THE JANESVILLE GAZETTE -134 YEARS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE- Established Aug. 14, 1845. Continuous publication under same name. Daily editions since July 10, 1854. Robert W. Bliss, Publisher and Editor Page 6 Howard F. Bliss, Publisher-1883-1919 Harry H. Bliss, Publisher-1919-1937 Sidney H. Bliss, Co-Publisher-1937-1969 Marshall W. Johnston, General Manager One South Parker Drive, Janesville, Wisconsin 53545 Dial 608-754-3311 Wednesday, March 12, 1980 Deregulating Sex A state law that is being in- creasingly disregarded has un- dergone the first step of abandonment. The Senate Human Services Committee has approved a bill that would allow sexual activity between consenting adults. Pas- sage by the Legislature would end the prohibition against co- habitation that has long been a part of Wisconsin's criminal law. A demographic study that used 1976 data showed that some 44,000 unmarried men and women are living together in Wisconsin. Under present law, these people could be pros; ecuted and punished as crimi- pals. Obviously, they won't be. And that is what makes the existing law meaningless. Indeed, to en- force the law could raise suspi- cions of selective harassment or invasion of privacy. The proposed bill would leave intact the present bans on pros- titution, public displays of forni- cation and sexual gratification and sex involving minors. Among the committee mem- bers who voted for the bill were Senators Carl Thompson and Tim Cullen. Full législative consideration of the proposal is certain to gen- erate heated debate and deter- mined citizen input. The proposal dares to con- front one of the most sacrosanct of moralistic concepts. There- fore, it is certain to draw people to the political arena who are ready to shed blood for their principles. cut up in their defense of this Proponents are going to get measure, for it is difficult to dis- suade those who believe in the absolutes of right and wrong. er the measure will pass on its Thus it is questionable wheth- first time around. Nevertheless, the issue now is out in the open and sooner or later the conven- tional prohibitions will give way to present realities. cular law from ecclesiastical The process of separating se- law reqires exceptional insights and understandings, as well as a willingness to persevere. The fate of the proposal is cer- tain to be of greatest concern to those whose personal relation- ships will be least touched by it. It won't make much difference to the 44,000 individuals who al- ready are defying it. late moral consensus or to make It's still impossible to legis- official designations of right and wrong. Public laws fare better in less private areas. --- THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL LUCIUS W. NIEMAN, FOUNDER 1882 RICHARD H. LEONARD, Editor HARRY J. GRANT, 1916-1963 DONALD B. ABERT, Chairman of the Board JOSEPH W. SHOQUIST, Managing Editor IRWIN MAIER, Adviser to the Editors SIG GISSLER, Editorial Page Editor Thursday, March 13, 1980 Get the state out of the bedroom Wisconsin has some archaic and meddlesome laws that permit police intrusion into the private sexual conduct of consenting adults. A bill that would prohibit such interference has been ap- proved by a committee of the State Senate. It should be enacted into law. The legislation would remove sexual intercourse between unmarried persons and sexual acts be- tween consenting adults from the criminal stat- utes, unless the acts were performed in public. (Present protections against sexual predators and the prohibition of prostitution would properly remain in force.) In another overdue change, the bill would repeal the state's law against "cohabitation" which is defined as two persons openly associating or living together under circumstances that imply sexual intercourse. If passed, the new law might encour- age some victims of violence in such unmarried relationships to take legal action against their bru- tal partners. Under present law, someone seeking. such protection risks prosecution under the cohabi- tation statute. Unquestionably, many people view such legisla- tion as a moral question. We believe that private sexual ethics deserve to be respected, but are not entitled to be enacted into laws that unduly intrude on the personal lives of other members of the community. When laws seek to extensively regu- late the private sexual conduct of consenting adults, the inevitable result is (1) the invasion of privacy, (2) the imposition on everyone of the per- sonal moral standards of those who make or en- force the law, (3) capricious or selective enforce- ment, and (4) the misuse of the time of police, prosecutors and judges. Passage of this prudent and reasonable legisla- tion would properly get the State of Wisconsin out. of the bedrooms of its citizens.. --- On, Wisconsin view how well the 1975 Hel- tally of shortcomings in An Editorial State Shouldn't Poke Into Privacy of Bedroom Many people these days are frightened or irritated by what they consider a lowering of moral stand- ards, especially regarding sexual conduct. And this reaction can give support to what should otherwise be scorned, such as out- dated laws that try to ex- cessively regulate sexual behavior even within the privacy of a married couple's bedroom. Consid- er the opposition in Wis- consin to a bill that would allow consenting adults, in private, to express physi- cal affection as they wish without being criminals. This sound principle is supported by many, in- cluding doctors and law- yers, religious and civic groups. Even so, the fate of Assembly Bill 323 is more likely to be decided by emotion than by fact and reason. Opponents falsely argue that the bill would legalize prostitu- tion. It would not. It would still be a crime for any person to offer or have sexual relations "for any thing of value." The bill also would not permit sexual relations in public. Nor would it change sex laws relating to minors. The private sex prac- tices of consenting adults should be their own busi- ness, not the govern- ment's. Nineteen other states- among them Illi- nois, Iowa and Ohio have passed such reforms. None has suddenly be- come a haven for promis- cuity or prostitution. I Heat over A-323, un- fortunately, has labeled as "good guys" those who oppose change and as "bad guys" those who favor it. The likely outcome is that the bill will be moved to Soint Finance until the fall session. Perhaps by then, his sensible reform can be considered in more light and less heat. sinki agreement on security human rights, including re- ancooperation in Europe strictions on the free ex- have been carried out. The Turn to Belgrade, page 4, col. I chief US representing will be Lawrence Eagleburger, once a top aida to former Secre- tary of State Henry Kissin- ger. Searchers Instead of the atmosphere Find Debris of detente