A young man named Matthew Limon may spend the next 17 years in a jail cell in Kansas for having had gay sex. If he’d had “straight” sex with a girl, he’d probably never have been arrested, let alone prosecuted.

The Supreme Court ruled last year that states cannot criminalize sex between consenting adults. But when adults have sex with consenting persons under the age of 18, some states, including California, still are enforcing laws that treat gay and straight sex differently.

The Supreme Court seemed to make it clear that states cannot make distinctions, even in cases involving adults having sex with minors. After deciding Lawrence v. Texas, the Court asked Kansas courts to reconsider a ruling from the Kansas Supreme Court in light of the Court’s ruling in Lawrence.

Matthew R. Limon, when 18, had oral sex with a 14-year-old fellow resident of a home for developmentally disabled youth. Under Kansas law, sodomy (consensual or not) between an adult and a minor is a serious felony. A judge sentenced Limon to 17 years in prison. Had Limon been under 18, or had Matthew had oral sex with his girlfriend, prosecutors probably wouldn’t have charged him at all, or possibly would have charged him with a simple misdemeanor. Because of this disparity, Limon argued that he was subject to bias because he and his partner were both of the same sex. The Supreme Court probably agreed. That’s why it voided the sentence for Limon, telling Kansas to reconsider in light of Lawrence. Nevertheless, a Kansas appellate court, ruling 2-1, upheld the sentence and the law, even though the Supreme Court indicated that states cannot treat gays and straights differently.

In short, the court refused to accept that the Constitution requires states to treat homosexual sex the same as heterosexual intercourse. It found that Lawrence only dealt with adult consensual activity and Limon’s case involved a minor. More importantly, it found that homosexual sex is more dangerous than heterosexual sex because of greater health risks.

Sounds prejudicial? Considering Limon and his partner were most likely virgins, it doesn’t make much sense. And HIV transmission occurs in vaginal sex as easily as it does in anal sex. The case now goes to the Kansas Supreme Court.

But that’s Kansas. … Meanwhile, California also has a controversy with regard to treating sex acts involving traditional heterosexual sex differently from nontraditional and exclusively homosexual sex. Arguably, since gays and lesbians cannot engage in traditional intercourse, one would think that laws relating to consensual sex of all kinds would be treated the same. So, would it surprise you to learn that California law views oral and anal sex (with the same or opposite sex partner) more severely than vaginal sex?

California makes it illegal for anyone (including another minor) to have sex with a minor. But if an 18-year-old male has consensual intercourse with his 17-year-old girlfriend, it’s a misdemeanor, not a felony, and the young man does not have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. As the age of the perpetrator progresses, prosecutors can treat the crime as a felony or a misdemeanor. While we often refer to this law as the “statutory rape” law, it’s actually called “illegal intercourse.”

There is no such corollary for gay sex. So, if the adult has oral or anal sex with a minor, no matter what the age of the minor or the adult, it’s a felony. And the adult must register as a sex offender.

Oral sex and sodomy do not cause pregnancies. Teen pregnancies bring unwanted children into a life without proper emotional and financial support. But, naturally, the right will argue that the Bible condemns non-procreative sex and that’s why “sodomy” must be treated more harshly. Yet the Supreme Court, in Lawrence v. Texas, made clear that the state cannot criminalize sex acts based on Biblical dogma. Something other than a “moral” reason must dictate distinctions.

Perhaps the Limon case, if it returns to the U.S. Supreme Court, will give the Court a chance to teach the country something about sex again. It should not be illegal for two minors to engage in consensual sex. The crime is hardly ever prosecuted, as it is. And having this as a crime on the books just leads to selective prosecution, often when gay minors are involved as in the Limon case. States cannot treat anal/oral sex between consenting partners (one an adult and the other a minor at 14 years of age and older) any differently from heterosexual sex. If, for example, an 18-year-old male has sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend, then he should get the same treatment as if he had anal/oral sex with another male.

Until then, all sex acts are not created equal.