Fremont County lawmakers divided on legislation prohibiting taxpayer funding for ‘sexually explicit events’

(Cheyenne, WY) – Fremont County lawmakers are divided in their opinions about a legislative proposal Wyoming Rep. Joel Guggenmos, R-Riverton, sponsored this year to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for “sexually explicit events.”

House Bill 134 – Taxpayer funds-sexually explicit events prohibited-2 would bar state agencies, cities, towns, counties, political subdivisions, community colleges, and school districts from using state or federal funds, personnel, facilities or equipment to sponsor or contribute to a sexually explicit event. 

The bill also empowers the governing bodies overseeing each of those entities to determine whether an event is sexually explicit – a category HB 134 defines as “any show, exhibition or presentation before an audience that lewdly or lasciviously depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, (or) prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts.”

“This bill ensures that taxpayer money is not used to support events that some may find inappropriate or offensive, keeping government spending aligned with community standards and values” Guggenmos said when he introduced the bill in front of the House Education Committee this month. “By restricting public funding for sexually explicit events, the bill helps ensure that content funded by state and federal money remains suitable for general audiences, particularly in educational and community settings.”

‘A lot of outrage’

Guggenmos said he sponsored HB 134 after learning that “in the last five years about $1.3 million in grant funds was given to a Wyoming group that actually put on (drag queen) events,” resulting in “a pretty big uproar” among members of the public.

More specifically, former Fremont County representative Sarah Penn told the House Education Committee that a “drag show” was “billed as being sponsored by our Department of Health” last spring, prompting “a lot of outrage” from her then-constituents, and from residents throughout the state. 

“The event was billed as raucous, R-rated, not for children, booze aplenty, and yet the Department of Health had seen fit to extend $3,000 in grant funds (for) the event,” Penn said. “(This) has been on the minds of people across the state. We want to protect our kids. We don’t want to be spending our tax dollars on such events.”

When HB 134 was introduced in the House of Representatives this month, Wyoming Rep. Lloyd Larsen, R-Lander – who voted against the bill on third reading – clarified that the grant funding in question came from the federal government, which sends money to the Wyoming Department of Health every year “to help with AIDS and HIV related issues.”

“The intent of that (funding) is to help people who suffer from those illnesses, to give them direction in finding the right type of services,” he explained. “And the way (the WDH) has done that in the past is they have contracted with a nonprofit group that specifically goes out and tries to help people through education and awareness.”

That nonprofit group requested some of that federal funding from the WDH last year to help provide HIV and AIDS education at the event in question, Larsen said, and they were granted $3,000.

When the nonprofit offered to list the WDH as a sponsor for the event, Larsen said the agency declined, noting that “we’re not a sponsor, we’re providing resources to help educate.”

Regardless, Larsen said, “when the event showed up, the logo for the department was on there showing that they were a sponsor when indeed they had not requested to be, when indeed they had told them no.”

“So that has blown up,” Larsen said. “It’s inaccurate. … And now we’re trying to respond by putting these restrictions on.”

Guggenmos replied to Larsen’s comments by asking why an HIV and AIDS education event would include alcohol – “something that greatly contributes to that very thing.”

“You get boozed up, you make poor decisions,” he said. “I don’t see how that can be labeled educational.”

In response, Larsen recalled “a story” about someone who “was referred to as the great healer” – a common title for Jesus Christ – who “labored amongst (people) who were thought less upon – those who had leprosy, those who were prostitutes” – and “was criticized” for it.

“Sometimes you’ve got to heal them where they’re at,” Larsen said. “We’re trying (to) make sure they have all of the information they need to protect themselves in the environment they live in.”

‘Drag queen events’

Larsen also spoke against an amendment that was added to HB 134 this month specifying that the term “sexually explicit event” includes “drag queen events.”

Guggenmos said the state’s “legal team” recommended that the sentence be added to the bill draft because the phrase “sexually explicit event” on its own wasn’t “specific enough to include the drag queen events.”

Larsen said that advice from the legal team “may suggest that not all of those (drag queen events) are sexually explicit,” and he encouraged the House to vote against the amendment, which was later approved regardless.

The phrase came up again when HB 134 was introduced to the Senate Revenue Committee last week.

This time, it was Wyoming Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander, who asked why it was necessary to specify that “drag queen events” were covered in the bill.

“Is that by definition?” Case asked. “I mean, can you have a drag queen event that’s not sexually explicit?”

Guggenmos said he is “not aware if there’s a definition already in statute about drag queen events,” but he noted that he would “find it hard to (see) how it could not be deemed sexually explicit.”

“That’s typically what they do,” Guggenmos said. “I’m just going strictly off of what’s in society right now. When they say ‘a drag queen event,’ I know exactly what they’re talking about.”

Case said others might not be so sure, however – including the legal staffers who advised Guggenmos to add the phrase “drag queen events” to HB 134.

“It wasn’t clear to them that ‘sexually explicit event’ meant a drag queen event,” Case said. “So … somebody’s got some doubt about that.”

He later proposed an amendment to delete the sentence specifying that the term “sexually explicit event” includes “drag queen events.”

The Senate Revenue Committee approved the amendment – but they defeated another proposal from Case that would have omitted “facilities or equipment” from the list of items that state agencies, cities, towns, counties, political subdivisions, community colleges, and school districts can’t contribute to sexually explicit events.

His amendment would have inserted the word “paid” before the word “personnel” on that list, too – essentially allowing state employees to volunteer their time to support sexually explicit events if they so choose.

The Senate Revenue Committee approved HB 134 in a 3-2 vote last week, with Case voting “no.”

The Wyoming Senate will now consider the legislation on first reading, likely this week.