that the Helsinki document was supposed to encourage the followup meeting comes in a period of greater East-West acrimony, at least as far as Soviet American relations are con- cerned, than at any other time in the 1970s. The Helsinki accords were signed by the United States and the Soviet Union at a 35 nation summit meeting Aug. 1, 1975. At the meeting, which had long been sought by the Soviet Union, the West acknowledged existing borders in Eastern and Cen- tral Europe. In return, the Communist states pledged to liberalize policies in a variety of areas, including human rights and freedom of the press. From Plane Items identified as being from an airplane missing since Saturday have been found along the Lake Michi- gan shore just north of Mil- waukee, the Coast Guard said Tuesday. The plane had not been heard from since about 2 p.m. Saturday, when it was flown out of a Manitowoc airport by Indianapolis businessman Paul F. Greer. Greer, about 50, was re- turning with his three step- daughters to their home in Indianapolis from a business trip to Crivitz. The Coast Guard in Mil- waukee said Tuesday that a Until recently, the Soviets suitcase, a cabin door and a had played down the signifi-seat cushion had washed up cance of the Belgrade gather- near Virmond Park Beach at ing. As merely a followup to Mequon. the Helsinki summit of 33 European countries, the Unit- ed States and Canada, the meeting was perceived here as a relatively low level af- fair. The Soviets seemed to be . · They said the search now was narrowed to the lake- shore from Two Rivers to Milwaukee. On Sunday and Monday, a land and water search covered Wisconsin, Il- linois, Michigan and Indiana. -Though it's often SHIP TO SHORE backbreaking work, Milwaukee's long- Police Search for 'Maniac' in Slaying of 3 Girl Scouts Locust Grove, Okla. -UPI- In the early hours of COL Monday morning the Girl Scout counselors at Camp Scott began moving from tent to tent, awakening the occupants and telling them to pack immediately. No, they would not tell the girls why they were leaving. Yes, they were being sent home right away. A short time later, as the girls began piling onto buses in one part of the camp, law enforcement officers gath- ered in another 0 KANSAS OKLAHOMA Wichita Locusto Grove TEXAS ° Oklahoma City Dallas miles 200 MO ARKANSAS ing bags and left at a road intersection about 150 yards from their tent. "It makes me pretty bitter, very bitter," said Mayes around the County Sheriff Pete Weaver. "We've got a maniac some- where around." covered bodies of Lori Lee Farmer, Doris Denise Milner and Michele Guse. Authorities were sure two had been sexually attacked. All three had been beaten to death, zipped into their sleep; He said he was sure the investigation would turn up something. "I just don't think we have that many nuts in this area." Weaver said the girls had been accounted for during an 11 p.m. bed check the night before. Camp administrator Barbara Day discovered the bodies at 6 a.m. Authorities speculate that the beatings occurred between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. A "I don't think he was being selective of the girls," Weav- er said. "I think he was being selective of the tent. It was an end tent and the closest one was 50 to 75 feet away." Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation authorities also were gathering evidence in the slayings of Lori, 8, and Doris, 10, both of Tulsa, and Michele, 9, of Broken Arrow. "Apparently, from viewing the scene and the bodies, the Turn to Slayings, page 6, col. 5 The Weath National Weather Serv Milwaukee Mostly c night; low in low 50s. Partly a little warmer Wednesda upper 70s. Mostly c Wisconsin night; lows upper 40s to r Partly cloudy, warmer Wed highs mid-70s to lower 80s. Weather map, Part 2, Pag In The Jour Amusements, Movie Ads Business News Pages 2-3 Page 1 Deaths............ Page Opinion ............Pag Picture Page....... Page Page Sports TV-Radio .... Page 6 Women's News ...... Page Turkish Premier Ankara, Turkey Suleyman Demirel re Monday as premier af defeat of his party in th 16 general elections. --- Jun 4/24 President and Mrs. Reagan walked past the caskets of 16 Americar On, Wisconsin An Editorial Sexual laws invade your privacy if or, If someone asked about your sex life you're married, asked what you and your spouse do in bed, you'd probably snap: "None of your business!" probably snap Yet, that is the public's business in Wis- consin under an archaic state law that puts the government, legally, into bed with you. Such disgusting invasion of personal privacy would be intolerable if the law were consist- ently enforced. Fortunately, it seems about to be repealed in a bill that has passed the Assembly and is likely to clear the Senate. Of course, the opponents will put up a strong fight. They see repeal as the condoning of sin and the encouragement of homosexuality. Their sentiments may be heartfelt but their case is weak _ ev even on religious grounds. Churches and clergy have lined up on opposite sides of the issue. The bill would remove the tough criminal sanctions against noncommercial sexual acts of consenting adults in private. Whatever one may think of such acts onnmoral grounds, the government simply has no busi- ness intruding the criminal justice system into such matters. The bill would not legalize sexual assault and similar predatory acts, sex acts in public or with a minor, and prostitution. Those would remain illegal. So would adultery (that is, when at least one sex partner is married to someone else). Repeal would mean elimination of two of the most widely ignored legal prohibitions - cohabitation and sex between single per- sons. Why bother to repeal a law that is ig- nored anyway? As Madison Police Chief David Couper put it, retaining the statute makes "a mockery of the justice system and a mockery of our laws." Or, as one Republi- can legislator noted, the central issue is the "right to privacy." Losing an h By Paul G. Hayes Journal Science Reporter We get so little sunlight around here, It's small wonder that we'd want to save it. Daylight-Saving Time began at 2 a.m. Sunday. This spring, most of you have been sleeping through whatever rare early- morning moments of sunshine we've had. Well, lazy ones, that's over as of today. You should have set your clocks ahead one hour upon retiring Saturday night. If the clock read 9 p.m., you should have set it to 10 p.m. Benjamin Franklin, who first had the idea for daylight-saving time, said it would save on candles. In World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said it would save power. Sav- ing energy was the reason Congress im- posed it again nationwide in January 197 bar T and rea littl and and we of yea car tin Ric the Mi su pe mo 38 Ma --- 8. MJ/4.24.83 Guard our precious water asset It's tempting to think that