first that at present it is not a crime to be a homosexual, but it is to perform a homosexual act. Some states provide separate definitions of and penalties for particular homosexual offenses, others set forth a vaguely phrased, catch-all offense such as unnatural crimes, the infamous crime against nature, any unnatural copulation, the abominable and detestable crime against nature with mankind or beast, any unnatural and lascivious act. Usually these catch-all phrases lack the degree of specificity which is required in the statutory definition of other crimes. Moreover the penalties at least theoretically imposable for homosexual acts are harsh ones. Several states provide a maximum penalty for some homosexual offenses of ten or more years in prisons. In some jurisdictions the homosexual may be subject to longterm incarceration, ostensibly for treatment, under special "sex offender" or "sexual psychopath" laws. These laws -which establish an extremely vague "waste basket" category of offenders and allow for commitment with less

than the usual criminal safeguardsare often applied against minor sex offenders, and not just as a means of isolating dangerous sex criminals. Obviously the statutory regulations do not in themselves provide a realistic picture of the homosexual's legal status since judges and juries vary and there is considerable reluctance to impose stringent sanctions against homosexual defendants in most cases. Often the great damage is not done through punishment, but through arrest and exposure.

The vagaries of judges, juries, and the difficulty in apprehending the average homosexual means that the problem of police enforcement is difficult. Since there is a willing exchange of services, there is usually no complainant except in those instances where force has been used, a blatant public display has taken place, or where chil-

8

dren are involved. When the behavior occurs in relative privacy, as is usually the case, it does not normally become known to law enforcement authorities. Thus the police are placed in a rather difficult if not intolerable position. Under great pressure from some segments of the public to eradicate the offending behavior, and at the same time knowing full well the essential unenforceability of the law, they have fallen back on an amalgam of unsavory vice squad techniques or of "looking the other way." In the larger cities there tends to be a fairly routine patrol of public places frequented by homosexuals, with intermittent arrest. Often the police become agent provacateurs because it is argued that only by such techniques can the existing law be enforced. This sort of argument seems a ground for reversing the law.

Law enforcement activity is also directed at such known homosexual meeting places as "gay" bars. Plainclothesmen are often stationed as decoys in such establishments and legal action is periodically taken against the bars themselves, usually on the basis of 'disorderly conduct" or conduct "contrary to public welfare or morals." State liquor authorities have been particularly active in this regard, although the courts in California have not always gone along.

In sum, the enforcement policies affecting sex behavior are at present very confused. This general statement is couched in terms of "constitutional right" because of the recent decision of Justice Goldberg in Griswold v. Connecticut. Judge Goldberg applied the ninth amendment to marital privacy and it could just as well be applied to the whole area of sexual conduct. Much of sex is legitimately beyond the interests of the state. In fact much of sex law is taken over from religious law. Whatever moral restraints a church may wish to impose upon its members need not be made legal prohibitions imposed upon all citizens.