REP DAVID CLARENBACH MORALTY REPORT 1035 SHERMAN AVE MADISON WI 53703 NONPROFIT ORG. BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE April, 1983 PAID MARTINSBURG, WV PERMIT NO. 52 305 Sixth Street Lynchburg, Va. 24504 Interior Secretary Jim Watt Says U.S. Resources Plentiful see page 4 MAJORITY Nuclear Freeze: THE BIG LIE Maine Christian Schools Win Landmark Case see page 8 ASK AN THE AFSHAN ASK AN AFGHAN ASOUT CE THRO STRENGT ND ZE PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH Birth Control Movement Began On Racial Prejudice see page 13 ✰✰✰ Highlights ✰✰✰ Union Corruption, Racketeering Threatened By Proposed Federal Legislation see page 7 Authors of 'Holy Terror' Avoid Television Debate. With Challengers see page 14 Columnist Pat Buchanan Says The Reagan Recovery Is Coming see page 19 Y PEACE THR TRENG PEACI TUDAL --- Wilson, John 1956. Logic and sexual morality. Penguin Books. 281 p. CHAPTER 6 LAW AND CONVENTION As we noticed in Chapter 3, the context of law-making differs from other contexts of decision. Our law-making cannot follow, simply and without consideration, from our making of moral decisions. Yet there is obviously going to be some kind of connexion between the two: nobody could reasonably say that they are in no way related. What we have to analyse, then, is this relationship; we have to describe the kind of laws we make, and the kind of theory of law-making (perhaps an unconsciously- held theory) that lies behind them. The position is complicated by the wide range of social and legal sanctions. Anybody who has served in H.M.F. will be aware of the existence of rules like Section 40 of the Army Act, which can be used to penalize anyone for 'conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline'. They are the means by which the establishment covers itself, in case it has failed to in- clude all possible behaviour which it wishes to penalize. In civil life we appear more liberal; either there is a law against certain behaviour or there is not - though even this dichotomy is too abrupt, since the law is often unclear or not always enforced. But in any case there are other social sanctions besides those of the law: sanctions which it is too weak a description to call the sanctions of 'convention'. If a man loses his job because he commits adultery with another man's wife, he suffers more than the mild reproof of someone who is 'unconventional': what he suffers is oppression. For this reason I have lumped legal and conventional sanctions together in this chapter. So far as the legal position is concerned, many writers of a liberal turn of mind have given wide publicity to the oddly anomalous nature of our laws about sex. Their case is perhaps sufficiently familiar, and we may summarize it as follows: The laws penalizing homosexuality and other so-called 157 --- 1979-80 Session - 50 552 - 302- 2-26. S. Public hearing held. Senate Bulletin 3-4. S. Fiscal estimate received. 3-11. S. Senate amendment 1 offered by Senator Johnston 4-3. S. Failed to pass pursuant to A.J.R. 1 2-12. S. Read first time and referred to committee on Human Services 2-27. S. Public hearing held. -303- 1292 1516 2-28. S. Fiscal estimate received. 1840 3-11. S. Report passage recommended, Ayes 3, Noes 2 1500 3-19. S. Read a second time 1604 Senate Bill 551 3-19. S. Placed at the foot of the 11th order on the calendar of 3-19-80 1611 AN ACT to repeal 30.35 (7) (c); to amend 198.18 (5), 219.04 (1) (a) (intro.) and I, 225.09, 231.18, 499.41 and 560.06 (5); and to create 620.25 of the statutes, relating to insurance investments. 3-19. S. Ordered to a third reading. 1611 3-19. S. Rules suspended, Ayes 23, Noes 7 1611 3-19. S. Read a third time and passed, Ayes 18, Noes 12 1611 1980 3-19. S. Refused to lay motion for reconsideration of the vote by which passed on the table, Ayes 9, Noes 20 1624 2-12. S. Introduced by committee on Insurance and Utilities, by request of Wisconsin Housing Finance Authority. 3-19. S. Reconsideration of the vote by which passed refused 3-20. A. Received from senate 1624 2954 3- 6. S. Ordered immediately messaged. 2-12. S. Read first time and referred to committee on Insurance and Utilities. 2-28. S. Report passage recommended, Ayes 5, Noes 0 3- 6. S. Read a second time. 3- 6. S. Senate amendment 1 offered by Senators Frank and Harnisch 3- 6. S. Senate amendment 1 adopted 3- 6. S. Ordered to a third reading 3- 6. S. Rules suspended 3- 6. S. Read a third time and passed 3-11. A. Received from senate. 1292 3-20. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety 1415 2954 1482 3-20. A. Executive session held. 1482 1482 3-21. A. Report concurrence recommended by committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety, Ayes 7, Noes 6 2970 1482 3-21. A. Referred to committee on Rules. 2970 1482 3-22. A. Placed on calendar 3-26 by committee on Rules. 1482 3-26. A. Read a second time 3119 1484 3-26. A. Nonconcurred in, Ayes 54, Noes 41 3119 2530 3-28. S. Received from Assembly nonconcurred in 1714 3-11. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Financial Institutions 2531 3-12. A. Rules suspended 3-12. A. Withdrawn from committee on Financial Institutions and referred to committee on Local Affairs Senate Bill 553 2606 3-18. A. Executive session held. AN ACT to amend 15.227 (3) of the statutes, relating to the appointment of members to the council on unemployment compensation. 3-20. A. Report concurrence recommended by committee on Local Affairs, Ayes 11, Noes 1 1980 2949 3-20. A. Referred to committee on Rules 2-14. S. Introduced by Legislative Council. 2949 3-28. A. Placed on calendar 4-1 by committee on Rules. 2-14. S. Read first time and referred to committee on Agriculture, Labor and Local 4- 2. A. Read a second time Affairs 1326 3319 4-2. A. Ordered to a third reading. 3-4. S. Public hearing held. 3319 4-2. A. Rules suspended 3319 4- 3. S. Failed to pass pursuant to A.J.R. 1 1840 4-2. A. Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 98, Noes 0 3319 4-2. A. Ordered immediately messaged 3319 Senate Bill 554 4-2. S. Received from Assembly concurred in 1818 AN ACT to create 108.18 (5s) of the statutes, relating to deferral of increases in unemployment compensation tax rates due primarily to increases in an employer's payroll. 1852 1877 1980 1879 4-10. S. Report correctly enrolled. 4-16. S. Chief Clerk's correction 5-7. S. Presented to the Governor on 5-2-80 5-14. S. Report approved by the Governor on 5-6-80 (Chapter No. 279 - Published 5-12-80) Senate Bill 552 AN ACT to repeal 944.20 (3); to amend 343.06 (11), 343.30 (2d), 939.22 (24), 944.20 (2), 944.30 (2), 944.31 and 944.33 (1) (a) and (b); and to repeal and recreate 944.15 and 944.17 of the statutes, relating to sexual activity between consenting adults and revising penalties.(FE) 1980 2-12. S. Introduced by committee on Human Services, by request of the Wisconsin League of Women Voters, AFSCME, Council 24 Wisconsin Federation of Teachers] American Federation of Teachers Local 3220, Dane Dounty CAPE United Professionals for Qaulity Health Card, Madison Police Department, Rev. Tony Larsen, Unitarian Universalist Church of Racine and Kneoshal Center for Public Representation Rev. John Cyrus, First Unitarian Church of Milwaukee, Wisconsin Council on Human Concerns. Rev. Dale Robison, Unitarian Church North of Mequon! Church Women United Rev. Charles Saleska, Wisconsin Unitarian Universalist Council Dane County Democratic Party! First Unitarian Society of Madison United Ministry in Higher Education/Individual Rights, and Responsibilities, Section Council of the State Bar of Wisconsin, Common Sense Coalition and the Labor Caucus of Common Sense! the Wisconsin Privacy Coalition and Council 48, AFSCME. 1 2-14. S. Introduced by Legislative Council. 2-14. S. Read first time and referred to committee on Agriculture, Labor and Local Affairs 3- 4. S. Public hearing held. 4- 3. S. Failed to pass pursuant to A.J.R. I Senate Bill 555 AN ACT to renumber and amend 59.971 (6); to amend 20.370 (1) (dn), 59.971 (title) and (1) and 71.02 (2) (f); and to create 20.370 (2) (bm), (bn) and (br), 23.33, 59.971 (1) (b) 1 to 3 and 5 to 7, (2) (title), (3) (title), (4) (title), (5) (title), (7) to (12) and (14), 70.118, 71.02 (2) (f) 4 and 71.04 (17) of the statutes, relating to wetland protection, revising shoreland zoning, creating tax exemptions and deductions, creating a penalty and creating and revising appropriations. (FE) 1980 2-14. S. Introduced by Senator Strohl. 1326 1840 2-14. S. Read first time and referred to Joint Survey committee on Tax Exemptions 1326 3- 6. S. Report of Joint Survey committee on Tax Exemptions received with favorable recommendation.. 1457 1457 1840 3- 6. S. Referred to committee on Natural Resources and Tourism 3-11. S. Fiscal estimate received. 4- 3. S. Failed to pass pursuant to A.J.R. 1 Period Ending January 5, 1981 --- -178- 1981-82 Session -AB. 235 10-22. A. Assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Hopkins Assembly 1408 10-22. A. Refused to adopt assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1, Ayes 46, Noes 50 1408 10-22. A. Point of order raised by Representative Barczak that assembly amendment 1 not germane 10-22. A. Chair ruled point of order not well taken 1409 1409 10-22. A. Assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Barczak 1409 10-22. A. Assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 1 rejected, Ayes 80, Noes 17 1409 10-22. A. Refused to table assembly amendment 1, Ayes 46, Noes 51 10-22. A. Refused to adopt assembly amendment 1, Ayes 48, Noes 49 10-22. A. Assembly amendment 2 offered by Representative Dorff 10-22. A. Assembly amendment 2 adopted 1410 1411 1411 1411 10-22. A. Assembly amendment 3 offered by Representatives Norquist, Wagner and Goodrich. 1411 10-22. A. Assembly amendment 3 rejected, Ayes 48, Noes 47 1411 10-22. A. Motion to reconsider vote by which assembly amendment 3 rejected offered by Representative Tuczynski.. 1412 10-22. A. Assembly amendment 4 offered by Representative Lee 10-22. A. Assembly amendment 5 offered by Representative Shabaz 10-22. A. Refused to reject assembly amendment 4, Ayes 44, Noes 53 1412 1414 1412 10-22. A. Point of order raised by Representative Dorff that assembly amendment 4 not germane. 1413 10-22. A. Chair ruled point of order not well taken 1413 10-22. A. Refused to refer to joint committee on Finance, Ayes 41, Noes 56 1413 10-22. A. Assembly amendment 4 placed immediately following assembly amendment 5 1414 10-22. A. Assembly amendment I to assembly amendment 5 offered by Representative Dorff 1414 10-22. A. Assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 5 adopted 1414 10-22. A. Assembly amendment 5 adopted 1414 10-22. A. Assembly amendment 4 laid on table 1414 10-22. A. Assembly amendment 6 offered by Representative Neubauer 1414 10-22. A. Point of order raised by Representative Barczak that assembly amendment 6 not germane 1414 10-22. A. Chair ruled point of order not well taken 1414 10-22. A. Assembly amendment 6 rejected, Ayes 50, Noes 46, Paired 2 10-22. A. Refused to indefinitely postpone, Ayes 42, Noes 54, Paired 2. 1415 1415 10-22. A. Refused to lay on table, Ayes 44, Noes 52, Paired 2 1416 10-22. A. Ordered to a third reading, Ayes 50, Noes 46, Paired 2 1417 10-22. A. Refused to suspend rules to read a third time, Ayes 48, Noes 48, Paired 2 1417 10-22. A. Motion to reconsider vote by which ordered to a third reading offered by Representative Loftus 1418 10-27. A. Vote by which ordered to a third reading reconsidered, Ayes 48, Noes 47, Paired 2 1530 10-27. A. Laid on table, Ayes 49, Noes 48. 