Wisconsin can rescue its underground water supply vital to two- thirds of state residents - if only the water's pol- luters and protectors can agree on new regulations. However, we are not convinced that the compro- mise ground water legislation now taking shape will do the protective job that is needed. Wisconsin's splendid water resources are a criti- cal asset to this Snowbelt state. Unemployment here exceeds the US average, and structural dam- age to the state's economy is occurring. When the nationwide recession is over, Wisconsin will need every advantage it can muster to restore its strength for competition in the world marketplace. We simply cannot afford to jeopardize our long- term interest in clean water supplies for the short- term advantages sought by today's polluters. Yet, significant gaps exist in Wisconsin's water- protection armor. Perhaps the biggest flaw is the lack of adequate laws to safeguard ground water. Increasingly, contamination by a variety of chemi- cals and other substances is being discovered. New laws are needed to prevent needless pollution alto- gether and to minimize the contamination that is inevitable in modern civilization. But what should the new laws say? The crux of the problem, as we see it, is that the chief polluters - agriculture and industry - pos- sess so much political power that they perhaps could block a really good ground water bill. Conse- quently, Rep. Mary Lou Munts (D-Madison), head of a Legislative Council committee studying the problem, is seeking a consensus among the clash- ing interests. The upshot almost surely will be a bill that would do much good yet fall short of what's really needed. And, once the measure was enacted, the chances for followup legislation to strengthen the new laws would not be promising. That's too risky. We don't particularly quarrel with what the compromise bill apparently will include. For exam- ple, it would (1) authorize fees for potentially pol- luting substances and activities, to finance com- pensation and replacement water for victims of contamination; (2) require two levels of water quality standards, to be set by the Departments of Natural Resources and of Health and Social Serv- ices; (3) set priorities for action by regulatory agencies. We are troubled, however, by what the bill leaves out so far. There would not be a satisfactory system for monitoring and testing ground water, to get the earliest possible warning of contamina- tion. The establishment and enforcement of pesti- cide rules would be left to the Agriculture Depart- ment, without the oversight of the existing Pesti- cide Review Board, which would be abolished. And the DNR would less clearly be the lead state agen- cy in ground water protection. (The latter flaw in the legislation stems partly from current dissatis- faction with DNR performance. But the cure for that problem is to press for new DNR leadership if that becomes necessary as it was a decade ago - rather than to weaken the agency's legal pow- ers.) Could a really strong bill to protect ground wa- ter win legislative approval over the lobbying of agriculture and industry? Perhaps not unless Gov. Earl put the issue high on his agenda, where it belongs, after his budget bill passed. If the gov- ernor fails to push for a strong bill, Wisconsin is quite likely to be stuck with shortsighted, half- way protection of its precious water resources. THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL YOU MEAN ACTUALLY GET OUT? AND LET THEM DO ANYTHING THEY WANT? STATE SEX LAWS ASSEMBLY BILL CONSENTING ADULTS --- 9. mJ/4.24.83 High Court weighs Minnesota credit for private schools Washington, D.C. - Sometime in the next several months, the United States Supreme Court will make a decision that could profoundly affect the future of the nation's school sys- tems. The issue is whether states may provide financial aid to parents of parochial school children, and it is not new. It has been argued before the high court 19 times over the last 35 years and, despite a series of rul- ings against such aid plans, continues to bob up. This time, however, the decision is regarded as too close to call. Howev- er the court decides, it is expected to do so narrowly, perhaps with a 5-4 split. Up to $500 deduction The administration is watching the case closely because of President Reagan's proposal to provide tuition tax credits to parents. Through the US solicitor general, the administra- tion has argued in favor of the Min- nesota law that is being challenged in the Supreme Court. Frank A. Aukofer Journal Washington Bureau The law provides a tax deduction for parents for the actual costs, up to $500, of educating children in kinder- garten through 6th grade, and up to $700 for expenses of children in 7th through 12th grades. Costs can in- clude tuition, transportation and books. Under the law, parents can take the deductions even if their children attend schools in Wisconsin and oth- er states bordering Minnesota, as long as they satisfy Minnesota's compulsory attendance law. The constitutional question is whether the law violates the First Amendment, which says in part that Congress "shall make no law re- specting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Appellate courts split Lower courts, even at the appeals level, have sharply split on the issue. In a Rhode Island case, the 1st Cir- cuit Court of Appeals ruled unconsti- tutional a state law that is virtually identical to the one in Minnesota. But the 8th Circuit Court in St. Louis upheld the Minnesota law, say- ing it was neutral and did not single out any class of citizens for a special economic benefit. The tax deduction is available to any Minnesota taxpayer with chil- dren in school. But opponents argued 7 that the law was simply another in- genious plan for channeling state ald to religious schools. In their suit against the law, two Minnesota residents said that in the 1978 school year, only 79 of the state's 805,155 public school students paid any tuition, so the biggest share of the tax benefits went to parents of parochial school children. They pointed out that the vast majority of students in nonpublic schools a total of 85,243 out of 88,524 in that same year were enrolled in sectarian schools. Court not convinced "Any suggestion that the tuition deduction affects a broad class is take a tax deduction. He questioned how that could be reconciled with a finding of unconstitutionality for the Minnesota law. Service for fees But attorney William Kampf, argu- ing against the law, said the differ- ence was that church schools provide simply untenable," they argued, a service in return for the fees they "Although [the law] permits deduc- charge, whereas there is "no quid pro tion of expenses incurred by parents quo" in making a voluntary contribu- of children in public schools as well tion to a