Report to Concerned People Recaps the Founding of CRH, the California Hall Incident and Resultant Activity
Dublin Core
Title
Report to Concerned People Recaps the Founding of CRH, the California Hall Incident and Resultant Activity
Description
Written by Lewis Durham, program director, Glide Urban Center, mid-1965. Phyllis Lyon & Del Martin Papers.
Source
Repository: GLBT Historical Society
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
Page 1:
A Report to Concerned People
Growing sensitivity on the part of a few churchmen to the plight of persons labeled as homosexuals led to a three day consultation in June of 1964 which included churchmen and members of organizations of homosexuals. This consultation, including representatives of denominations, was sponsored jointly by the Boards of Education and Christian Social Concerns of The Methodist Church and the Glide Urban Center. (A report of this consultation is available from the Glide Urban Center at 330 Ellis Street, San Francisco 2, California for a price of 95ยข.)
It was at this retreat that the clergymen first realized the extent to which the church and society shuts out the homosexual. The need for urgent action aimed at disseminating accurate information and understanding about human sexuality, including homosexuality, was apparent. The result was that a number of ministers from several denominations joined with members of homosexual organizations and interested homosexuals and heterosexuals to form the Council on Religion and the Homosexual, Inc. The stated objective of the Council is to promote a "continuing dialogue between the church and the homosexual."
As the Council grew in numbers it was decided to incorporate, and the problem of financing the organization was raised. Members of six homophile organizations in San Francisco -- Daughters of Bilitis, Inc., Mattachine Society, Inc., Society for Individual Rights, Inc., The Tavern Guild of San Francisco, Inc., The Coits, Inc., and Guy Strait & Associates
decided to sponsor a benefit dance. A New Year's Day Mardi Gras Ball held January 1 at California Hall in San Francisco which brought the Council unanticipated publicity.
Several days prior to the date of the ball two San Francisco police inspectors from the Sex Detail of the Vice Squad dropped in at a Council executive board meeting. The police were concerned, they said, that the dance was to be a costume affair, and they indicated that any man coming dressed as a woman would be arrested immediately. However, after questioning as to the legality of their stand, the policemen backed down. When the two inspectors left they indicated that arrests, if any, would be made only if a crime was committed and advised that they would take photographs, if any, only outside the hall. The meeting ended with the definite feeling that there would be no trouble from the police.
Admission to the ball was by invitation, available only prior to the night of the dance for a donation of $5 or more. Despite contrary statements made by police, no tickets were sold at the door. As the guests started arriving -- around 9:00 p.m. -- it became apparent that the previous impressions received from police were wrong.
By 9:30 p.m. there were bright lights and police photographers, both movie and still, taking pictures of everyone arriving for the ball. Several times during the evening there was a patrol wagon parked in front of the entrance and several squad cars were always parked in the area. All in all some 50 uniformed and plainclothes policemen were detailed to "observe" the ball. A Chronicle reporter commented that he had never seen such a concentration of police for no apparent reason.
Page 2:
Two plainclothesmen came at 9:00 p.m. and requested permission to inspect the premises. This was granted and.they were taken on a tour of the hall, both upstairs and downstairs. Then they left, All permits and arrangements were in order and approved by the two officers. Later Inspectors Rudolph Nieto and Richard Castro and a policewoman demanded entrance. It was at this time that the two attorneys present on behalf of the Council stated that the Ball was a private party and entrance would be granted only on presentation of an invitation or a search warrant. Inspector Nieto departed for further instructions. When he returned and again demanded admittance, they were denied admission on the same grounds. At that point the two lawyers were arrested.
Later in the evening the same scene was repeated and police arrested another attorney and a young housewife for the same reasons. Two men, guests at the party, were also arrested for "disorderly conduct," a move many felt was made by the police to justify their previous arrests. Witnesses reported seeing no disorderly conduct by the two men arrested.
Because of massive harassment by the police, attendance at the ball was decreased. Many did not care to cross the picket line of lights, photographers, and policemen. Therefore the amount of money received was reduced. The ball did not achieve its purpose of furnishing the Council with a substantial financial cushion on which to build, but it did provide an example of how homosexuals are denied their civil rights.
For the dozen clergymen and several of their wives who attended the ball it was a shocking revelation of police power directed against a minority group for no other reason than that of harassment. Neither the ministers nor their wives witnessed any objectionable activity other than that of the police. The wives spent most of their time in the ball room and found the evening quite enjoyable apart from the frequent police interruptions.
The day after the ball minister members of the Council called a press conference to express their anger and dismay at the way the police department had "broken faith" with the Council, and for the "deliberate harassment" and intimidation of the guests attending. The ministers present at the press conference were from the Methodist, United Church
of Christ, Lutheran and Protestant Episcopal denominations. One of the ministers pointed out that as he was escorting departing guests to their cars in an effort to shield them from the busy police photographers and the possibility of unjustified arrest, he was threatened with arrest for blocking the police photographers. The clergymen were united in their
condemnation of the unnecessary police interference with the ball.