1531 10-27. A. Assembly amendment 7 offered by Representatives Coggs, Leopold, Lee, Wagner, Shabaz, Crawford, Broydrick, Becker, Williams and Clarenbach 3-23. A. Fiscal estimate received. Bulletin 3-11. A. Introduced by Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety, by request of United Ministry in Higher Education; League of Women Voters of Wisconsin; Wisconsin Council on Human Concerns; Wisconsin Federation of Teachers; Wisconsin Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees-Council 24; Madison Police Department; Wisconsin Privacy Coalition; Southeastern Wisconsin Unitarian Universalist Council; Ronald E. Ballew, Friedens United Church of Christ of Milwaukee; The Rev. Lowell Bartel, Community United Methodist Church of Cedarburg; The Rev. James A. Bartos, Village Church of Milwaukee; William D. Bussey, District Attorney of Bayfield County; The Rev. Robert E. Cordes, Fox Valley Pastoral Counseling Center, Inc. of Appleton; James Doyle, District Attorney of Dane County; Robert S. Duxstad, District Attorney of Green County; The Rev. Edward M. Esler, First Presbyterian Church of Beloit; The Rev. Paul Flucke, Plymouth United Church of Christ of Milwaukee; The Rev. Alan J. Hagstrom, United Methodist Church of Turtle Lake; The Rev. John C. Helt, New Hope United Church of Christ of Milwaukee; The Rev. Bedford F. Hines, Fox Valley Pastoral Counseling Center, Inc. of Appleton; The Rev. Keith A. Kensinger, Crossroads United Campus Ministry, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse; The Rev. Paul Kuenning, Incarnation Lutheran Church Of Milwaukee; Rand L. Krueger, District Attorney of Marathon County; The Rev. Dennis Landon, First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) of Brookfield; The Rev. Tony Larson, Unitarian Universalist Church of Racine and Kenosha; The Rev. Eugene Locke, Brookfield United Presbyterian Church; The Rev. Leland L. Longrie, Atonement Lutheran Church of Racine; Rabbi Lawrence N. Mahrer, Mount Sinai Congregation of Wausau; Bishop Marjorie S. Matthews, United Methodist Church of Wisconsin; The Rev. Mary Ann Neeval, Plymouth United Church of Christ of Milwaukee; The Rev. Jerome Nilssen, Lake Park Lutheran Church of Milwaukee; The Rev. Clifford J. Pierson, Memorial Presbyterian Church of Appleton; The Rev. Harold G. Porter, Linn Presbyterian Church of Lake Geneva; Michael M. Rajek, District Attorney of Pierce County; The Rev. Christine B. Rannie Grimbol, Tippecanoe Presbyterian Church of Milwaukee; The Rev. Dr. Stanley R. Reiber, Professor of Sociology, Carroll College of Waukesha; The Rev. Joseph F. Rider, Saint John the Divine Episcopal Church of Burlington; The Rev. Dale Robison, Unitarian Church North of Mequon; John E. Schneider, District Attorney of Polk County; The Rev. Dr. Lawrence A. Sinclair, Chairperson, Department of Religion, Carroll College of Waukesha; The Rev. Dave Steffenson, Campus Minister of the United Methodist Church, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay; The Rev. L. Douglas Throckmorton, Director of United Campus Ministries, University of Wisconsin- Platteville; Rodney A. Zemke, District Attorney of Eau Claire County 3-11. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety -179- 271 273 3-26. A. Public hearing held. 1484 3-31. A. Executive session held. 10-28. A. Refused to withdraw from table, Ayes 43, Noes 54 10-29. A. LRB correction (assembly amendment 4) (10-28-81) 10-30. A. Assembly amendment 8 offered by Representative Coggs 1982 1543 4-21. A. LRB correction 387 1627 1630 4-23. A. Report passage recommended by committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety, Ayes 7, Noes 5 389 4-23. A. Referred to committee on Rules .. 389 4- 2. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 3396 4-23. A. Placed on calendar 4-28 by committee on Rules. 4-28. A. Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Clarenbach 396 Assembly Bill 235 AN ACT to repeal 944.20 (3); to amend 343.06 (11), 343.30 (2d), 939.22 (24), 944.20 (2), 944.30 (2), 944.31 and 944.33 (1) (a) and (b); and to repeal and recreate 944.15 and 944.17 of the statutes, relating to sexual activity between consenting adults and revising penalties. (FE) 4-28. A. Assembly amendment 2 offered by Representatives Clarenbach, Hopkins, Donoghue, Nelsen, Panzer and Schneiders.. 396 Period Ending January 3, 1983 --- -180- Assembly 4-28. A. Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representatives Prosser and Robertson Bulletin 4-14. A. Report passage recommended by committee on Agriculture and Nutrition, - 181- Ayes 12, Noes 1 400 4-28. A. Assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representative Prosser.. 4-14. A. Referred to joint committee on Finance. 1982 400 4-28. A. Read a second time.. 400 4- 2. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 348 348 3396 4-28. A. Assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 1 adopted 4-28. A. Refused to lay on table, Ayes 44, Noes 52 400 402 4-28. A. Assembly substitute amendment 1 rejected, Ayes 68, Noes 31 402 4-28. A. Assembly amendment 1 adopted 4-28. A. Assembly amendment 2 adopted 403 403 4-28. A. Assembly amendments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 offered by Representatives Prosser and Robertson 396 4-28. A. Assembly amendment 3 adopted 4-28. A. Assembly amendment 4 adopted 4-28. A. Assembly amendment 5 adopted 403 403 403 4-28. A. Assembly amendment 6 adopted 403 4-28. A. Assembly amendment 7 rejected, Ayes 54, Noes 45 404 Assembly Bill 238 AN ACT to create 15.137 (1), 20.115 (4) (f), (fm) and (fn) and 93.40 to 93.44 of the statutes, relating to creating a dairy promotion council; creating a dairy promotion program and a commodity promotion program, granting rule-making authority and making appropriations. (FE) 3-11. A. Introduced by Representatives Hephner, Bradley, Vanderperren, Potter, Duren, Paulson, Shoemaker, Everson, Wagner, Larson, Byers, Porter, Ladwig, McEwen, Harer, Luckhardt and McEssy, co- sponsored by Senators Harnisch and Kreul 3-11. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Agriculture and Nutrition 3-24. A. Fiscal estimate received. 273 273 4-28. A. Assembly amendment 8 rejected, Ayes 51, Noes 48 4-28. A. Indefinitely postponed, Ayes 50, Noes 49. 404 3-25. A. Public hearing held. 405 4-30. A. Motion to reconsider vote by which indefinitely postponed offered by Representative Tesmer 4- 7. A. Unanimous consent granted to add Representative Smith as a co-author 4- 8. A. Executive session held. 310 419 5- 5. A. Point of order raised by Representative Shabaz that motion to lay on table out of order 4-14. A. Report passage recommended by committee on Agriculture and Nutrition, Ayes 10, Noes 3 ... 444 4-14. A. Referred to joint committee on Finance 5- 5. A. Point of order taken under advisement by the Chair 444 4-30. A. Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Hephner 348 348 412 5- 7. A. Unanimous consent granted to withdraw motion to reconsider vote by which indefinitely postponed 1982 466 2- 2. A. Executive session held. 2- 2. A. Assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by joint committee on Finance Assembly Bill 236 1993 AN ACT to amend 73.09 (2) and (6) of the statutes, relating to the first level of certification of department of revenue assessment personnel and to temporary certification of assessment personnel. 3-11. A. Introduced by Representatives Hopkins, Schneider, Knox, Donoghue, Bradley and Everson, co-sponsored by Senators Roshell, Theno, Opitz and Kreul.. 2- 4. A. Referred to committee on Rules. 2-16. A. Read a second time 2- 4. A. Report assembly amendment 2 adoption, Ayes 13, Noes 0, passage recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 12, Noes 2 2018 2018 2-11. A. Placed on calendar 2-16 by committee on Rules. 2185 2-16. A. Assembly amendment 2 laid on table, Ayes 65, Noes 30 2185 273 3-11. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Revenue 273 2-16. A. Assembly amendment 3 offered by Representatives Hephner, Norquist, Donoghue and Paulson 2186 4-23. A. Public hearing held. 5- 7. A. Executive session held. 2-16. A. Refused to reject assembly amendment 3, Ayes 2, Noes 94 2-16. A. Assembly amendment 3 adopted 2186 2186 5-12. A. Report passage recommended by committee on Revenue, Ayes 9, Noes 1.. 5-12. A. Referred to committee on Rules. 482 2-16. A. Ordered to a third reading, Ayes 86, Noes 10 2187 482 2-16. A. Rules suspended... 2187 5-14. A. Placed on calendar 5-19 by committee on Rules. 5-19. A. Read a second time 536 2-16. A. Read a third time and passed, Ayes 65, Noes 30 2-16. A. Ordered immediately messaged 2187 2188 5-19. A. Ordered to a third reading 536 2-18. S. Received from Assembly. 1518 5-19. A. Rules suspended. . 536 2-18. S. Read first time and referred to committee on Agriculture and Natural 5-19. A. Read a third time and passed, Ayes 93, Noes 5 536 Resources 1519 5-19. A. Ordered immediately messaged 537 3- 4. S. Public hearing held. 5-21. S. Received from Assembly 3-12. S. Report concurrence recommended, Ayes 3, Noes 2 1688 V 5-21. S. Read first time and referred to committee on State and Local Affairs, and 3-24. S. Read a second time 1806 Taxation.. 450 3-24. S. Senate amendment 1 offered by Senator Opitz 1806 1982 4- 6. S. Failed concurrence pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 1981 3-24. S. Referred to joint committee on Finance 1806 3-30. S. Withdrawn from joint committee on Finance and referred to committee on Senate Organization 1873 Assembly Bill 237 4- 1. S. Senate substitute amendment 1 offered by Senator Kleczka 1926 AN ACT to renumber and amend 95.22 (1); to amend 93.07 (10), 95.10 (4), 95.17, 95.20, 95.31 (1), (3) and (4) and 95.50 (2) of the statutes, relating to contagious or infectious animal diseases and the payment of indemnities. (FE) 3-11. A. Introduced by Representatives Hephner, Bradley, Hasenohrl, Porter, McEwen, Byers, Harer, Hopkins, Luckhardt, McEssy and Rogers, co-sponsored by Senator Harnisch 4-1. S. Senate amendment 1 laid on the table 4- 1. S. Senate substitute amendment 1 rejected, Ayes 27, Noes 6 4- 1. S. Ordered to a third reading... 4- 1. S. Rules suspended, Ayes 31, Noes 2. 4- 1. S. Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 28, Noes 5 1926 1926 1927 1927 1927 4- 1. S. Ordered immediately messaged 1939 273 4- 1. A. Received from senate concurred in 3207 3-11. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Agriculture and Nutrition 273 4-8. A. Report correctly enrolled 3317 3-25. A. Fiscal estimate received. 3-25. A. Public hearing held. 4- 8. A. Executive session held. Period Ending January 3, 1983 --- Volume I Gay NGTF Civil Rights SUPPORT STATEMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS PACKET $2.00 Educational Material prepared by NGTF National Gay Task Force Room 506, 80 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10011 (212) 741-1010 --- Be Alert to Spiritual Danger... SUPPLEMENTARY ALUMNI BOOK VOLUME 6, 1980 --- David E. Clarenbach SPEAKER PRO TEM OF THE ASSEMBLY Personal matters, most notably sexual intimacy between our adult citizens, is an area of regulation that state government and the crim- inal justice system has no business. That is the underlying theme of the Consenting Adults Bill approved by the Assembly last week. The bill removes penalties for sex acts that make criminals even out of most married couples, and repeals the vague cohabitation language that prohibits associating with someone not your spouse "under circum- stances that imply sexual intercourse." As a part of Assembly Bill 250, the legislature created a statement of policy to recognize the duty of our laws to encourage high moral standards. The intent is clear: Although the state does not regulate the private sexual activity of consenting adults, the state does not condone or encourage any form of sexual conduct outside the institution of marriage. Marriage is the foundation of family and society. Its stability is basic to morality and civilization, and of vital interest to society and this state. This reform of our sex laws was requested by a long list of church leaders that span the religious spectrum of our state, as well as law enforcement, labor union, political and civic groups and individuals. 422 North, State Capitol Madison, Wisconsin 53702 608-266-8570 --- David E. Clarenbach SPEAKER PRO TEM OF THE ASSEMBLY Page 2 Except for the isolated-yet-vocal opposition from Moral Majority- types, the religious community was nearly unanimous in their position that the state ought not take the responsibility from churches in establishing moral standards for sexual activity for consenting adults. According to church leaders, these laws deal with matters which can only be answered by the individual conscience, in the sight of God. "Those of us whose personal morality derives from scripture or from a particular religious tradition and community have, I believe, a com- pelling interest in seeing that our morality continues to derive from these sources and not from the power of the state," according to on ordained clergyman. one Beyond these religious arguments, though, there are several other reasons usually advanced for sex law reform. The laws regulating sexual conduct are not obeyed and cannot be enforced evenly; hence they breed contempt for the law. As one police chief testified at the public hearing, retaining the statute makes a "mockery of the justice system and a mockery of our laws." Yet when limited enforcement does occur, it tends to be highly selective and discriminatory. A recent UW Law School report indicates that over a five year period, over 100 persons were prosecuted for the crime of cohabitation. --- David E. Clarenbach SPEAKER PRO TEM OF THE ASSEMBLY Page 3 These prosecutions did not reflect a statewide dispersion. In only a handful of counties were these laws being enforced, and most district attornies felt the laws should be repealed completely. When this enforcement does occur, under whatever circumstances, it imposes a burden on the resources of the criminal justice system which is already unable to especially police, prosecutors and courts handle the workload involving crimes harmful to individuals and society. Most