed under the inferred right to privacy declared by SCOTUS. That right to privacy is at the heart of many of the SCOTUS rulings on sexual behavior and women's reproductive rights, and is the item that would most need to be disposed of in order to overturn Roe.
Equal protection alone will not keep Kansas or any other state from simply making the punish of the crime equal to all, but err perhaps to the high end of the punishment scale. For example, I would now expect the Kansas legislature to redraft the law and make the punishment for these sexual acts the same regardless of sexual orientation of the offenders. Genrally speaking then the punishment will probably be raised for the hetrosexual offense from 15 months to 5 to 7 years and the punishment for the homosexual offense lowerd to the same. In order to make sure the homo offense is adequately punished they will punish other hetro offenses to a greater extent than before.

And yes that is a trend. Many states once had different ages of consent for men and women for purposes of marriage or sexual congress. States also often had lower drinking ages for woman than men. With the advent of the equal protection clause being applied more strenously these laws and others like them were changed to the higher age levels, and it was the same for laws with sanctions.
So don't damn or praise Kansas just yet. The other shoe has not droped.
 

Well, I have to look for glimmers of sanity, elsewise I'll descend into the Slough of Despondency.

--ER
 

Is "underage" sex a crime in KS?
 

"...glimmers of sanity.." = "kansas law" Not a viable equation.

Toad, yes, in Kansas sex with anyone under 16 is a crime.
 

I wonder if overaged sex will ever be made illegal.

--ER
 

Oh lord I hope not, as I fast approach overage myself. I've been looking forward to it!
 

The question would then became - over what age?