O’REGAN J and SACHS J a place where “unlawful carnal intercourse” as defined in the Act takes place. [102] It was the effect of these provisions read together which led the appellants to argue that the overall purpose of the Act is constitutionally illegitimate, in that its purpose and effect are to impose legal sanctions on any form of sexual intercourse outside of a heterosexual marriage. This, it was argued, is constitutionally impermissible in that it is an attempt to legislate for a particular moral code, inconsistently with the Constitution. It was argued that the state has no business telling people what to do in private with their bodies or with their money. It should punish crime, not sin. In support of this contention reference was made to a frequently quoted observation in the Wolfenden Report into Homosexuality and Prostitution:55 “Unless a deliberate attempt is to be made by society, acting through the agency of the law, to equate the sphere of crime with that of sin, there must remain a realm of private morality and immorality which is, in brief and crude terms, not the law’s business.” Reliance was also placed on the following words by Ackermann J in the Sodomy case:56 “The enforcement of the private moral views of a section of the community, which are based to a large extent on nothing more than prejudice, cannot qualify as such a legitimate purpose.”57 The argument was reinforced by reference to the observations made in Parliament in 1987 and 1988 when the Act was subjected to substantial amendment and to the Report of the 55 Above n 51 at para 61. 56 Above n 38. 57 Id at para 37. 68