states have already repealed these intrusive and outdated sexual activity codes, and many more never felt they were necessary in the first place in order to keep morality intact. The changes in AB 250 do not alter our current laws against prosti- tution, adultery, sexual assault, bestiality, or sex with minors under 18 years old. The Consenting Adults Bill makes one very simple and clear statement: government does not belong in the bedroom telling adults what they legally can or cannot do in the privacy of their relationship. --- Testimony before the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety, in support of Assembly Bill 514, by the Rev. Paul Flucke, 4259 North Larkin Street, Shorewood, WI 53211, August 2, 1979. United Church of Christ I appreciate this opportunity to speak in favor of Assembly Bill 514. I speak as a private citizen who has been married for twenty-one years, is the father of two teenaged children, and has been for eighteen years an ordained clergyman in a mainline Protestant denomination, currently serving as a pastor in Milwaukee. I support this legislation out of a concern, first, for morality; second, for law; and third, for freedom. I. Morality. As a religious person, I believe that morality is both deeper and broader than legality. I respect and value the role of the state when it legislates to protect unwilling or innocent persons from the behavior of others. Sexual acts with minors, for commercial purposes, or in public where others may be offended, are of this sort and are rightly matters for legislation. The bill before you, however, has to do rather with private acts between consenting adults. There are no victims." We are dealing with questions which can only be answered by the individual conscience, in the sight of God. When the state presumes to answer such questions of morality, for me or for anyone else, then the state is taking the role of God and I must protest. I do not trust the state to be God; it is a big enough job for God to be God! Those of us whose personal morality derives from scripture or from a particular religious tradition and community have, I believe, a compelling interest in seeing that our morality continues to derive from these sources and not from the power of the state. Even when the state happens to support our particular moral " ✓ convictions, we must say a polite but firm, "No, thank you; with God's help I'd rather do it myself!! II. Law. To be effective, law must be based on social concensus. But times change: the concensus which existed in colonial New England or even a decade or two ago in Wisconsin, may not exist now. That, I think, is clearly the case in regard to cohabitation and fornication in private, between consenting adults. And as for the sodomy statute, one wonders how many couples, married as well as unmarried, "straight" as well as "gay," realize that some of their private expressions of affection are condemned by the state as criminal "perversion. Know--or even care! To be sure, my personal morality may direct me to abjure all of these --- Testimony by Rev. Paul Flucke page 2 things, but we are talking here of law. The continued existence of laws such as these, lacking concensus and widely flouted, can only foster ridicule and disrespect for all law. If they were to be enforced consis- tently, they would be an impossible burden on enforcement agencies and courts which have more important things to do, and the public would right- fully decry them as intolerable invasions of privacy. As it is, these laws are enforced only sporadically and arbitrarily, and they become the means of harassment of those who are disliked or simply "different." This, too, is an intolerable offense against the principle of government by law. III. Freedom. Third, I support this legislation out of a concern for freedom--my own and that of others--because there can be no distinction between my own and that of others. In a sense, I am lucky: my religion, sexual preference and, I suspect, my moral values place me in a majority in our society. My style of life and what I do in private are not likely to be challenged. Yet I must be concerned for those who differ from me in matters of sexual practice and morality. In part, this is because I am called to care about them and seek for them the same freedom that I enjoy. And in part it is because I want to treat others in the way that I myself, if I should one day find myself in a moral minority, would want them to treat me. If that sounds like the Golden Rule, it is. As a matter of fact, I am a member of a minority: I am left-handed. I didn't choose to be that way; I was born that way%;B it is simply the way I am. There was a time when I would have been regarded as "sinister," and my parents, teachers and doctors would have set out to remake me. Thank heaven, we have moved beyond that. To be sure, if I injure or offend another with my left hand, I expect to be punished as surely as if I had done it with my right. But short of that, society accepts me and values what I can be and do with this left hand. I'm grateful for that. Isn't it time we take another step toward freedom and acceptance? --- -2- principle First, the when Five reasons are usually advanced for such law reform. sexual privacy of individuals should be protected. Second, when involving consenting adults, no harm to society results from such sex acts and therefore society has no interest in their regulation. Third, the laws regulating sexual conduct are not obeyed and cannot be enforced; hence, they breed contempt for the law. Fourth, such limited enforcement as does occur tends to be highly discriminatory and uneven. Fifth, when enforcement does occur it imposes a burden on the resources of the criminal justice system--especially police, prosecutors, and courts--which is already unable to handle the work- load involving crimes harmful to individuals and society. Sixth, sending violators to prison achieves no purpose, because they are typically able to engage more readily in the prohibited sex acts in prison than outside. One judge characterized the imprisonment of a man for an oral sex act with another by saying that: "Putting (defendant) into the North Carolina prison system is a little like throwing Brer Rabbit into the briarpatch. . . . For the confirmed homosexual imprisonment can accomplish no rehabilitative function; instead, it provides an outlet for the gratification of sexually- deviate desires." Perkins v. North Carolina, 234 F. Supp. 333, 339 (1964). Among the groups recommending repeal of criminal statutes regulating consenting adult sex acts in private are: The American Bar Association The American Law Institute (Model Penal Code, Draft 4, s. 207.5) The American Psychological Association The American Psychiatric Association The National Institutes of Mental Health (see Final Report of the Task Force on Homosexuality) Wisconsin Citizens Study Committee on Offender Rehabilitation (see Final Report to the Governor, s. 3.07) Wisconsin Citizens Study Committee on Judicial Organization (see Report to Governor Patrick J. Lucey, pp. 227-228) In addition, a survey of law review articles since 1965 did not show a single article which advocates maintaining legal sanctions against anal and oral sex acts by consenting adults in private. Even if an article or two were missed in this survey, there is no doubt that the overwhelming body of legal commentary finds no continued basis for criminal sanctions. Although the issue of employment is quite different than the issue of sex acts between consenting adults, it is a reflection of changed attitudes toward private consenting adult sex acts that 32 cities and counties, including Madison, prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation. The United States Civil Service Commission has recently eliminated private sex acts between consenting adults as a disqualification for federal employment. The courts have overwhelmingly agreed with this --- -3- position. See, as examples of a large number of cases, Mindel v. United States Civil Service Commission, 312 F. Supp. 485 (1970), where the court said that a male federal employee engaged in private sex acts with a women to whom he was not married could not be dis- charged for that reason. "Termination because of his private sex life violates the right of privacy guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment." (Mindel, supra, at p. 488) In Norton v. Macy, 417 F. 2d 1161 (1969), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that a homosexual employee could not be discharged unless the government could show an ascertainable deleterious effect on the efficiency of the civil service. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has adopted that standard in Safransky v. State Personnel Board, 62 Wis. 2d 464 (1974). (On the facts. of the case, the Court found that the appellant's conduct did have an adverse effect on his work.) A large number of major American corporations now have explicit policies against the discharge of employees for private consenting sex acts, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Among those firms are American Telephone and Telegraph, IBM, Bank of America, Eastern Airlines, American Airlines, ABC, CBS, NBC, McGraw-Hill Book Company, McDonalds, Honeywell, and Proctor and Gamble. It is apparent that there is a strong trend among states, courts, county and local governments, and major employers to respect the privacy of consenting adult sex acts in private. There seems no reason why Wisconsin should continue to criminalize anal or oral sex acts in the face of such a trend. V. Constitutional developments. A. The Supreme Court The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether sex acts between unmarried consenting adults in private are encompassed within the developing constitutional right of privacy. A series of cases do, however, point in that direction. The constitutional right of privacy was first recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1966). There the Supreme Court held that a statute prohibiting distribution and use of contraceptive devices was unconstitutional because it breached the right of sexual privacy guaranteed to married persons by various amendments of the Constitution. The Court was careful to limit the right of privacy to married persons. Soon after, however, the justices extended the right of sexual privacy to single persons. First, the right of privacy was held to guarantee the possession and use of obscene materials within --- -4- the confines of one's home. No distinction was drawn between the right of single and married people to such sexual privacy. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969). Second, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) the Court reversed a conviction for distributing contraceptive devices to single persons. The majority said: "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget children." (Eisenstadt, supra, at p. 453.) (emphasis in the Court's opinion). Third, in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) the Supreme Court extended the right of privacy, founded in the Fourteenth Amend- ment due process clause, to a single woman's decision to have an abortion. The justices have consistently held that the right of privacy is a "fundamental right." But it is not absolute. "Regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a 'compelling state interest,' . . . and . . . legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake." (Roe, supra, at p. 155.) A subsequent section will consider whether there are legitimate state interests that would override the right of sexual privacy of consenting adults to engage in oral or anal sex acts in private. B. The lower courts. A number of lower courts have considered various aspects of the question whether the regulation of private sex acts between consenting adults may be regulated by the government. It seems apparent that the right of sexual privacy extends to acts of sodomy. Before the Supreme Court had extended the right of privacy to single people, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was faced with the question whether a husband could be convicted for an act of sodomy with his wife. The Court held that if the act was voluntary, such a conviction could not be sustained. The case was remanded to a lower state court to determine whether the act was voluntary. In its opinion, the appeals court said "the importance of the Griswold decision is that private, con- sensual, marital relations are protected from regulation by the state through the use of a criminal penalty." Cotner v. Henry, 394 F. 2d 873, 875, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 847 (1968). Presumably if private, consensual marital relations are protected from criminal law regulation, similar conduct is now protected by the Court's