TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Calling some of the state’s justifications “utterly ridiculous,” an appellate judge has questioned whether the state can punish illegal sex more harshly when it involves homosexual acts.

Kansas Court of Appeals Judge G. Joseph Pierron presided over a three-judge appeals panel as it heard arguments in the case of Matthew R. Limon, whose conviction stems from sex acts in 2000 with a 14-year-old boy. Both were residents of a Paola group home for the developmentally disabled. Limon was 18 at the time.

Convicted of criminal sodomy, Limon was sentenced to 17 years and two months in prison. Had Limon engaged in sex with an underage girl, he could have been sentenced to one year and three months in prison.

“I’m just trying to come up with a reason, other than you don’t like homosexuals,” Pierron told Deputy Attorney General Jared Maag, who was representing the state.

Maag argued the state has broad latitude in making such distinctions to protect children from sex crimes.

However, Tamara Lange, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing Limon, argued the different treatment of similar criminal acts represents unconstitutional discrimination against gays and lesbians. Lange said only Texas has a similar provision in its laws against underage sex.

The Kansas court rejected Limon’s challenge in February 2002, but in June of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law criminalizing gay sex and returned Limon’s case to the Kansas state courts.

The appellate court is expected to rule by February, and its decision can be appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court.

Pierron peppered attorneys for both sides with questions, challenging their arguments, suggesting at one point that the ACLU could be reading the Texas decision too broadly.

However, Pierron repeatedly challenged Maag to provide valid reasons for the different treatment of similar sex acts. The state had suggested the difference promoted marriage, encouraged procreation and protected public health.

“The first two seem utterly ridiculous,” Pierron said.

The judge added that the public health argument seemed dubious, given the lesser punishment for a female defendant, even if she transmitted venereal diseases to an underage male. Lange said in the Texas case, public health organizations debunked a similar argument.

Maag countered that if the court tells the Legislature it cannot make such distinctions, “The state would lose one of its most eminent police powers, that is teaching moral values to children.”

Maag began his presentation to the judges by arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Texas case dealt only with sex between adults and did not apply to Limon.

Pierron jumped in, asking, “Then why are we here?” The appeals judge said that if Maag were correct, “It wouldn’t make any sense for them to send it back to us.”

Later, Pierron likened punishing a sex crime more harshly because an offender is gay to punishing a crime more severely because the criminal is a plumber.

Maag replied: “The decision turns on how far the state can go in its police powers in regulating sexual activity involving children.”

Kansas law makes any sexual activity involving a person under 16 illegal, regardless of the context. The attorney general’s office has made much of Limon having two previous, similar offenses on his record, suggesting it helps to justify his lengthy sentence.

Limon could have received a much lighter sentence had he or the 14-year-old boy, identified only as M.A.R, been female. A 1999 statute, known as the “Romeo and Juliet” law, provides lesser penalties for consensual sex when one partner is 19 or under and the other partner’s age is within four years.

The state argues that even if Limon or M.A.R. was female, a prosecutor still might have filed the more serious charge of criminal sodomy. The ACLU disagrees. However, the “Romeo and Juliet” law clearly applies only to heterosexual sex.