religious institution. as nonpublic schools, the record Kampf also argued that the tax demonstrates that the overwhelming deduction system in Minnesota had proportion of taxpayers allowed contributed to transfers of public deductions, and the overwhelming school students to private schools. In: proportion of income deductible un- 1978 and 1979, he said, the state lost der the statute, qualify by reason of about $17 million in revenues be- expenditures directly related to reli- cause of the tax deductions. More- gious education.", over, he said, Minnesota was suffer- ing from a fiscal crisis and had cut school aid twice in recent years. But that did not persuade the 8th Circuit Court. Despite the fact, that most of the benefits under the law flowed to the parents of children at- tending church schools, the court said there also were substantial bene- fits to all members of the public. "The state, in effect, abstains from taxing that income which has been donated by a broad class of Minneso- ta citizens to their children's educa- tion," the court said. "Remote and incidental" "In so doing, the state has adopted a policy which is neutral toward reli- gion by providing a tax benefit to those parents who qualify for a de- duction for expenses incurred in sending their child to school. "While we recognize the bestow- ing of some benefit to church-affili- ated schools, we also find that any benefit to religion or involvement between church and state is so re- mote and incidental that the chal- lenged deduction does not violate the constitutional wall separating church and state." In oral arguments before the Su- preme Court last week, justices ques- tioned whether the Minnesota law, with its tax deduction for private school education, was any different than the deduction taxpayers can take for contributions to religious organizations. Douglas Blomgren, an assistant attorney general in Minnesota, said the school deduction was no more unconstitutional than the tax exemp- tions allowed for church property or the tax deductions permitted by x exemptions allowed for church prop- erty or the tax deductions permitted by the federal government for chari- table contributions. A taxpayer, he said, could even donate Bibles to a church school and That prompted Justice William Rehnquist to comment: "Maybe the. Legislature feels the private schools. are doing a better job than the public. schools." 76 The case has attracted the atten-, tion of powerful interest groups on both sides of the issue. Arrayed against the Minnesota law are, such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National School Boards Association, the AFL-CIO, the American Jewish Congress and the National Parent-Teacher Association. Quality for minorities Supporting the law, besides the Justice Department, are such organi zations as the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, which has its headquarters in Milwaukee; the US Catholic Conference, and the Mountain States Legal Foundation. The Catholic League, in its written arguments to the Supreme Court, provided an unusual argument for the Minnesota law. It said the law promoted quality education for ml norities. It said non-state schools, particu- larly those in inner city areas, em- braced minority children and taught them how to operate in an educated and affluent society. Parents, it said, make painful financial sacrifices to send their children to such schools. "These, schools embody egalitari- anism in their very nature,the league said, "and in a proper and productive sense they impart self- esteem and pride to the minority and ethnic children who attend them... "If we are tolerant of a diversity of schools, we may not individually discriminate against parents and stu- dents who pursue quality education in schools of their choice." --- Milton Courier MAY 1 - 138 18-Around the State f. Gus houdt. David I didn't know This. т (uzten) Page 4 Mon Courier May 14, 1981 viewpoint 31 UNNECESSARY NUISANCE On Thursday, May 7, a bill that would legalize most sexual conduct between consenting adults in Wisconsin was killed when the bill's sponsor, Louise Tesmer, D-Milwaukee, withdrew her motion after failing to gain support to overturn a 50-49 vote tallied earlier in the week. The bill was introduced at the request of a wide variety of religious and civic groups and law enforcement officials. It would have eliminated criminal penalties against cohabitation, fornication or acts of sexual gratification among consenting adults except in public. Similar bills have passed recently in 25 states including Illinois, Iowa and Indiana. Why the sudden interest of religious and civic groups in sexual freedom? Actually, it's not so sudden. This is the third attempt to get a bill passed which would upgrade our state's antiquated sex laws and it gains more support every time. The groups that requested the bill feel that the government should leave the moralizing to the churches and concentrate on passing laws which protect the innocent and guard our basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution. There is one very vocal religious organization, however, which does not agree with these tenets and which played an active part in defeating this bill. They call themselves the Moral Majority. According to Rep. David Clarenbach, D-Madison, members of the Moral Majority launched a telephone campaign against supporters of the bill, haranguing them ceaselessly at home and office with threats of losing the next election if they voted for the bill. If the group represented a majority opinion concerning cohabitation in this state, that would, in itself, pose a serious threat to the freedoms of the rest of the citizenry. But it is our contention that they do not. It is becoming more and more common for couples to live together for a trial period before tying the knot and cohabitation is even now being recommended by a large number of marriage counselors. What consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own homes is their business, and no one else's. Jerry Falwell, the leader of the Moral Majority, has come out publicly against network TV, movies, disco and rock 'n' roll. Does that mean if he gets together a lobby powerful enough he can railroad laws through making those endeavors illegal also? It is time our legislators stood up to these threats to our first amendment freedoms and revamped our sex laws. As it stands now, a person could face a $10,000 fine and nine months imprisonment for violation of these laws. Urge your elected officials to remove this unnecessary nuisance from the books.. 