TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) – Attorney General Phill Kline said he does not support the state’s “Romeo and Juliet” law providing lesser penalties for underage sex if the partners are close in age and heterosexual.

As a Kansas House member in 1999, Kline voted against the law because he thought it too lenient. Kansas makes any sex involving someone under 16 illegal no matter what the context, but makes a distinction for consensual sex when one partner is 19 or under, the other partner’s age is within four years, and they are of opposite genders.

“I believe this state needs to engage in all efforts to protect children from sexual exploitation,” Kline said in a news conference.

The toughest penalty for violating the “Romeo and Juliet” law for a first-time offender is nine months in prison. For a first-time offender convicted of indecent liberties with a child or sexual exploitation of a child, the maximum penalty is two years and 10 months in prison.

However, a person who commits a gay sex act with a child can be prosecuted for criminal sodomy and be sentenced up to five years and one month in prison for a first offense.

The disparities in sentencing led the American Civil Liberties Union to attack the “Romeo and Juliet” law in court on behalf of Matthew Limon, sentenced to more than 17 years in prison for having sex with an underage boy in 2000, his third offense. Had he or the other boy been female, he could have been sentenced under “Romeo and Juliet” to no more than one year and three months in prison.

“Certainly, there is a compelling argument that the sentencing in this is unfair as it relates to a similar act, and certainly the Legislature can readdress that issue if it so desires, and repeal the distinction in ‘Romeo and Juliet,’” Kline said.

At first Kline said, “I would repeal that distinction,” but later he said was not sure he would advocate a total repeal.

In Limon’s case, Kline argued that the Legislature was justified in distinguishing illegal gay sex from illegal straight sex, and in a 2-1 ruling the Court of Appeals agreed.

Kline said the distinction can be justified because it promotes “the traditional family, child rearing and procreation” and combats the spread of sexually transmitted disease.