Lambda Legal Applauds Kansas Supreme Court Decision in Sodomy Case

New York, October 21, 2005) — In a decision issued today over-turning a criminal sodomy conviction, the Kansas Supreme Court relied upon the landmark US. Supreme Court decision striking down all sodomy laws and a friend-of-the court brief citing authoritative studies about the transmission of HIV.

The case, State of Kansas v. Limon, was handled by attorneys in the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief on the matter of public health and the spread of HIV.

Lambda Legal’s historic case before the U.S. Supreme court, Lawrence v. Texas, resulted in a sweeping decision striking down all remaining sodomy laws across the country.

“This decision relied on the Lawrence opinion to say that states must have a real reason for discriminating—other than moral disapproval. The Kansas Supreme Court found that, in fact, the state had no real reason for leveraging a more harsh penalty (17 years versus 15 months) for Limon because the sexual conduct in question happened between two males,” said Jon Davidson Legal Director at Lambda Legal and an attorney on the Lambda Legal team that litigated the Lawrence case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lambda Legal also said that the court rightly found the state’s claim that it was protecting public health to be unsubstantiated. Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief signed by the Kansas Public Health Association, American Public Health Association, American Academy of HIV Medicine, American Foundation for AIDS Research, HIV Medicine Association, International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care, National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, and National Minority AIDS Council.

After acknowledging the extensive public health brief, the court said: “There is a near-zero chance of acquiring the HIV infection through the conduct which gave rise to this case, oral sex between males, or through cunnilingus. And, although the statute grants a lesser penalty for heterosexual anal sex, the risk of HIV transmission during anal sex with an infected partner is the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals.”

“Essentially, risky behavior is risky behavior regardless of the gender of the two people engaging in the act,” said Hayley Gorenberg, Deputy Legal Director at Lambda Legal and author of the friend-of-the-court brief. “This court has rejected the baseless idea that the risk of spreading a sexually transmitted disease including HIV, is higher just because the sex act involves two people of the same sex. This decision is great news for the HIV community in Kansas and goes a long way toward helping dispel myths.”

“In fact, more than three out of five HIV-positive young people ages 13-19, which includes the age ranged covered by the law at stake in this case are young women. And as the court said, ‘the gravest risk of sexual transmission for females is through heterosexual intercourse,’” Gorenberg said.