1 -Pete Rosenberg --- 4/2783 THE THE CAPITAL TIMES William T. Evjue, Founder 1917-1970 FREDERICK W. MILLER, Publisher ELLIOTT MARANISS, Editor DAVE ZWEIFEL, Managing Editor ROBERT MELOON, General Manager JOHN PATRICK HUNTER, Associate Editor Whitney Gould, Editorial Page Editor Repeal an intrusive law FOR THE fifth year in a row, the Legislature has before it a bill to legalize private, non- commercial sexual acts be- tween consenting adults. This time the measure could be- come law. It has cleared the As- sembly; its chances of passing the Senate are rated good; and Gov. Anthony Earl has indi- cated he would sign the legisla- tion if it gets to his desk. It's about time. The state's antiquated ban on cohabitation and sex between single people is probably the most flouted law on the statute books. If it were enforced, the jails would be filled to overflowing with legislators, professors, bus drivers, store clerks, journal- ists, police officers people from all walks of life. YET RESEARCH at the University of Wisconsin a few years back found that on the rare occasions when the law is called into play, the targets are usually women on welfare, homosexuals and others whom local communities seek to har- ass. That it makes a mockery of the legal system, however, is only one argument for getting rid of this silly law. The chief reason is that the cohabitation ban intrudes upon the most inti- mate of human activities. Gov- ernment simply has no business policing what goes on in peo- ple's bedrooms. IT IS IN the interest of pro- tecting individual privacy that many mainstream religious law reform. In the same vein, leaders have supported the sex- one might reasonably expect the most avid conservatives to rally behind this cause. But the Moral Majority, along with a number of people mently opposes ending the co- who ought to know better, vehe- habitation ban on the grounds that it will undermine marriage and the family and promote moral decay. They're entitled to their opinion, but their beliefs ought not dictate social policy for people of divergent views. INDEED, THE bill retains the state's prohibitions against sexual intercourse with minors and sexual acts committed in public or for money; adultery would also remain illegal. In case anyone still fears the law- makers are sliding into the abyss, the Assembly has even added a statement of intent reaffirming the state's commit- ment to marriage as "the foun- dation of family and society." There are enough issues of legitimate public concern to keep government busy ad in- finitum. The intimacies be- tween consenting adults are not among them. Let's finally re- peal an intrusive, archaic law. --- Green Bay Press. Note of purpose a good addition The law is designed to tell us what is permitted and what is not. Sometimes, though, that is not enough. Sometimes the law ought to hold up a preference or state an ideal. A good example is a Wisconsin bill to legalize non-commercial sex acts between consenting adults. The bill, which lost by a single vote in the last legislative session, has been approved by the Assem- bly. Gov. Anthony Earl said he will sign the bill if it emerges in- tact from Senate deliberations. Basically, the bill would remove from the law books sexual acts by consenting adults per- formed in private and not for money. The biggest effect would be to eliminate the crime of cohabita- tion. Public indecency, adultery, sexual assault, bestiality, sex with minors and prostitution would still be illegal. - Gaze He re: A250 sense to have an unenforced and unenforceable law on the books. Changing the law only re- cognizes the realities of today's so- ciety, backers argue. We agree, and add our convic- tion that government has no busi- ness in bedrooms occupied by adults. - But, there is more and at least some legislators saw that when they amended the original sexual conduct bill. Because they did, the Assembly said - on a vote of 96 to 0 that the state has a duty to encourage high moral standards. Although the state does not regulate the private sex activities of adults, it does not condone or encourage any form of sexual con- duct outside of marriage, the amendment said. "Marriage is the foundation of family and society. Its stability is Several church groups support basic to morality and civilization, the bill, as does the League of Women Voters. Some police offi- cials have said it makes little and of vital interest to society and this state," the amendment reads. That definitely needed to be said. Editorial Page --- Racine Journal-Times MAY 1 Opinion Sex acts law focus: legality, not morality In passing a bill to legalize a variety of sexual acts between consenting adults, the state Leg- islature has not repealed The Ten Commandments, but it has, wisely, gotten the state out of the business of policing what goes on in Wisconsin's bed- rooms. The bill apparently will leave moral judgement on activities which may violate conventional moral standards up to a higher :authority. The new law legalizes cohabi- tation by unmarried people and private sex acts previously re- ferred to in the law as perver- sion, including homosexuality. It does retain legal sanctions against adultery, rape, prostitu- tion and beastiality. Foes of the bill have conten- .ded that it amounts to condoning sex outside of marriage Propo- but to nents countered that short of an old-fashioned dormitory-style bed check on a nightly, state- wide basis, there was no way of uniformly enforcing the previous statutes dealing with sexual con- duct and that is why the new law is a step forward. Any enforcement of the previ- ous laws was necessarily selec- tive, usually coming in the cour- se of other investigations. The previous laws had at least the potential to give law enforce- ment officials an excuse to inva- de the most private acts of the state's citizens. The key words in the new law are "consenting" and "adults." People who fit those descrip- tions should take moral respon- sibiliy for their own actions - and the state should stay out of it. --- WISCONSIN RAPIDS DAILY TRIBUNE, 4/7/81 It's not state's job to regulate sexual morality Legislation of morals doesn't work. Time and time again, history has proven that. Still, there's a heated controversy brewing in Madison about revising some of our state statutes. A bill to legalize sex between unmarried people and to abolish cohabitation as a crime is pen- ding in the state Legislature. Under the bill, acts of fornication between consenting adults would not be considered criminal unless they were performed in public or for anything of value. Cohabitation, unless a person in- volved is married to someone else, would be legal. Opponents of the bill say they believe it is just another foot in the door to lower moral standards, that it violates biblical teachings and that passage of such legislation would encourage cohabita- tion, fornication and homosexuality in Wisconsin. The bill, which has gained the approval of the Assembly Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, was in- troduced by the committee at the re- quest of dozens of religious