Citizen action to block a controversial provision liberalizing a sex law in the city of Washington, D.C. well might serve as a pattern for other areas in which ‘proposed changes are not in keeping with accepted values in the community or state. With a firm push by community and church leaders, city council members backpedaled and agreed to keep the age of consent for sexual relations at 16 for girls after a week of emotionally – charged debate. In its original form, the proposal to change the carnal knowledge law – part of a package of sweeping sex law reforms – would have legalized sexual relations between consenting youngsters 12 and older if one of the parties was not more than four years older than the other. Six of the 13 council members had been known to support the liberalization and a council committee had unanimously backed it. But Mayor Marion Barry condemned the change as irresponsible. After an hour’s debate before a packed audience of hostile spectators, the 13-member council rejected the change by voice vote. Council sponsors of the proposal denied intent to encourage teenage sex, citing legal and enforcement problems inherent in the present law dealing with statutory rape cases and the question of consent. But opponents argued that intentionally for not. the change would encourage promiscuity. “What the bill originally proposed on the age of consent is out of touch with the moral instincts and social desires of the community,” charged one councilwoman. The overall bill comes up for final approval July 14. Some clergymen said they will try to focus public attention on other sections of the measure which they find objectionable. The D. C. case is a commendable example oi democracy at work to safeguard values important to family and society. The citizenry – too often complacent- stepped forward in loud protest when they believed liberal elements had gone too far. To legalize juvenile sex does not fit with ideals upon which the nation was founded. nor with the norms of family life and human decency. One news account said the defeated D. C. change would have been “in line with action taken in numerous other states” state laws in most cases. If that is true. an appropriate question might be: Where were the citizens when such laws were enacted?