of the proposed Model Penal Code. What constituted "public indecency" was discussed. Mr. Bendich felt that the term was meant mainly to comprise "indecent exposure" (disrobing in public) or committing a sexual act in public. One of the men present asked whether kissing another man in public would be considered indecent. Attorney Bendich brought a roar from the audience as he quipped, "I guess that would depend on whether the men were in Paris or Los Angeles!"

one.

Mr. Bendich was asked to comment on the California State Teachers' Oath that one was neither a Communist, a felon, nor a homosexual! The audience was aghast on several levels: many had no knowledge of the subject and the ref ore believed what was said, while many who did have knowledge of the problem felt the statement to be an irresponsible Mr. Bendich stated that he had heard of no such requirements in the State Teachers' Oath. He was aware of the general civil servants' oath which states either that one does not believe in overthrow of the government by force and violence or disclaims membership in the Communist party after a certain date. The teachers' oath, like all important official oaths, swears allegiance to upholding the laws of the state and the nati on. There are al so the usual checks as to whether one has a criminal record, in any civil service job. And for all civil servants there is the "moral turpitude" section which may be invoked against "indiscreet husband" or "practicing homosexual" alike if they are caught in the act. One does not sign an oath that he is not a homosexual.

Another topic touched up on was the Lewd-Vagrancy Laws, which the ACLU have found to be unconstitutional. Also brought in was the Registration Law, part of which Mr. Kenneth Zwerin, San Francisco attorney, was instrumental in getting olarified, namely, that a sex offender who has passed his probation period need not register a change of address. Details on this particular o curt decision were reported in the June, 1958 issue of THE LADDER. It referred to those cases involving the successful termination of probation. The court refused to rule on the constitutionality of Section 290, holding it was not necessary to this particular decision. It is to be hoped that at some future time the constitutionality of the law may be challenged.

14