leaders and law enforcement agencies, including seven county district attorneys. It is similar to legislation un- successfully introduced in the last legislative session by Rep. David Claren- bach. D-Madison. Clarenbach, a supporter again this time around, has said over and over "hundreds of thousands of again that Editorial law-abiding citizens" would be put in jail if the state's current laws regarding private sexual activity were fully en- forced. He said the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee introduced the i bill at the request of dozens of religious leaders and law enforcement agencies. Current laws are only sporadically en- forced. Even if the state was intent on enforcing them, the fact is that it just couldn't be done. And, any kind of law that cannot be enforced ultimately is a bad one. Twenty-five states already have pass- ed consenting-adult laws and society has not come apart at the seams. Wisconsin should follow their examples. It is not the state's job to regulate sex- ual morality. Perhaps Rep. Dismas Becker, D-Milwaukee, a former Catholic priest, said it best: "The oversight and dominion of this behavior lies within the religious com- munity. It is total ignorance to assume an elected body will be able to do that." If we are concerned with the morality of people, we must allow them to be more moral, not coerce them under the threat of a law that cannot be enforced. --- CAPITOL TIMES, 3/20/80 Dreyfus says sexual law overhaul is OK by him By MATT POMMER Capital Times Staff Writer Gov. Lee Dreyfus today said he saw "no problem" with a Senate-passed bill overhauling state law on sexual conduct: The governor said that from the press accounts he read, the bill essen- tially "is making the law conform with societial standard or norm.' " Dreyfus said provisions of the bill don't match his own moral standards, adding "Joyce would kill me" if they did. The bill, which passed the Senate on Wednesday on an 18-12 vote, would le- galize most private, noncommercial sexual activities of single, consenting adults. It also would legalize oral sex, and other things now called "sexual perversion" in the law, for both single and married, consenting adults. Commercial sex, adultery, sex in public, and sex with a minor would continue to be violations of the law. Cohabitation by single people would be legalized, but cohabitation with someone other than a married per- son's spouse would still be illegal. Dreyfus said he has seen a change in society's standards in his own life- time. He added that the law ought to reflect the way police and other law enforcement personnel are enforcing society's standards. Proponents of the bill have said they doubt the Assembly will act on it before the Legislature adjourns April 2, but said Senate passage would in- crease its chances in the next legisla- tive session: MILWAUKEE JOURNAL, 3/19/81 Sensible changes in sex laws The Assembly Criminal Justice and Public Safe- ty Committee showed good sense in voting to in- troduce legislation to repeal some archaic and meddlesome Wisconsin laws that unduly intrude into the private sexual activities of consenting adults. The state should not be in the bedroom. Wisely, the bill proposed by the committee would remove criminal sanctions against sexual intercourse or other sexual acts between consent- ing adults unless the acts constituted prostitution. And in a change that is overdue, the measure would abolish the "crime" of cohabitation by unmarried persons those who live together or associate under circumstances that imply sexual intercourse. The repeal of the cohabitation prohibition might particularly benefit the unmarried woman who is battered by her partner but fears to call the police because of the threat of prosecution for cohabita- tion. These sexual morality laws often are unevenly enforced, if enforced at all. It's time for a realistic change. --- APPLETON POST-CRESCENT, 5/23/81 Criminal definitions of sex The Legislature is once again confronted with sex and whether or not it ought to be ille- gal under certain conditions. Assembly Bill 235 in general removes sex between or even among consenting adults from the list of crimes of sexual perversion or fornication unless performed in public or for anything of value. Such matters as homosex- ual relations or oral or anal sex would no longer be the business of the state. Pros- titution or sexual intercourse with minors without consent would still be prohibited un- der different laws. Sexual intercourse with anyone 15 or under is flatly prohibited under the reasoning that 15 is too young to give rea- soned consent. 3 In particular, the proposed changes would' no longer call cohabitation, fairly widely spread in Wisconsin as elsewhere, a crime. The acknowledgement that many young couples live together now without marriage or in advance of marriage was made long ago. Usually there is no effort to prosecute. The law against types of sex indulged in by such couples or by married couples was pat- ently unenforceable without stationing police in every bedroom. १ The most telling effect of keeping the law on the books is that it encourages disrespect for all laws and the hyprocisy that many young people feel about their elders anyway. Changing the law should not in any way change views about whether sex outside of marriage is moral. That's a decision for indi- viduals, families and churches to determine for themselves and their followers. Last week another concern about the cur- rent law was raised. An assistant corporation counsel in Waukesha County filed charges against 13 unwed mothers on welfare for criminal fornication. The aim presumably was not to harass the women. It was to force them to tell the names of the fathers of the children so that the men could be sued by the county for child support. The aim is worthy, but not the means. If the women only are to be charged with criminal fornication, there is obviously sexual discrimination. The state doesn't belong in anyone's bed- room. The Post-Crescent has said so edito- rially for a long time. It's long past time for Wisconsin legislators to enact enforceable laws and discard the outmoded ones that never should have been passed anyway. MILWAUKEE JOURNAL, 5/5/81 Chance to slam the bedroom door The Wisconsin Assembly has another chance to approve a bill that would remove criminal sanc- tions on private, noncommercial sexual acts be- tween consenting adults. Representatives should grasp the opportunity. The Assembly killed the bill the other day by a single vote. The measure was revived when a member who had voted against it (and who says she has not changed her mind) moved reconsidera- tion. Under Assembly rules, only a member on the prevailing side of a question can ask to have it re- considered. The legislator's move, intended as a courtesy, permits the bill's proponents