decisions to extend the right of sexual privacy to single persons. --- -5- The New Mexico Court of Appeals has recently decided in a case involving sodomy between a man and woman that "the sodomy statute is unconstitutional because the statutory language provides that consenting adults who commit the acts described therein are guilty of a crime. . . . With respect to married persons, the statute violates the right of marital privacy guaranteed by the First and Ninth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution requires that the statute apply equally to married and unmarried persons. The State unconstitutionally invades the privacy of the home. The police power of the state does not extend to sodomitic acts between consenting adults." State v. Elliott,-- N.M., 44 L.W. 2044 (1975). One lower court in New York addressed the issue that is involved in SB 14. The state had eliminated criminal sanctions for forni- cation but had prohibited oral and anal sexual acts "between persons not married to each other . . ." The Court struck down the statute on the ground that no constitutional distinction can be drawn between such sex acts between married and unmarried persons. People v. Johnson, 355 N.W.S.. 2d 266 (1974). Yet, since sex acts between consenting married persons cannot be regulated under Griswold, Cotner, and other privacy cases, there is no way to prohibit sodomitic acts between unmarried persons under the Johnson court's ruling. The Johnson case has particular pertinence in Wisconsin for another reason. In Jones v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 742 (1972) the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the sodomy statute which alleged that its general language reached oral and anal sex acts by married persons and was therefore an unconstitutional invasion of marital privacy. Although no exceptions are provided in the Wisconsin law, the Court said: "It is beyond reasonable argument to claim that sec. 944.17(1), Stats., was enacted to control or prohibit the consensual and private sexual intimacies of married persons." (Jones, supra, at p. 748.) But under Eisenstadt, Roe, and other cases cited above, the equal protection clause requires the same sexual privacy for single as for married persons. Hence, there is grave doubt about the constitutionality of Wisconsin's prohibition against anal and oral sexual contacts. A second lower court in New York also raised issues that would be faced if Wisconsin legalized fornication but continued to prohibit anal and oral intercourse. New York had legalized sodomy between married persons and fornication between unmarried persons. In a case involving same-sex sodomy, the Court said: "What we are then faced with is a distinction, for which we can find no rational basis, between married people and unmarried people who engage in sodomy and between unmarried people who engage in 'ordinary sexual intercourse' and those unmarried people who engage in 'deviate sexual intercourse' or sodomy, keeping in mind in all --- -6- cases the parties are consenting." The sodomy statute applying only to unmarried persons was therefore held unconstitutional. People v. Rice, 363 N.Y.S. 2d 484 (1975). Again, the Superior Court for the District of Columbia held that jurisdiction's sodomy statute unconstitutional as an invasion of the right of sexual privacy guaranteed by the United States Constitution. U.S. v. Doe, 12 Cr. L. R. 2532 (1973). Facing a forced act of anal and oral intercourse between a man and woman, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the only way to save the state statute prohibiting such acts (the law banned "unnatural and lascivious acts") was to read it as exluding from its reach such sex acts between consenting adults in private. The Court said, "we conclude that (the statute) must be construed to be inapplicable to private, consensual conduct of adults." This interpretation, the justices said, was necessary because of the recent "articulation of the constitutional right of an individual to be free from governmental regulation of certain sex-realted activities." Commonwealth v. Balthazar, --Mass.--, 318 N.E. 2d 478 (1974). C. Dicta in the lower courts. In addition to recent lower court cases holding that state statutes may not regulate consenting adult acts of anal and oral intercourse, a number of courts have avoided the issue but have indicated in dicta that they would so decide if confronted squarely with such a case. In Acanfora v. Board of Education, 359 F. Supp. 843 (1973), the court said (deciding on the suitability of employment of a homo- sexual school teacher) that: "the time has come today for private, consenting, adult homosexuality to enter the sphere of constitu- tionally protectable interests.." In Lovisi v. Slayton, 363 F. Supp. 620 (1973), the district judge said (deciding a case involving heterosexual sodomy) that: "As will be seen, while the Court is of the opinion that the right to privacy inherent in the federal constitution may well extend to heterosexual relations involving oral-genital contact between consenting adults, the petitioners in this case, having voluntarily relinquished the privacy that would normally have surrounded their acts, are not themselves protected by such a right." In Morgan v. Detroit, 389 F. Supp. 922 (1975), the judge held that soliciting acts of prostitution was not constitutionally protected. But he pointed out that sex acts themselves are within the ambit of the constitutional right of privacy. "Stated succinctly, the right of privacy prohibits the state from proscribing activity conducted in private between consenting adults where no overriding state interest can be shown." --- -7- In United States v. Brewer, 363 F. Supp. 606 (1973) the judge up- held conviction for an act of sodomy in prison. But he warned that private sex acts outside the prison context are probably protected by the constitutional right of privacy. "While there has been no Supreme Court decision on the precise issue of the constitutional validity of statutes aimed at preventing 'deviate sexual conduct,' the apparent trend of recent decisions would indicate that such a right among or between consenting adults does exist." Further, "if the simple question of adult consensual sodomy were involved, this Court might strike down the statute." VI. There is no "Compelling State Interest" in regulating anal and oral sex acts in private between consenting adults. A. It is sometimes argued that the sex acts prohibited by Wis. Stats. 944.17(1) are contrary to religious teachings. Religious belief cannot constitutionally be made the basis for criminal or civil law. B. A purely religious basis for sec. 944.17(1) would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which requires that "the statute must have a secular legislative purpose" and that "its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion." Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612 (1971). Judge Halleck noted in U.S. v. Doe, supra, at p. 2533 that "The enforcement of Judeo-Christian notions of sexual morality, absent a clear secular justification, is not a 'compelling' governmental interest sufficient to override the fundamental right of individuals to privacy in sexual matters." It is sometimes suggested that anal and oral sexual acts are "abnormal." If abnormal means only different, then it can be no reason for criminal penalties, for the right of privacy is intended to protect different conduct. Furthermore, it is not clear that such acts are very "different" from community norms. A survey of 100,000 women conducted by Redbook Magazine (September, 1975) revealed that 91 percent had experienced oral sex. In U.S. v. Doe, supra, at p. 2533, Judge Halleck cited studies showing that "nearly 60% of males have experienced mouth-genital contacts of some sort." Aside from mutual masturbation, which is not prohibited by Wisconsin law, oral and anal sex acts are the predominant form of sexual conduct by homosexuals. But even this is not "abnormal" since "37% of the male population has some overt homosexual experience to orgasm, and the majority of the male population has at least some homosexual experience." U.S. v. Doe, supra. --- -8- C. Specifically with regard to homosexual conduct, it is sometimes argued that homosexuals attempt to "recruit" heterosexuals and that decriminalizing anal and oral sex acts will increase the incidence of homosexuality in the community. At the outset, it might be argued that it is implicit in the right of sexual privacy that people should choose their own sexual orientation and that the criminal law should not act as a restraint upon them. Beyond that, however, there is no evidence that the incidence of homosexuality changes where private sex acts between consenting adults of the same sex are legalized. Indeed, the incidence of homosexuality appears to be the same in the United States, where homosexual acts are illegal, and in England, Germany, Sweden, and elsewhere, where they are legal. See Gebhard, "Incidence of Overt Homosexuality in the United States and Western Europe," in National Institutes of Mental Health Task Force on Homosexuality, Final Report and Background Papers (1972), pp. 22-29. Also, Calvani, "Homosexuality and the Law," 17 N.Y. L. F. 275, 289-290. D. Again, specifically with regard to homosexuals, it is argued that they pose a danger to children. This argument is, however, not related to legalizing consenting sex acts between adults. First, sex acts with children by either homosexuals or hetero- sexuals are prohibited by separate sections of Wisconsin law. See Wis. Stats. 944.06, 944.10, 944.11, and 944.12. Hence, amending sec. 944.17 (1) to permit private anal and oral sex acts between consenting adults in private does not in any way reduce the law's protection of minors from sexual acts by adults. Furthermore, it is factually wrong that homosexuals are interested in sex relations with children. Pedophilia (the desire of an adult for sex relations with children) occurs in a small number of both heterosexuals and homosexuals; it is not related to the sexual orientation of either group. Citing the Wofenden Report, para. 57, the court in U.S. v. Doe noted that "a man who has homosexual relations with an adult partner seldom turns to boys . . ." Dr. Judd Marmor, former vice president of the American Psychiatric Association has said that: One reflection of this stereotyping (of homosexuals) is the almost universal belief that homosexuals are not to be trusted with young people of the same sex. The assumption that they are somehow less in control of their impulses than heterosexuals is the same kind of assumption that underlies white prejudice against Negroes --- -9- or native-born prejudice against foreigners. In all these instances, the feeling is a reflection of fear based on lack of intimate knowledge of the people involved. A homosexual individual is neither more nor less trust- worthy, necessarily, with young people of the same sex than a heterosexual person is trustworthy with young people of the opposite sex. The "dependability" of a homosexual in such a position depends on whether or not he is a responsible human being with an adequate super- ego, and that factor is the only one to be evaluated; otherwise, his homosexuality is neither more nor less relevant than is the heterosexuality of a male counselor in a girl's camp. See Marmor (ed.), "Introduction" in Sexual Inversion (1965), p. 19. Also, M. Schofield, Sociological Aspects of Homosexuality (1965), p. 149. E. Finally, again with regard to homosexuals, it is sometimes argued that homosexuality is an "illness" or "disease." Anal and oral sex acts should, therefore, be prohibited to curb this sick conduct. The "illness" theory was based on pre-1957 studies of prison populations and psychiatric patients. Since these were dis- ordered persons already, it was not surprising that the homo- sexuals among them were found to be mentally disordered. The leading recent studies conclude that homosexuality is not an illness, disease, or sickness. The American Psychiatric Associ- ation has removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic Manual, which is the official manual defining mental disorders. Homo- sexuality is no longer regarded as a mental disorder. Only those homosexuals who have difficulty accepting their sexual orienta- tion are regarded as requiring treatment, and they are in the same category as others who have difficulty adjusting to their sexual interests, such as frigid women or fearful males. The American Psychological Association agrees with the position of the Psychiatric Association and has urged that homosexuality no longer be categorized as a form of mental disorder and has endorsed the repeal of laws prohibiting private sex acts between consenting adults of the same sex. --- I. Defining the