From Texas to Kansas - Matt Limon's case should be simpler for the Supreme Court to handle than the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case, which is already on the docket. The reason is a somewhat obscure legal technicality. Given the largely conservative makeup of the Court, the current justices are more easily swayed by an appeal to the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause than by arguments relying on the "right to privacy" -- which of course does not appear in the text of the Bill of Rights.

Equal protection is exactly what the Limon case is all about -- rebuking a state for treating a person differently under the law because of his sex. The same is true of the Texas homosexual conduct law being challenged in Lawrence, because that state also criminalizes conduct between males while permiting the same conduct between members of the opposite sex.

Frankly, I think the court could ask that these cases be heard together and dispose of them in a single ruling. (In a cost-saving division of labor, the ACLU is handling Limon's appeal while Lamba Legal has Lawrence.) However, hearing the cases jointly would signal that the court is not looking to make the broader case -- requested by Lambda and sought by gays and right-thinking people everywhere -- to throw out both homosexual and so-called "universal" sodomy laws (which apply to both gays and straights). Because the latter type of law doesn't offend equal protection, such a ruling could only be made under a privacy right theory. Living in a state that has such a law, I much prefer a broader ruling.