to seek the one vote needed for passage. A similar bill passed the Senate last year. Passage in both houses this year (and the gover- nor's approval) would finally halt excessive state intrusion into the bedroom. For example, the bi!! takes aim at the law against "cohabitation" persons of opposite sexes living together under circumstances that imply sexual intercourse. Among other things, repeal might enable women living in such relationships to report brutal treat- ment by their partners. Some women now may not go to the police out of fear of being charged under the meddlesome law. Another archaic law that would be repealed is one forbidding fornication sexual intercourse between unmarried persons. Consider the grief to which some women in Waukesha County were subjected by being threatened with prosecution for fornication. Overzealous officials tried to force the women, who were seeking welfare support, to name the fathers of children born out of wedlock. The objective was valid but the tactic highlighted the capricious way these laws are enforced. We hope such arguments will persuade at least one Assembly member to change his or her vote. --- THE CAPITAL TIMES William T. Evjue, Founder-Editor, 1917-1970 Miles McMillin, Editor and Publisher, 1970-1978 ELLIOTT MARANISS, Editor ROBERT MELOON, General Manager DAVE ZWEIFEL, Managing Editor JOHN PATRICK HUNTER, Associate Editor MARIE PULVERMACHER, Associate Editor Out of the bedrooms, snoopers WHY IS IT that the same people who want to get the gov- ernment off our backs are so re- luctant to cast off one of the most intrusive state laws on the books? Surely, no law is more consis- tently ignored than the state's ban on sexual activity between unmarried adults. Do its de- fenders honestly believe that keeping this archaic prohibition on the books contributes one whit toward bolstering moral standards? Or that eliminating the law will have any impact at all on the rate of divorce, prosti- tution or venereal disease? To accept either of these premises, one has to be out of touch with contemporary reality. THE LAW, like the defenses of it, would be laughable if it were not occasionally and un- - evenly - enforced. Usually the targets are welfare mothers and others whom society likes to harass. If violators were uni- formly prosecuted, a good num- ber of upstanding citizen types, including lawmakers, university professors, journalists and pub- lic officials, would be in the clink. By a narrow, 50-49 vote, the Assembly this week turned back Rep. David Clarenbach's perennial effort to get rid of the co-habitation ban. But because sensible one member was enough to move for reconsider- ation, the measure will come up for a vote again next Tuesday. Let's hope that between now and then, the lawmakers will decide to shun double standards and consign this silly Victorian vestige to the dust bin. Madison, Wisconsin Friday, May 1, 1981 --- THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL Friday, June 19, 1981 Police criticized for cohabitation probe By James Romenesko of The Journal Staff At 11:40 p.m. Feb. 19, Milwaukee police officer John M. Buss left work and headed for his South Side home. Unknown to him, two police sergeants were following a short distance behind. They parked their car near Buss' home and began their surveillance. The sergeants-John Tries and LeRoy Krenzke Jr. had not sat long in the 5000 block of S. 14th St. before they spotted another Milwaukee officer, Sylvia Johnson, walk into Buss' apartment build- ing. By 1:45 a.m., she had not left the building and the lights in Buss' apartment had been turned off. The sergeants' suspicions were confirmed: Buss, 27, and Johnson, 24, apparently were living to- gether in violation of Police Department rules. The department apparently was eager to prove the allegation. It had assigned at least six sergeants to watch the couple at various times between Feb. 12 and 20, according to testimony at a recent Fire and Police Commission hearing. The vice squad sergeants attempted to get evi- dence to seek criminal charges against the pair for cohabitating, even though the Milwaukee County district attorney's office has not prosecuted such a case in at least 10 years, according to Deputy Dist. Atty. Lee Wells. In addition. and unknown to the vice squad sergeants other sergeants from the Police De- partinent's Bureau of Internal Affairs also were conducting surveillance for departmental charges against the couple, according to testimony. Buss and Johnson were fired after surveillance showed that Johnson had stayed overnight at Buss' residence on at least two occasions. This tale of cops spying on cops unraveled last week when Buss and Johnson asked the Fire and Police Commission to rehire them. The commission did rehire them after ruling that the department had not proved that the pair actually had illegally cohabitated. The above description of events leading to the firings was drawn primarily from testimony given by Tries. Kenneth Murray, an attorney for the police union who represented the officers, said it was appalling that such manpower and money would be spent on the investigation of the two officers at a time when Police Chief Harold A. Breier was Turn to Officers, Page 6 Officers Police ripped for spending too much time on cohabitation probe From Page 1 complaining that he did not have enough money and that some squads I would have to be reduced to only one officer. Sergeants involved in the investigation earn about $11 an hour, according to Police Department fig- ures. Tries testified that, on Feb. 20, he and Krenzke knocked on Buss' door at 5:15 a.m., several hours after the lights were turned off. "Officer Buss came to the door," Tries said. "He was clad in a short robe. He was advised by myself of our identities and of the investigation we were conducting. ... I advised him that the investigation was an al- legation that he and officer Johnson were cohabitating in his residence." Denied admittance Tries said he had advised Buss of his constitutional rights and asked to see Johnson. Buss said she wasn't in the apartment. Tries then asked whether he could go in. His request was denied, Tries said, so he and Krenzke went back to their car and continued their surveillance until 8:30 a.m., when they were relieved by another team. There was no testi- mony on who was seen leaving the building. Tries later went to Deputy Dist. Atty. Michael Malmstadt and asked him to charge the pair with cohabita- ton, according to the lawyers in- volved, but Malmstadt declined. The officers were then fired by Breier. The Fire and Police Commission said there was "complete lack of evi- dence" to prove that the pair was "openly and notoriously cohabitat- ing." Also, the commissioners said there was no evidence to prove that there was any sexual involvement. The commission said it