issue. SB 14, in addition to standardizing criminal penalties, changes Wis. Stat. 944.15, which has long prohibited "sexual intercourse with a person not his spouse." SB 14 amends that provision to prohibit only sexual intercourse "in public." The draft language does not make a comparable change in Wis. Stat. 944.17(1) which prohibits any "abnormal act of sexual gratification involving the sex organ of one person and the mouth or anus of another." The question is whether a statutory change recognizing the right of sexual privacy in acts of fornication should not also extend that right to other acts of sexual gratification between consenting adults in private. II. Development of the law in other states. Since Illinois repealed its law against private sexual acts by consenting adults in 1960, 25 states have eliminated criminal penalties for anal and oral sex acts as well as fornication. These states are: + Pa. Colorado Connecticut * N. Delaware Hawaii Illinois North Dakota Arkansas Xalaska XV. Jersey Indiana Massachusetts Jowa +Ohio + Oregon California New Mexico Maine Vermont AW. Virginia Washington Neska Wyoming *New York, x.S. Dakota In the large majority of instances, repeal occurred as part of a major revision of criminal laws or of criminal penalties. Hence, SB 14 is an appropriate vehicle for eliminating governmental intrusion into the bedroom to regulate private sexual acts by consenting adults. III. Development of the law elsewhere. In recent decades most Western European nations to which the United States is connected by a common legal tradition have also repealed laws criminalizing anal and oral sex acts as well as fornication. England, West Germany, Holland, Sweden and Norway have changed their laws to protect sexual privacy. IV. Recommendations for change. Virtually all groups which have studied the issue have recommended repeal of criminal laws banning anal and oral sex acts as well as fornication. --- AFSCME, Dennis Boyer 5 Odana Ct. Madison, WI 53719 Arvedson, The Rev. Peter REQUESTORS St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, 1833 Regent St. Madison, WI 53705 Ballew, Ronald E. law enforcement labor unions Friedens United Church of Christ, 1214 N. 13th St. Milwaukee, WI 53205 Bartell, Rev. Lowell Political & community Community United Methodist Church, P.O. Box 2317 Cedarburg, WI 53012 Bartos, Rev. James A. Village Church of Milwaukee, 1108 N. Jackson St. Milwaukee, WI 53202 Bestler, Father Joe Fox Valley Pastoral Counseling Center, 724 E. South River St. Appleton, WI 54915. Bussey, William D. District Attorney of Bayfield County, Courthouse Washburn, WI 54891 Cheesman, The Rev. Benbow P. (Episcopalian) 5920 Third Ave. Kenosha, WI 53140 Coleman, The. Rev Dale Grace Episcopal Church, 115 W. Washington Ave. Madison, WI 53703 Cordes, Rev. Robert E. Fox Valley Pastoral Counseling Center, 724 E. South River St. Appleton, WI 54915 East Side Republican Club of Milw.; James D. Rudolph 1914 N. Prospect, #83 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Flucke, Rev. Paul Plymouth United Church of Christ, 2717 E. Hampshire St. Milwaukee, WI 53211 Gaebler, Rev. Max D. First Unitarian Society, 900 University Bay Dr. Madison, WI 53705 Grimbol, Rey Christine Rannie Tippecannoe Presbyterian Church, 125 W. Saveland Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53207 --- Sex and Society perversions, abortion, the use of 'obscene' language, 'indecent exposure', and so on, and the whole corpus of law concerning marriage, which makes divorce at once arduous and expensive, are not at all in accordance with the allegedly liberal and demo- cratic basis of our law-making. In a word, they are totalitarian. This is because they do not measure up to the liberal principle of not making laws which restrict the freedom of any individual, unless that individual is likely to restrict the freedom of other individuals. Thus we make laws against theft and assault, be- cause we wish to preserve the individual's ability to enjoy his property freely, and to walk the streets in freedom and security. Thieves and assailants, to put it another way, interfere with other people's freedom. Certain types of sexual behaviour, of course, do so interfere: rape, and perhaps the seduction of minors, are obvious cases. But to claim that, for instance, to walk down the street with no clothes on or to practise homosexuality with another adult interferes with other individuals is to extend the concept of interference beyond all reasonable bounds. By this extension, any action could be said to 'interfere with other people, and though it is true that in some sense everything that anyone does affects everyone else, we can perfectly well draw a sensible line. 'In- decent exposure' is analogous to wearing pink shoes or having blue hair, rather than to theft or assault. If somebody wanted a law against pink shoes or blue hair, on the grounds that they 'interfered' with his Sunday walk, we should tell him to look the other way or forget about it; and it is significant that we are not prepared to take this line with 'indecent exposure' [1]. The whole point of the liberal theory of law-making, as op- posed to totalitarian practice, is to maintain individual freedom. This is difficult enough to do, and it is only after a hard struggle that in certain parts of the world - Britain is fortunate in this respect - one is allowed to do more or less as one likes unless one interferes with other people; apart, that is, from one's sexual behaviour. To lose this ground would be fatal, and it is likely to be lost unless we consciously support the liberal theory all the time. For the temptations to interfere with other people's business are potent and perennial. What lies behind the liberal 158 Law and Convention theory is the important view that the individual should be able to get along happily without having to impose his will on others: that he should not mind if other people wear pink shoes, have coloured skins, Jewish noses, or red hair, walk the streets naked, and so on. It is no business of anyone else whether a man makes love to his wife, another woman, another man, an animal, or a pillar-box. This gives the liberal theory a considerable attraction. But there are certain difficulties about it which we have to face. We must first be clear that what the liberal theory is trying to do is to disqualify us in principle from translating our moral views into law except under certain specific conditions, i.e., when one individual is interfering with another. Thus, it is not that supporters of the liberal theory think that consenting homo- sexuality between adults is perfectly all right from a moral point of view: indeed they may have the strongest moral objections to it. The point is that they do not think we have the right to turn our moral views into law. The general objections to this theory add up to the claim that, human nature being what it is, you simply cannot run a society on this sort of liberal basis. 1. The first objection is perhaps not very serious. It is that there are borderline cases, cases where we are not sure whether interference is going on or not. We might quote as a parallel the problem of noise abatement. If I play my wireless rather loud, so that you can hear it in the next room when you are trying to work, are we to count this as interference or not? If we are, then we are entitled to pass a law (if we can think of a practicable law to pass) stopping me from playing my wireless above a certain noise-level, or at certain times of day. If we are not, then such a law would be tyrannical. We are all familiar with such cases. But it is a sufficient answer, perhaps, to say that our familiarity with them as borderline cases shows that we can, in practice, successfully make compromises. We may disagree here and there in particular instances, but these instances do not prevent the general application of the principle of non-inter- ference over a very wide area of agreement. 2. The second objection is more serious, but still not fatal. It is to the effect that there is such a thing as unseen interference: 159 --- Sex and Society that it is naïve to suppose that all interference consists of things like hitting people on the head or stealing from them. It is quite possible that sexual behaviour does interfere in a very real sense with other individuals, by adversely affecting society as a whole. This is a case which liberal reformists have in general not faced. It could be held, for instance, that if we are all to work hard enough to keep up our exports and maintain our standard of living, we must not be allowed to enjoy ourselves too much. (In fact, all we are doing here is to make an unconscious argu- ment explicit: it is precisely this sort of feeling which gives rise to tyrannical laws and an oppressive morality.) Now this case might be true; for some societies it plainly has been. In the early days of Republican Rome, for instance, individual Romans had to be full-time farmers and fighting machines: any tendency to use sex for anything except increasing the population had to be repressed, if the society was to survive; and it is not surprising to find a dour moralism in such conditions, even though the moralism dropped off very quickly when the conditions changed. But there is no reason to believe this to be true of our own society. Certainly, a good deal in our society would change if our sexual morality changed; or, more precisely, a change in the latter would certainly be accompanied by a change in the former. But there is no indication that it would be a change for the worse, or that our survival depends on the refusal to change. We do not know enough sociology to settle this question, but we know enough history, or ought to know enough, to reject tyranny in cases where it cannot be shown to be plainly neces- sary. 3. In the last objection it was claimed that certain kinds of morality were necessary for the benefit of society, and that these should be legally enforced. The weakness of this objection was that we could not be certain enough which kind of morality was beneficial to justify oppressive and restrictive laws. The third objection attempts to avoid this weakness, and the claim is that all societies need some kind of legally-enforced morality; we may not be certain which, and perhaps it may not even greatly matter, but at least there must be some legally-enforced modes of sexual behaviour to hold society together. The con- nexion between sexual morality in our private lives and the good 160 Law and Convention order of society in general is certainly close, and unless society establishes some public code it is likely to fly apart at the seams. There are various possible answers to this objection. First, we can say that the case is simply not established. It may be per- fectly possible to have a law-abiding society, whilst leaving the private lives of individuals perfectly free. After all, it was once thought that society could not hold together unless all its members held the same religious beliefs, but this has been shown to be false. Secondly, we can point out that there are more causes than one for a breakdown in society: loss of integration may arise not from too few laws, but from too many. By not acknow- ledging minority groups we may be acting not only in an op- pressive but also in a short-sighted way: we might create a general contempt for the law, or, by refusing to allow the minor- ity groups a voice, fail to perceive the changes which our society ought to make, if it is to survive and adapt. Thirdly, even if we allowed that the liberal theory made for a looser form of society, we might claim that the advantages of this outweighed the dis- advantages. England is not so tightly-integrated a society as early Rome or early Sparta, but we might still prefer it to them. 4. The final objection is more interesting, and does necessi- tate a revision in the liberal theory. The main point here is that it is impossible to get any clear idea of what is to count as inter- ference without prior reference to what the 'ordinary man', or 'the reasonable person', or 'the decent citizen' counts as inter- ference. What 'interferes' with a person depends on what the person is like. If the sight of pink shoes or blue hair caused the average citizen to fall down and froth at the mouth, then these things interfere with him. If the presence of Jews, or coloured people, or people without any clothes, or prostitutes make the 'ordinary citizen' go hot and cold all over, give him a fit of the shakes, and put him off his food, then such people interfere with him. It may be that they do not intend to interfere, and it may be that the 'ordinary citizen' is neurotic, fussy, prejudiced, or even mad. But once we allow ourselves to say when the citizen is pre- judiced or mad, and when he is not, we are ourselves engaged in moral judgements, and the concept of interference becomes use- less for the purposes of the liberal theory. For we can now say, as indeed is often said, that for instance 'Any decent citizen T-L.S.M.