on Kansas. Limon

A few comments on this case and the point raised by Rick and challenged by Michael. First, I have great doubts about the wisdom of the Kansas law and in particular the lengthy prison sentence. Of course, we might have different reactions about the length of the sentence if the Kansas authorities had pursued the case on the grounds that they are mentioning in press reports--that Limon was a sexual predator. Second, this post doesn't address the constitutional arguments invovled. I think, though, that Rick is correct to be worried about the idea that moral disapproval is not a legitimate state interest. This view--which Justice Scalia railed against in Lawrence--was the basis for the federal district court's ruling in the Extreme Associates case that obscenity laws are unconstitutional after Lawrence. That case was argued before the 3rd Circuit in the last week.

I wanted to comment on Rick's point that there might be a plausible rationale for Kansas treating same-sex sexual activity differently than sexual activity between minors of the opposite sex. The Catholic Church still takes the view that homsexual inclination is an "objective disorder." Obviously, this view is not popular. The American Psychiatric Association changed its view on this issue in 1973, although that was regarded by many as largely a political decision. There are psychologists who adhere to the traditional position on this issue. (See the Catholic Medical Association's website for a statement on homosexuality.) If the view taken in the Catechism is plausible then I could understand why a legislature might be more concerned about same-sex sexual activity than heterosexaul conduct. Even if the latter were immoral (because non-marital), the legislature might think along the lines of Bradley and George that there are more serious reasons to be concerned about minors engaging in conduct that is objectively disordered. Is the Kansas Supreme Court able to say with such confidence that the moral views expressed in the Catechism are so far out of the mainstream that they ought to be treated as insufficient to satisfy even the rational basis test?

Richard