The three attorneys and the housewife arrested at the ball were charged with blocking the entry of police to California Hall. Recognizing the charges as baseless, the American Civil Liberties Union volunteered to defend the four. All pleaded not guilty and asked for a jury trial. The trial began February 8. Following selection of the jury the defense waived its opening statement and the prosecution began to present its case. As Inspectors Nieto and Castro told their story, they revealed grossly inaccurate perception by the police.
Page 3:
Inspector Nieto testified that the pictures were taken at the ball for "intelligence purposes." When presiding Judge Leo R. Friedman asked what that meant, Inspector Nieto explained it was to seek for possible criminals or people who might be security risks. Judge Friedman also asked the inspector if the police attended the ball specifically to make arrests. The answer was "no" but on cross-examination Inspector Nieto admitted that prior to the ball he had prepared 50 numbered cards for use in taking pictures of people after arrests were made.
On the fourth day of the trial the prosecution rested its case. Marshall Krause, attorney for the defendants, asked the judge to dismiss the charges on the grounds that no case had been made by the prosecution. Without hearing the case of the defense, the judge directed the jury to bring in a verdict of not guilty, on the technicality that the prosecution
charge had been "blocking entry to California Hall" while all the prosecution testimony had shown that the police had entered the hall but had been asked not to go farther than the entrance way. Unfortunately this victory was on a technicality and left all the civil rights questions raised by the harassment unanswered.
Still to be heard is the case of the two guests arrested. It may be that some of the unresolved issues in the trial of the first four will be settled during this trial.
It was not and is not the purpose of the Council to hold social functions. The Council has a serious program and through its various committees is attempting to fulfill this purpose. However, the Council did not feel it could stand by in this case and watch the willful violation of civil liberties. It felt it had to raise a voice in protest.
The ministers involved in the Council, now over 30 representing six major denominations, are convinced that the church should be concerned about all people. In the Bay Area estimates indicate that there are maybe as many as 100,000 members of the homophile community. Most of them see the church as being antagonistic toward them. If the church
is to minister to people in the world it must be where they are and meet their needs in all situations. Undoubtedly there will be more discussion of these issues in the coming year.
Lewis E. Durham
Program Director
Glide Urban Center
A Report to Concerned People
Growing sensitivity on the part of a few churchmen to the plight of persons labeled as homosexuals led to a three day consultation in June of 1964 which included churchmen and members of organizations of homosexuals. This consultation, including representatives of denominations, was sponsored jointly by the Boards of Education and Christian Social Concerns of The Methodist Church and the Glide Urban Center. (A report of this consultation is available from the Glide Urban Center at 330 Ellis Street, San Francisco 2, California for a price of 95ยข.)
It was at this retreat that the clergymen first realized the extent to which the church and society shuts out the homosexual. The need for urgent action aimed at disseminating accurate information and understanding about human sexuality, including homosexuality, was apparent. The result was that a number of ministers from several denominations joined with members of homosexual organizations and interested homosexuals and heterosexuals to form the Council on Religion and the Homosexual, Inc. The stated objective of the Council is to promote a "continuing dialogue between the church and the homosexual."
As the Council grew in numbers it was decided to incorporate, and the problem of financing the organization was raised. Members of six homophile organizations in San Francisco -- Daughters of Bilitis, Inc., Mattachine Society, Inc., Society for Individual Rights, Inc., The Tavern Guild of San Francisco, Inc., The Coits, Inc., and Guy Strait & Associates
decided to sponsor a benefit dance. A New Year's Day Mardi Gras Ball held January 1 at California Hall in San Francisco which brought the Council unanticipated publicity.
Several days prior to the date of the ball two San Francisco police inspectors from the Sex Detail of the Vice Squad dropped in at a Council executive board meeting. The police were concerned, they said, that the dance was to be a costume affair, and they indicated that any man coming dressed as a woman would be arrested immediately. However, after questioning as to the legality of their stand, the policemen backed down. When the two inspectors left they indicated that arrests, if any, would be made only if a crime was committed and advised that they would take photographs, if any, only outside the hall. The meeting ended with the definite feeling that there would be no trouble from the police.
Admission to the ball was by invitation, available only prior to the night of the dance for a donation of $5 or more. Despite contrary statements made by police, no tickets were sold at the door. As the guests started arriving -- around 9:00 p.m. -- it became apparent that the previous impressions received from police were wrong.