-F 161 --- Harmony, Rev. Marni Unitarian Church West, 13001 North Ave. Brookfield, WI 53005 Hays, The Rev. Donald L. St. Christopher's Episcopal Church, 7845 N. River Rd. Milwaukee, WI 53217 Helt, Rev. John C. New Hope United Church of Christ, 1418 W. Greenfield Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53204 Hines, Rev. Bedford F. Fox Valley Pastoral Counseling Center, 724 E. South River St. Appleton, WI 54915 Krueger, Rand L. District Attorney of Marathon County, Courthouse Wausau, WI 5440 1 Kuenning, Rev. Paul Incarnation Lutheran Church, 1510 W. Keefe Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53206 Landon, Rev. Dennis First Christian Church, 15400 W. North Ave. Brookfield, WI 53005 Larson, Rev. Tony Unitarian Univ. Church of Racine & Kenosha, 625 College Ave. Racine, WI 53403 League of Women Voters of WI; Sally Phelps. 625 W. Washington Ave. Madison, WI 53703 Longrie, Rev. Leland L. Atonement Lutheran Church, 4738 Alcyn Dr. Racine, WI 53402 Madison Police Dept., Chief Couper (Officer Sweeney) P.O. Box 1188 Madison, WI 53701 Matthews, Rev. Bishop Marjorie United Methodist Church, 750 Windsor St., Suite 303 Sun Prairie, WI 53590 Neeval, Rev. Mary Ann Plymouth United Church of Christ, 2717 E. Hampshire St. Milwaukee, WI 53211 Nilssen, Rev. Jerome Lake Park Lutheran Church, 2647 N. Stowell Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53211 --- Olsen, Rev. Walter J. St. Mark United Church of Christ, 7333 W. Silver Spring Dr. Milwaukee, WI 53218 Porter, Rev. Harold G. Linn Presbyterian Church, Rt. 2 Lake Geneva, WI 53147 Reiber, Rev. Dr. Stanley R. Dept. of Sociology, Carroll College Waukesha, WI 53186 Rider, The Rev. Joseph F. St. John the Divine Episcopal Church, 148 Edward St. Burlington, WI 53105 Robison, Rev. Dale Unitarian Church North, 4478 N. Cramer Milwaukee, WI 53211 Schneider, John E. District Attorney of Polk County, Courthouse Balsam Lake, WI 54810 Scott, Rev. Peter Fox Valley Unitarian Fellowship, 1015 Greenhill Wausau, WI 5440 1 SE WI Unitarian Universalist Council, Nancy Roemheld, Pres. 1606 N. Humboldt Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53202 Sinclair, Rev. Dr. Lawrence A. Chairperson, Dept. of Religion, Carroll College Waukesha, WI 53186 Smith, The Rev. Wayne L. Trinity Episcopal Church, 411 E. Court St. Janesville, WI 53545 Steffenson, Rev. Dave Campus Minister of the United Methodist Church Green Bay, WI 5430 1-7001 Swender, Katy Fox Valley Pastoral Counseling Center, 724 E. South River St. Appleton, WI 54915 Sykes, The Rev. Edward St. Marks Episcopal Church, 2614 E. Belleview Pl. Milwaukee, WI 53211 Thurston, The Rev. Anthony C. St. Paul's Episcopal Church, 914 E. Knapp St. Milwaukee, WI 53202 --- United Ministry in Higher Ed., James Theselius 2111 E. Kenwood Blvd. Milwaukee, WI 53211 Waller, The Rev. Stephen J. St. Timothy's Episcopal Church, 4021 N. 90th St. Milwaukee, WI 53222 WI Chap. of Nat. Assoc. of Social Workers, Gerry Wolters 3460 N. 169th St. Brookfield, WI 53005 WI Civil Liberties Union, Eunice Edgar & Chris Ahmutz 783 N. Water St., Suite 800 Milwaukee, WI 53202 WI Council on Human Concerns, Eleanor Fitch 1605 Monroe St. Madison, WI 53711 WI Federation of Teachers, Carston Koeller 6525 W. Blue Mound Rd. Milwaukee, WI 53213 Winter, The Rev. Robert A. St. Thomas of Canterbury Episcopal Church, P.O. Box 147 Greendale, WI 53219 Zemke, Rodney A. District Attorney of Eau Claire County, Courthouse Eau Claire, WI 54701 --- Sex and Society finds nudity intolerable,' 'Any right-thinking German can't stand the presence of Jews,' 'Any pure-blooded American gets upset if he has to go to school with coloured people,' and so on. Since we all dislike oppression (even though we may differ about what is oppressive and what is not), it would be to our mutual advantage to try to produce some principle of the sort which the liberal theory proposes. This can be done, though it is not so clear-cut a principle as the one we started with, and may seem no more than a vague plea for tolerance. The principle is this: because we have conflicting ideas of what is right and wrong, let us first hesitate before translating these ideas into law. Let us consider whether we are, in fact, 'interfered with' by the people we wish to ostracize legally, using our own standards of what counts as interference if we like. Then, if we can honestly say that we are interfered with, let us still hesitate before making laws. For it is politically advantageous to us all if we become the sort of people, so far as we possibly can, who are not interfered with by the actions of others. It is a weakness in us that we find Jews, nudity, negroes, etc., intolerable. It is our fault. It seems, therefore, more sensible to put up with them. Of course there are kinds of interference which it would be utopian to expect people to put up with, but these can be fairly easily classified. It seems difficult to lead any sort of reasonable human existence if things like murder, assault, breach of contract, and theft are not counted as interference. We could hardly have any sort of society if this were so. Even this is, in principle, a pity: it would be nice if people did not mind being stolen from, because it would then be nice for those whom we now call thieves. If I did not mind being hit, the juvenile de- linquents could let off steam without any harm being done. But we have not yet reached this level of independence. Yet it remains true that the more self-contained we are, the better. And it is surely possible to lead a satisfactory life without finding all sorts of things intolerable. If I find myself frothing at the mouth when I see various forms of sexual behaviour, or Jews, or negroes, then I must remember that I could, in principle, be the sort of person who did not froth. I could go to a doctor, or to a psychiatrist; or I could just put up with it. 162 Law and Convention In this form the liberal theory seems to me plainly sensible. Moreover, in this form it gives us an attitude which will be helpful not only in law-making but in the application of other social sanctions. The principle is that, except in cases which make human life impossible (murder, assault, etc.), whenever we object or feel hostility to other people's behaviour, it is our fault, and the onus is on us to change. Of course we might also say that the position is mitigated if the other people refrain from such behaviour: but if they do so, they must do so out of charity, and not because of any kind of pressure from us. This is important, because law shades off imperceptibly into convention. We need to spend a little time showing how this happens, and giving some kind of account of the ways in which conventional pressure is applied to sexual morality. The beginning of the no-man's-land can be found in those many sexual laws which are rarely and unpredictably enforced. The laws of obscenity and censorship, for instance, are totally un- clear: their enforcement, or lack of enforcement, reflects and is no doubt intended to reflect the prevailing attitude either of the general public or of that small part of the public which holds actual power. Spasmodically, we allow certain books to be printed, where before we banned them; at one time we ap- parently tolerate a woman's right to sell her body for money, and at another time we drive her off the streets. We are here in the fascinating area, not so much of strict morality, but of what is called 'public decency'. This is an interesting concept. With both law-making and conventional sanctions, we are apparently concerned not with what is bad but with what looks bad. We all know, for instance, that we cannot stop prostitution in some form or other, whatever laws we make - though we might drive poor prostitutes out of business. But because we do not like the sight of prostitutes in Park Lane we make the laws. It is as if we were concerned with hygiene rather than morality. This vagueness about what is actually legal and what is not, of course, works very much to the advantage of the establish- ment. If you have a vague law, like Section 40 of the Army Act, you can use it when you like and abandon it when you like. No- body knows where they are. It is like the concept of 'political' crimes in totalitarian countries: the great merit, from the 163 --- Sex and Society totalitarian establishment's point of view, of having such a thing as 'political' crime is that you can always squash anybody whom you think to be dangerous. That is why the first step taken towards freedom by many societies is to get the establishment to codify the laws in some form or other: to get those in power to say more precisely what one can do and what one cannot do, and what the penalties for particular crimes are. We can see this in the publication of the Twelve Tables in ancient Rome, the Code of Dracon in ancient Athens, and even Magna Carta in England. In each case these codifications were extracted, under pressure, from the authorities by those who suffered under their depredations, depredations which were the worse for being unspecified. In a competitive society, however, there are other forms of penalty besides legal ones, and this is why conventional op- pression, as we have called it, can be so effective. In the case of a great many professions - the church, medicine, politics, school- teaching, the law - and even in many industrial firms also, the employees have to live up to a certain type of sexual morality. This convention is not usually stated, either in spoken or written words, but it is generally understood and enforced. An employee not adhering to this morality, and being detected, is sacked. The morality varies from job to job, of course: in the church you cannot get away with divorce, whereas in most pro- fessions, if you are sufficiently discreet, you can. But you cannot acquire a reputation as an adulterer, a philanderer, a homo- sexual, a 'loose woman', and so on, without fear of losing your job. Almost equally effective is the fear of being debarred from promotion. The establishment nowadays wears a liberal mask, and sexual offenders are not usually left to starve unless their offence has created a public scandal. They are often permitted to remain in their professions, but forced to move to another part of the country, or preferably out of it altogether. They know, of course, that they have no hope of preferment, in as much as those responsible for making appointments are likely to know of their misdemeanours. This attitude on the part of the establishment is not primarily a moralistic one. The feeling is not that the offender is wicked, but that he is untrustworthy; and 164 Law and Convention naturally, since people in professional positions know what is expected of them, there is often a good deal of truth in this. A doctor who sleeps with his patients, for instance, is either very foolish indeed, or suffering from such intense sexual compulsion that he cannot help it; and in either case it is arguable that he would be likely to bring discredit on the profession. The es- tablishment is interested in the public image. Other forms of conventional pressure depend very much on one's circumstances: that is, on how much one needs the good- will of one's neighbours for leading a reasonably pleasant life, and what sort of neighbours one has. Those who own their own houses, or at least do not have the owners living on the premises, naturally have more freedom than those who live in digs, where the landlady (not unreasonably) wishes to keep the place 'respectable'. Those who live in tightly-integrated communities - a small village, for instance, or a housing estate- may find that their neighbours raise their eyebrows at any 'goings-on', whereas London flat-dwellers find themselves left in compara- tive peace. All this is fairly obvious; but the amount of pressure must not be underestimated. We all depend on tolerable re- lationships with the community in which we live, and we all need some form of human intercourse on the level of friendship and acquaintance; consequently to run the risk of putting one's neighbours' backs up by one's sexual behaviour is not such a light matter as it may seem. Most of us, after all, do not live in Chelsea or Hollywood. So long as people have the conventions that they do have, there is no defence against conventional pressures. That is why attempts to reform the law, however desirable, do no more than nibble at the problem: for the most part, in any case, the law does not affect the well-to-do - rich homosexuals and prosti- tutes can afford their own houses and their own sexual partners, and even abortions are obtainable for money, like most other things in our society. Reform of the law can, indeed, protect the poor from being directly penalized by imprisonment, but it cannot give them a respected place in society, or any hope of rising in the social or economic scale, so long as the majority of people are prepared to apply conventional sanctions. The strength of these sanctions, and the existence of 165 --- Senators Berger and Risser, by request of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities. 