was dis- turbed that a criminal investigation was conducted in addition to the in- ternal affairs investigation. Commissioner Franklyn Gimbel later said the case showed "excessive use of police supervisors for a matter that really didn't have much impact on the community." Murray said, the investigaton was not only a waste of taxpayers' mon ey, but infringed on the officers' per sonal lives. "I think Harold Breier better look very seriously at his overtime and [the Bureau of Internal Affairs'] use of overtime for these frivolous pur poses," Murray said. Inspector of Police Robert J. Ziar- nik said he did not want to comment on the case. --- X Appleton Post-Crescent .31 JUL11 1981 2-around the State The pros and cons of cohabitation The Lawrence University students who took a put-up-or-shut-up attitude toward the seldom-enforced Wisconsin prohibitation of cohabitation have effectively pointed out the implicit problem with a law which is not en- forced. It diminishes respect for all laws. But the students have not demonstrated that cohabitation is an improvement over the generally accepted customs of the past. Only time will do that. Whatever its pros and cons, cohabitation - once upon a time discreetly called "trial marriage" is an ever-increasing fact of life, especially among college and university students. A survey conducted by the Chronicle of Higher Education at 150 institutions found more than 30% reported an increase in the number of students living together off-cam- pus in the last five years. The percentage was higher at public institutions. But the avail- ability of easy sex is not always and per- haps not primarily - the reason for such relationships. Companionship, security, self- awareness, the need for identity - all are in- volved from both male and female veiwpoints. "Companions" may even share the same beds without having sexual rela- tions. The platonic relationships are another reason a law banning cohabitation is silly un- less police are to be stationed in bedrooms. The women's equality movement has cer- tainly influenced the situation. The old double standard whereby a man was ex- pected to sow wild oats before he married a virgin is something of the past, and good rid- dance. Yet at least some young women may have taken on the worst characteristics of the male in equating promiscuity with equality. They have simply become the new and latest victims of irresponsible and unscrupulous men. And what of the future? Are these live- in "current commitments" merely an escape from responsibility in a number of areas? Richard Hettlinger, counselor and director of the humane studies program at Kenyon College, writes in "Sex Isn't That Simple": "Living together. . . seems to offer the best prospect of achieving mature sexuality and adult love. It does not involve the finality of a marital commitment, but it makes possible a truly personal relationship rather than a series of purely sexual interludes." Puritans, of course, would argue that those interludes aren't necessary and that the per- sonal relationship shouldn't happen without the finality of a marriage commitment. Yet the high rate of divorce in today's society raises deep doubts, especially when children are involved. The percentage of live-ins who go on to marriage with each other is rela- tively high. Future statistics are needed to determine how the success of those mar- riages compares with the more traditional or old-fashioned - relationship. The late teens and early 20s are still a time of trying on careers, friends, interests, of ma- turing in a society which for financial and educational reasons tends to keep young peo ple in a state of dependency. Psychologist Eleanor Macklin of the Uni- versity of Maryland questions whether the level of student self-identity is sufficiently high to make even a semi-permanenet com mitment advisable at this stage of personal development." Advisable or legal or not, cohabitation is real and one of these days even the Wisconsin Legislature will so acknowledge. --- Time to repeal archaic sex laws Commendably, the Wisconsin Senate has voted to repeal the state's archaic laws that meddle in the private sexual activities of consenting adults. The Assembly should swiftly concur and get the state out of the bedroom. The legislation removes from criminal statutes. both sexual intercourse between unmarried per- sons and sexual acts between consenting adults, so long as such acts are not performed in public. The prohibition against prostitution would remain in force. Predatory sexual conduct would continue to be illegal. - In a long overdue change, the bill abolishes the "crime" of cohabitation by unmarried persons living together or associating under circumstances that imply sexual intercouse. Although unevenly enforced, the law remains on the books as a threat of unwarranted state intrusion. Its repeal might prove useful to unmarried persons primarily LETTERS women - who wish to take legal action against a brutal partner but who fear to do so because of the threat of prosecution for cohabitation. Individual moral scruples deserve to be respect- ed, but are not entitled to be enacted into laws that unduly intrude into private, non-predatory sexual conduct between consenting adults. And that's just what the Senate has now said in approving this legislation. We hope the Assembly will muster the courage to say so, too. The Assembly should listen to Gov. Dreyfus - who indicates he would sign the bill. The governor does not personally approve of some of the behav- ior the bill would legalize, but he wisely recogniz- es that it would make the law_"conform with so- cietal standards." There's no sense in having a law that doesn't, and is therefore unenforceable. It's time for this realistic change. J ments complai --- CHURCH IN ERICA 27 SOCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA Sex, Marriage, and Family Adopted by the Fifth Biennial Convention Minneapolis, Minnesota June 25-July 2, 1970 - Scientific research has not been able to provide conclusive evidence regarding the causes of homosexuality. Nevertheless, homosexuality is viewed biblically as a departure from the heterosexual structure of God's creation. Persons who engage in homosexual behavior are sinners only as are all other persons alienated from God and neighbor. However, they are often the special and undeserving victims of prejudice and discrimina- tion in law, law enforcement, cultural mores, and congregational life. In relation to this area of concern, the sexual behavior of freely consenting adults in private is not an appropriate subject for legislation or police ac- tion. It is essential to see such persons as entitled to understanding and justice in church and community. Board of Social Ministry Lutheran Church in America 231 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 ---