By 9:30 p.m. there were bright lights and police photographers, both movie and still, taking pictures of everyone arriving for the ball. Several times during the evening there was a patrol wagon parked in front of the entrance and several squad cars were always parked in the area. All in all some 50 uniformed and plainclothes policemen were detailed to "observe" the ball. A Chronicle reporter commented that he had never seen such a concentration of police for no apparent reason.
Page 2:
Two plainclothesmen came at 9:00 p.m. and requested permission to inspect the premises. This was granted and.they were taken on a tour of the hall, both upstairs and downstairs. Then they left, All permits and arrangements were in order and approved by the two officers. Later Inspectors Rudolph Nieto and Richard Castro and a policewoman demanded entrance. It was at this time that the two attorneys present on behalf of the Council stated that the Ball was a private party and entrance would be granted only on presentation of an invitation or a search warrant. Inspector Nieto departed for further instructions. When he returned and again demanded admittance, they were denied admission on the same grounds. At that point the two lawyers were arrested.
Later in the evening the same scene was repeated and police arrested another attorney and a young housewife for the same reasons. Two men, guests at the party, were also arrested for "disorderly conduct," a move many felt was made by the police to justify their previous arrests. Witnesses reported seeing no disorderly conduct by the two men arrested.
Because of massive harassment by the police, attendance at the ball was decreased. Many did not care to cross the picket line of lights, photographers, and policemen. Therefore the amount of money received was reduced. The ball did not achieve its purpose of furnishing the Council with a substantial financial cushion on which to build, but it did provide an example of how homosexuals are denied their civil rights.
For the dozen clergymen and several of their wives who attended the ball it was a shocking revelation of police power directed against a minority group for no other reason than that of harassment. Neither the ministers nor their wives witnessed any objectionable activity other than that of the police. The wives spent most of their time in the ball room and found the evening quite enjoyable apart from the frequent police interruptions.
The day after the ball minister members of the Council called a press conference to express their anger and dismay at the way the police department had "broken faith" with the Council, and for the "deliberate harassment" and intimidation of the guests attending. The ministers present at the press conference were from the Methodist, United Church
of Christ, Lutheran and Protestant Episcopal denominations. One of the ministers pointed out that as he was escorting departing guests to their cars in an effort to shield them from the busy police photographers and the possibility of unjustified arrest, he was threatened with arrest for blocking the police photographers. The clergymen were united in their
condemnation of the unnecessary police interference with the ball.
The three attorneys and the housewife arrested at the ball were charged with blocking the entry of police to California Hall. Recognizing the charges as baseless, the American Civil Liberties Union volunteered to defend the four. All pleaded not guilty and asked for a jury trial. The trial began February 8. Following selection of the jury the defense waived its opening statement and the prosecution began to present its case. As Inspectors Nieto and Castro told their story, they revealed grossly inaccurate perception by the police.
Page 3:
Inspector Nieto testified that the pictures were taken at the ball for "intelligence purposes." When presiding Judge Leo R. Friedman asked what that meant, Inspector Nieto explained it was to seek for possible criminals or people who might be security risks. Judge Friedman also asked the inspector if the police attended the ball specifically to make arrests. The answer was "no" but on cross-examination Inspector Nieto admitted that prior to the ball he had prepared 50 numbered cards for use in taking pictures of people after arrests were made.
On the fourth day of the trial the prosecution rested its case. Marshall Krause, attorney for the defendants, asked the judge to dismiss the charges on the grounds that no case had been made by the prosecution. Without hearing the case of the defense, the judge directed the jury to bring in a verdict of not guilty, on the technicality that the prosecution
charge had been "blocking entry to California Hall" while all the prosecution testimony had shown that the police had entered the hall but had been asked not to go farther than the entrance way. Unfortunately this victory was on a technicality and left all the civil rights questions raised by the harassment unanswered.
Still to be heard is the case of the two guests arrested. It may be that some of the unresolved issues in the trial of the first four will be settled during this trial.
It was not and is not the purpose of the Council to hold social functions. The Council has a serious program and through its various committees is attempting to fulfill this purpose. However, the Council did not feel it could stand by in this case and watch the willful violation of civil liberties. It felt it had to raise a voice in protest.
The ministers involved in the Council, now over 30 representing six major denominations, are convinced that the church should be concerned about all people. In the Bay Area estimates indicate that there are maybe as many as 100,000 members of the homophile community. Most of them see the church as being antagonistic toward them. If the church
is to minister to people in the world it must be where they are and meet their needs in all situations. Undoubtedly there will be more discussion of these issues in the coming year.
Lewis E. Durham
Program Director
Glide Urban Center
Citation
“Report to Concerned People Recaps the Founding of CRH, the California Hall Incident and Resultant Activity”, The Council on Religion and the Homosexual, LGBTQ Religious Archives Network, accessed May 18, 2024, https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/exhibits/show/crh/item/1795.