163 163 -172- Assembly and (6), 227.22 (1), 347.26 (9) and 443.02 (5) (d); to repeal and recreate 66.06 (1), 74.13 (title), 76.02 (8), 196.495 and 196.71; and to create 15.47, 15.471, 20.595, 59.965 (5) (gm), 66.07 (4m), 182.017 (7) (b), 196.01 (8), Title XXXIII and 990.01 (31m) of the statutes, relating to state ownership and operation of certain public utilities, and making an appropriation. 2- 5. A. Introduced by Representative Barbee... 163 2- 5. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Commerce and Consumer Affairs. 163 3-13. A. Public hearing held. 3745 3-31. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 14. Assembly Bill 265 AN ACT to amend 62.23 (7) (h) of the statutes, relating to elimination of nonconforming uses. 2- 5. A. Introduced by Representatives Wahner, Azim and Miller; co-sponsored by 2- 5. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Municipalities.. 1975-76 Session- AB 269 Bulletin 2-5. A. Introduced by Representatives Behnke, Hauke, Plewa, Elconin, Lallensack, Mittness, Dorff, Pabst, Rogers, Everson, Potter, Menos, Matty, Swoboda, Klicka, Schroeder, Vanderperren, L.F. Anderson, Kincaid, Conradt, Tesmer, Bradley, Lewison, Thompson, DeLong, Shabaz, Wackett, Luckhardt, Schricker, Porter, Donoghue, Gunderson, Olson, Sensenbrenner, Roth, Ellis, Lewis, Rooney, Day, Hanson, O'Malley. Looby, Schmidt, Opitz, Gower, Shannon, Lasee, Kirby, Groshek, Barczak, Lato, Hasenohrl and Soucie; co-sponsored by Senators Parys, Devitt, LaFave, Berger, Cullen, Frank, Theno, Kleczka, Murphy, Knutson, Martin, Whittow and Bidwell... 2-5. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Health and Social Services...... 4- 1. A. Public hearing held. 4-24. A. Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Behnke. -173- 164 164 633 5-1. A. Assembly amendment 1 withdrawn and returned to author. 6-26. A. Report indefinite postponement recommended by committee on Health and Social Services, Ayes 6, Noes 3. 702 1304 1976 2- 4. A. Read a second time. 2-19. A. Public hearing held. 4-15. A. Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representatives O'Malley, Duren, Day, Bradley, Thompson, McEssy, and Schricker 2- 4. A. Unanimous consent granted to add Representative Murray as a co-author 2-4. A. Refused to indefinitely postpone, Ayes 21, Noes 71 2405 2405 2405 2- 4. A. Refused to refer to joint committee on Finance, Ayes 27, Noes 68 2406 513 2- 4. A. Ordered to a third reading, Ayes 74, Noes 21. 2406 5-20. A. Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representatives Wahner and Norquist. 2-4. A. Rules suspended, Ayes 75, Noes 20. 2407 877 2- 4. A. Read a third time and passed, Ayes 72, Noes 23. 2408 3-31. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 14.. 3745 2-4. A. Ordered immediately messaged. 2408 2-5. S. Received from Assembly 1665 Assembly Bill 266 AN ACT to create 62.23 (7) (d) 3 of the statutes, relating to the rolling back of zoning changes by municipalities because of nondevelopment by the petitioning landowner. 2- 5. A. Introduced by Representatives Miller, Munts, Conta, Barbee, Clarenbach, Sanasarian Tuczynski, Metz, Lingren, Czerwinski, McClain, Thompson, McEssy, Roth and Schneider; co-sponsored by Senators Risser and Krueger. 2- 5. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Municipalities.. 2-19. A. Public hearing held. 5-20. A. Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representatives Miller and Norquist...... 7-29. A. Public re-hearing held 9-17. A. Report assembly amendment 1 adoption, Ayes 10, Noes 1; passage recommended by committee on Municipalities, Ayes 10, Noes 1. 2- 5. S. Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary and Consumer Affairs. 1668 3- 4. S. Public hearing held. 3-24. S. Report nonconcurrence, Ayes 2, Noes 2, concurrence, Ayes 2. Noes 2 and without recommendation..... 2118 3-31. S. Failed to concur in pursuant to A.J.R. 14 2225 164 164 Assembly Bill 268 AN ACT to amend 70.11 (21) (title); and to create 70.11 (21) (am) and 71.04 (2g) of the statutes, relating to tax exemptions for solar heat or light sources. 877 2- 5. A. Introduced by Representatives Mittness, Jackamonis, Wahner, Munts, Dandeneau and Ferrall 164 1854 1976 2-25. A. Read a second time 2822 2-25. A. Assembly amendment 2 offered by Representative Hephner 2-25. A. Laid on table. 2755 2- 5. A. Read first time and referred to joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions... 4-22. A. Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Mittness.... 9-23. A. Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representative Mittness. 10-22. A. Report of joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions received (unfavorable) 164 592 1947 2206 2822 10-22. A. Referred to committee on Taxation. 2206 3- 2. A. Assembly amendment 3 offered by Representative Miller. 3-3. A. Withdrawn from table 2944 11-18. A. Public hearing held. 3104 3-31. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 14.. 3745 3- 3. A. Assembly amendment 1 adopted. 3104 3- 3. A. Assembly amendment 2 laid on table 3104 3- 3. A. Assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 3 offered by Representatives Hephner and Miller.. 3104 3-3. A. Assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 3 rejected, Ayes 60, Noes 34...... 3104 3- 3. A. Assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 3 offered by Representative Thompson 3105 3- 3. A. Assembly amendment 3 adopted 3-31. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 14. 3- 3. A. Assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 3 adopted. 3-3. A. Referred to foot of calendar 3-5-76.. 3105 3105 3105 3745 Assembly Bill 267 AN ACT to amend 161.41 (1) (a) and 161.475; and to create 161.01 (17m) of the statutes, relating to sentencing and treatment of persons who are convicted of delivering narcotics. Assembly Bill 269 AN ACT to repeal 247.02 (3), 269.565, 280.16, 448.18 (1) (a), 450.11. 939.22 (24), 940.04, 944.06, 944.11 (1), 944.15 to 944.17, 944.20 to 944.25, 944.31 to 944.35 and 979.20 (2) (d): to renumber 448.18 (1) (b) to (g) and 979.20 (2) (e) to (h); to renumber and amend 944.11 (2) and (3); to amend 59.456 (6), 165.60, 165.70 (1) (b), 245.01. 245.03 (1), 247.03 (2). 343.06 (11), 343.30 (2d), 939.74 (1), 944.12 and 947.10 (1); to repeal and recreate 944.10 and 944.30; and to create 944.005 and 944.13 of the statutes, relating to reducing the age of consent to 14, repealing obscenity, abortion and prostitution laws, abolishing criminal sanctions against certain consensual sexual acts, permitting first cousins and persons of the same sex to marry and repealing prohibitions against advertising of indecent articles. 2- 5. A. Introduced by Representatives Barbee and Clarenbach 2- 5. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary. 1976 Period Ending December 11, 1976 164 164 --- -174- Assembly Bulletin - 175- 3-8. A. Public hearing held. Assembly Bill 274 3-31. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 14. 3745 AN ACT to amend 8.15 (8) (a) and (b) and 8.20 (7) of the statutes, relating to filing of legislative nomination papers. Assembly Bill 270 2-5. A. Introduced by Representative Barczak 165 AN ACT to repeal 36.27 (3) (e); and to amend 20.285 (2) (d) of the statutes, relating to legislative fee remissions in the university of Wisconsin system. 2- 5. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Elections. 2-26. A. Public hearing held. 165 2- 5. A. Introduced by Representatives Offner, Duren, Roberts and Quackenbush... 2-5. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Education. 2-20. A. Public hearing held. 4-8. A. Report without recommendation by committee on Elections (Assembly Rule 164 30). 421 164 5- 1. A. Read a second time 711 4-10. A. Report passage recommended by committee on Education, Ayes 7, Noes 5.. 4-23. A. Withdrawn from calendar and referred to joint committee on Finance.......... 3-31. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 14... 5-1. A. Refused to indefinitely postpone, Ayes 39, Noes 56. 711 480 5-1. A. Ordered to a third reading. 712 622 3745 5- 1. A. Refused to suspend rules to read a third time, Ayes 45, Noes 48. 5-6. A. Report of Third Reading committee correct 712 736 Assembly Bill 271 AN ACT to amend 29.41; and create 29.13 (6) and 29.413 of the statutes, relating to preservation of otter and providing a penalty. 7-8. A. Read a third time 7-8. A. Laid on table 1382 3-31. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 14. 1382 3745 2- 5. A. Introduced by Representatives Dorff, Molinaro and Kincaid; co-sponsored by Senator La Fave... 2-5. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Natural Resources 2-26. A. Public hearing held. 165 1655 165 4- 8. A. Report without recommendation by committee on Natural Resources (Assembly Rule 30).. 423 5- 1. A. Read a second time.. 711 5-1. A. Laid on table, Ayes 80, Noes 14 711 9-29. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 14. 2180 Assembly Bill 272 3-11. A. Public hearing held. AN ACT to amend 118.08 (title) and (1) and 349.08 (5) of the statutes, relating to designating school crossings on streets and highways not adjacent to school grounds. 2- 5. A. Introduced by Representative Lewison, by request of the Mayor of Prairie du Chien...... 165 2- 5. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Highways. 2-20. A. Public hearing held. 165 3-26. A. Report passage recommended by committee on Highways, Ayes 11, Noes 0. 343 4-17. A. Read a second time 581 Assembly Bill 275 AN ACT to create 15.101 (9), 15.105 (9), subchapter IX of chapter 16, 20.505 (9) and 20.923 (4) (d) 1m of the statutes, relating to the creation of a crime victims compensation commission, granting rule-making authority, making an appropriation and providing a penalty. 2- 5. A. Introduced by Representatives Mittness, Behnke, Hanson, O'Malley, Lallensack, Ward, Barbee, Flintrop, Conta, Czerwinski, Ferrall, Tropman, Otte, Jackamonis, Early, Dueholm, Plewa, Menos, Potter, Rutkowski, Hasenohrl, Rooney, Offner, Dandeneau, Metz, Miller, Kirby and Soucie 2-5. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary. 3-31. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 14. Assembly Bill 276 AN ACT to create 134.75 of the statutes, relating to redemption on containers in which fermented malt beverages or carbonated beverages are sold. 2- 5. A. Introduced by Representatives N.C. Anderson, Flintrop, Munts, Miller, Jackamonis, Hanson, Duren, Clarenbach, Barbee, Mittness, Giese and Ausman. 165 165 3745 165 4-17. A. Ordered to a third reading. 581 4-17. A. Rules suspended 581 2- 5. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Environmental Quality. 2-20. A. Public hearing held. 165 4-17. A. Read a third time and passed. 581 4-17. A. Ordered immediately messaged. 581 3-19. A. Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Jackamonis. 3-26. A. LRB correction. 320 353 4-22. S. Received from Assembly 553 4-22. S. Read first time and referred to committee on Commerce 554 5- 2. S. Report concurrence recommended, Ayes 8, Noes 1... 649 11-5. A. Report assembly substitute amendment 1 introduction and adoption, Ayes 7, Noes 0; passage recommended by committee on Environmental Quality, Ayes 5, Noes 2. 2219 5-7. S. Read a second time. 669 5-7. S. Ordered to a third reading. 5-7. S. Rules suspended. 5-7. S. Read a third time and concurred in. 5-7. S. Ordered immediately messaged 5-7. A. Received from senate concurred in 5-13. A. Report correctly enrolled 8-13. A. Report approved by Governor 8-13-75.. Chapter No. 48. Published 8-18-75. 670 12- 3. A. Assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representative Flintrop. 2245 1976 670 670 2-26. A. Read a second time 2868 670 2-26. A. Referred to foot of calendar 3-4-76... 2868 784 3-31. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 14. 3745 814 1552 Assembly Bill 273 AN ACT to repeal 15.06 (3) (b); and to renumber and amend 15.06 (3) (a) of the statutes, relating to outside employment of the commissioner of insurance. 2- 5. A. Introduced by Representative Sanasarian..... 165 2- 5. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Insurance and Banking 165 4- 3. A. Public hearing held. 9-29. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 14.. 2180 Assembly Bill 277 AN ACT to repeal 247.101; to amend 247.10, 247.18 (2), 247.20 and 247.26; and to create 247.07 (10) of the statutes, relating to grounds for divorce and legal separation, change of name and granting of alimony. 2- 5. A. Introduced by Representatives N.C. Anderson, Lewis, Barbee, Johnson, Metz, Conta, Ferrall and Sanasarian. 2-5. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary. 3-11. A. Public hearing held. 166 166 Period Ending December 11, 1976 --- -174- 1977-78 Session-AB. 323 Assembly Bulletin - 175- 2-16. A. Referred to committee on Rules. 3114 2-28. A. Placed on calendar 3-7 by committee on Rules. 3- 7. A. Refused to nonconcur in senate amendment 1, Ayes 49, Noes 49 3390 3- 7. A. Senate amendment 1 placed under call of the House 3391 3- 7. A. Senate amendment 2 placed under call of the House 3392 5-5. A. Refused to reject assembly amendment 2, Ayes 15, Noes 83 5-5. A. Assembly amendment 2 adopted, Ayes 80, Noes 17 5-5. A. Refused to indefinitely postpone, Ayes 47, Noes 49 5-5. A. Refused to refer to committee on State Affairs, Ayes 45, Noes 52 5-5. A. Ordered to a third reading, Ayes 54, Noes 44.. 889 890 890 891 892 3- 7. A. Senate amendment 22 concurred in, Ayes 95, Noes 1 3392 3- 7. A. Call of the House on senate amendment 1 lifted. 3393 3- 7. A. Assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 offered by Representative Czerwinski 5-5. A. Refused to suspend rules to read a third time, Ayes 53, Noes 44 5- 5. A. Motion to reconsider vote by which ordered to a third reading offered by Representative Wahner. 892 893 3393 3- 7. A. Point of order raised by Representative Schneider that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 not germane. 5-10. A. Refused to suspend rules to make a special order of business at 9:01 A.M. on 5- 11, Ayes 59, Noes 38. 920 3393 3- 7. A. Point of order taken under advisement by the Chair 3393 3- 7. A. Call of the House on senate amendment 2 lifted. 3-8. A. Chair ruled point of order well taken..... 3393 5-10. A. Reconsidered vote by which ordered to a third reading, Ayes 98, Noes 0...... 5-10. A. Refused to suspend rules to make a special order of business at 9:01 A.M. on 5- 11, Ayes 60, Noes 38. 921 922 3- 7. A. Senate amendment 2 concurred in, Ayes 98, Noes 0 3394 5-10. A. Laid on table...... 922 3450 3-8. A. Refused to nonconcur in senate amendment 1, Ayes 49, Noes 49 3451 3-8. A. Senate amendment 1 concurred in, Ayes 53, Noes 45 3452 3-8. A. Action ordered immediately messaged. 3452 5-10. A. Assembly amendment 3 offered by Representatives Gower and Johnston 5-10. A. Assembly amendment 4 offered by Representatives Gower and Johnston... 5-10. A. Assembly amendment 3 withdrawn and returned to authors. 5-11. A. Withdrawn from table, Ayes 50, Noes 47 908 908 933 958 3-9. A. Report correctly enrolled 3494 5-11. A. Assembly amendment 4 laid on table. 958 3-9. A. Received from the Governor without the approval of the Governor 3-8-78. 3496 5-11. A. Assembly amendment 5 offered by Representative Gower 958 3-9. A. Referred to calendar 3496 3-14. A. Laid on table 3612 5-11. A. Assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 5 offered by Representatives Medinger and Brist 959 3-14. A. Withdrawn from table 3615 3-14. A. Placed under Call of the House. 3615 5-11. A. Assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 5 offered by Representative Tregoning. 959 3-14. A. Call of the House lifted.. 3616 3-14. A. Refused to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor, Ayes 64, Noes 34.. 3616 5-11. A. Assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 5 adopted. 5-11. A. Assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 5 adopted. 5-11. A. Re-referred to committee on Judiciary, Ayes 51, Noes 45 5-17. A. Executive session held. 959 959 959 Assembly Bill 322 AN ACT to amend 20.395 (4) (q) 1; and to create 66.318 of the statutes, relating to reimbursing cities, villages and towns for highway rescue calls. 2-10. A. Introduced by Representatives Vanderperren, Potter, Mohn, Schmidt, Hasenohrl and Lallensack, co-sponsored by Senator VanSistine..... 5-18. A. Report assembly substitute amendment 1 introduction and adoption, Ayes 8, Noes 2, passage recommended by committee on Judiciary, Ayes 7, Noes 3..... 5-18. A. Referred to committee on Rules. 5-25. A. Placed on calendar 6-10 by committee on Rules. 234 6-15. A. Referred to joint committee on Finance 2-10. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Local Affairs 2-18. A. Fiscal note received. 1978 234 3-31. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 12. 1021 1022 1466 4311 3-16. A. Public hearing held. 5- 4. A. Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representative Vanderperren.. 1978 841 Assembly Bill 324 3-31. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 12.... 4311 AN ACT to repeal 120.16 (1); and to create 120.13 (23) and 120.49 (13) of the statutes, relating to bonds required for school officials and employes. Assembly Bill 323 AN ACT to amend 343.06 (11), 343.30 (2d), 944.15 and 944.17 (intro.) and (1) of the statutes, relating to reducing penalties and the coverage of crimes between consenting adults. 2-10. A. Introduced by Representatives Engeleiter, Flintrop, Elconin, Travis, Gunderson and Goodrich. 235 2-10. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Education. 235 3- 1. A. Fiscal note received. 3-16. A. Public hearing held. 2-10. A. Introduced by Representatives Clarenbach, Flintrop, Tropman, Leopold, Coggs and Gunderson, co-sponsored by Senator Berger 3-23. A. Executive session held. 234 3-29. A. Report passage recommended by committee on Education, Ayes 11, Noes 1 2-10. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary 235 416 3-29. A. Public hearing held. 3-29. A. Referred to committee on Rules. 416 4-19. A. Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Gower. 4-19. A. Executive session held. 649 4-6. A. Placed on calendar 4-13 by committee on Rules. 4-13. A. Read a second time..... 613 4-19. A. Report assembly amendment 1 adoption, Ayes 13, Noes 0, passage recommended by committee on Judiciary, Ayes 8, Noes 5. 4-13. A. Ordered to a third reading. 614 687 4-13. A. Rules suspended 614 4-19. A. Referred to committee on Rules. 687 4-13. A. Read a third time and passed, Ayes 96, Noes 2. 614 4-27. A. Placed on calendar 5- 3 by committee on Rules. 4-13. A. Ordered immediately messaged. 614 5- 3. A. Assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Gower. 4-14. S. Received from Assembly 392 814 5- 3. A. Assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 1 offered by Representatives Leopold and Johnston... 4-14. S. Read first time and referred to committee on Education and Revenue. 10-13. S. Public hearing held. 395 814 1978 5-3. A. Rules suspended and made a special order of business at 9:01 A.M. on 5-5 ... 5- 4. A. Fiscal estimate received. 827 1-4. S. Report concurrence recommended, Ayes 5, Noes 0. 2-2. S. Read a second time.. 5- 4. A. Assembly amendment 2 offered by Representatives Gower, Leopold, Elconin and Johnston..... 841 2-2. S. Rules suspended. 5-5. A. Read a second time 5-5. A. Assembly amendment 1 and its amendments laid on table. 5-5. A. Refused to lay on table, Ayes 44, Noes 55 888 2- 2. S. Ordered to a third reading 2-2. S. Read a third time and concurred in 888 889 1498 1620 1620 1620 1620 Period Ending January 1, 1979 --- -264- Assembly Bill 510 AN ACT to amend 59.07 (97) of the statutes, relating to allowing county board members to serve on the body designated by the county board to implement child support and paternity programs. Assembly 1979-80 Session - AB 514 Bulletin -265- 6-20. A. Placed on calendar 6-26 by committee on Rules. 6-28. A. Read a second time 1019 6-28. A. Ordered to a third reading 1019 6-28. A. Rules suspended 1019 6-28. A. Read a third time and passed, Ayes 94, Noes 3 1019 4-26. A. Introduced by Representative Rutkowski, co-sponsored by Senator Adelman, by request of Milwaukee County 6-28. A. Ordered immediately messaged 1019 436 6-29. S. Received from Assembly 582 4-26. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Local Affairs 436 6-29. S. Read first time and referred to committee on Agriculture, Labor and Local 4-26. A. Rules suspended 448 Affairs 584 4-26. A. Withdrawn from committee on Local Affairs and referred to committee on 7-17. S. Public hearing held. Judiciary. 448 9-12. S. Report concurrence recommended, Ayes 5, Noes 0 698 5-1. A. Public hearing held. 10-4. S. Read a second time 752 5-1. A. Executive session held. 10- 4. S. Ordered to a third reading 752 5-3. A. Report passage recommended by committee on Judiciary, Ayes 7, Noes 0 5-3. A. Referred to committee on Rules 500 10-4. S. Rules suspended 752 501 10-4. S. Read a third time. 752 5-10. A. Placed on calendar 5-15 by committee on Rules. 10- 4. S. Referred to joint committee on Finance 752 5-15. A. Read a second time 603 5-15. A. Ordered to a third reading 603 10- 9. S. Withdrawn from joint committee on Finance and referred to committee on Senate Organization 770 5-15. A. Rules suspended 603 10-16. S. Ordered to a third reading 839 5-15. A. Read a third time and passed, Ayes 94, Noes 0 603 10-16. S. Rules suspended 839 5-15. A. Ordered immediately messaged 603 10-16. S. Read a third time and concurred in 839 5-17. S. Received from Assembly 367 10-16. S. Ordered immediately messaged 840 5-17. S. Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary and Consumer Affairs 10-17. A. Received from senate concurred in 1371 367 10-18. A. Report correctly enrolled. 1430 1980 4-3. S. Failed concurrence pursuant to A.J.R. 1 1842 12-5. A. Report approved by Governor 11-30-79 Chapter No. 91. Published 12-8-79. 1783 Assembly Bill 511 AN ACT to create 52.385 of the statutes, relating to permitting the court to convert arrearages on an agreement to pay child support or a judgment directing the father to pay child support to a money judgment without the necessity of the commencement of a new action, even though the support duty has ceased. 4-26. A. Introduced by Representative Rutkowski, co-sponsored by Senator Adelman, by request of Milwaukee County 4-26. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary 5-1. A. Public hearing held. 5-1. A. Executive session held. 437 437 5- 3. A. Report passage recommended by committee on Judiciary, Ayes 7, Noes 0 5-3. A. Referred to committee on Rules 501 501 5-10. A. Placed on calendar 5-15 by committee on Rules. 5-15. A. Read a second time 604 5-15. A. Ordered to a third reading 604 5-15. A. Rules suspended 604 5-15. A. Read a third time and passed, Ayes 94, Noes 0 604 5-15. A. Ordered immediately messaged 604 Assembly Bill 513 AN ACT to create 161.431, 161.432 and 161.433 of the statutes, relating to restricting drug paraphernalia and providing penalties. (FE) 4-26. A. Introduced by Representatives Klicka, Menos, Vanderperren, Rooney, Thompson, Matty, Wood, Lewis, Tregoning, Rogers, Prosser, Lallensack, Schmidt, Swoboda, Quackenbush, Merkt, Andrea, Hopkins, Omernick, Goodrich, Shabaz, Bradley, Snyder, Luckhardt, Everson, McEssy, Laatsch, Paulson, Porter, Pabst, Behnke, Hephner, Hauke, DeLong, R. Travis, Dilweg, Harer, Radtke, Dorff, Ladwig, Larson, Young, Gagin, Conradt, Potter, Tesmer, Murray, Lorman, Lewison, Kincaid and Ellis, co-sponsored by Senators Lasee, Opitz, Johnston, Maurer, Swan, Bidwell, Kreul and Chilsen, by request of Wisconsin Congress of Parents and Teachers Association 4-26. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary 5-10. A. Fiscal estimate received. 5-15. A. Fiscal estimate received. 9- 5. A. Assembly amendment I offered by Representative Everson 11-13. A. Public hearing held. 437 437 1115 1980 5-17. S. Received from Assembly. 367 5-17. S. Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary and Consumer Affairs 4-3. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1 3409 368 1980 4-3. S. Failed concurrence pursuant to A.J.R. 1 1842 Assembly Bill 514 AN ACT to repeal 944.30 (4); to amend 343.06 (11), 343.30 (2d), 939.22 (24), 944.30 (2), 944.31 and 944.33 (1) (a) and (b); and to repeal and recreate 944.15 and 944.17 of the statutes, relating to crimes involving sexual activity between consenting adults. (FE) Assembly Bill 512 AN ACT to amend 945.01 (3) of the statutes, relating to exempting amusement devices which grant nonredeemable free replays from criminal gambling prohibitions. (FE) 4-26. A. Introduced by Representatives Clarenbach, Leopold, Munts, Wahner, Loftus, Becker, Ulichny and Coggs.. 437 4-26. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety 4-26. A. Introduced by Representative Behnke 437 437 4-26. A. Read first time and referred to committee on State Affairs 437 5-8. A. Fiscal estimate received. 5-14. A. Fiscal estimate received. 5-15. A. Fiscal estimate received. 5-29. A. Public hearing held. 8-2. A. Public hearing held. 6-5. A. Executive session held. 1980 6-6. A. Report passage recommended by committee on State Affairs, Ayes 11, Noes 2 715 6-6. A. Referred to committee on Rules 715 4- 3. A. Failed to pass pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1 Period Ending January 5, 1981 3409 ---