featherynscale (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
featherynscale) wrote2005-10-21 12:39 pm
featherynscale) wrote2005-10-21 12:39 pm
Entry tags:
Now that's what we like to hear.
A cookie for the Kansas Supreme Court, who today ruled that you can't punish same-sex underage sexual activity if you're not gonna punish different-sex underage sexual activity to the same degree..
Says the court, "Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest."
Being somewhat past the age where laws against underage sexual activity apply to me, I'm more interested in the statement than in the ruling, but hey. Even in Kansas, they're beginning to think maybe this sort of thing isn't quite fair.
Says the court, "Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest."
Being somewhat past the age where laws against underage sexual activity apply to me, I'm more interested in the statement than in the ruling, but hey. Even in Kansas, they're beginning to think maybe this sort of thing isn't quite fair.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Seriously, the law protects teens that are close in age and involved from prosecution. If you and I were dating teens, and you turned 18 six months before I did, under this law, they can't ding you for statuatory rape. Of course, this is Kansas we're talking about, so we're really talking about something more like if you turned 14 before I did, or something equally horrible, but the principle stands.
In most states, "Romeo and Juliet" is sort of a misnomer, since Juliet was like, oh, 12. But in Kansas, more accurate than one might like to contemplate.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject