First Issue of Concern, Newsletter of the Southern California Council on Religion and the Homophile, July 1966

First Issue of Concern, Newsletter of the Southern California Council on Religion and the Homophile, July 1966

Collection 074, Dignity New York, Inc.

Repository: National Archive of LGBT History

Page 1:
Concern
Number One
July 1966

Newsletter of the Southern California Council on Religion and the Homophile

Page 2:
To open the avenues of communication and understanding between churchmen and homophiles;
To investigate and implement ways for meeting the spiritual needs and social responsibilities of homophiles;
To encourage more satisfactory climate of opinion within the community on broad matters of sex and morals;
To seek just social treatment of the homophile community.
-- statement of general purposes,
SCCRH Articles of Incorporation

On June 1, 1965, at the invitation of the Council on Religion and the Homosexual of San Francisco, twenty persons met in the Westchester YMCA for an all-day session. Approximately half were from San Francisco and half from Los Angeles, the number of clergymen and representatives of homophile organizations also being in the same proportion.

During the morning, the Rev. Ted McIlvenna of San Francisco discussed the broad social changes now affecting all levels of American Society, pointing out that in consequence, a "sexual revolution" was forcing the churches to reexamine their traditional attitudes toward all sexual matters, including male and female homosexuality. The churches, he said, were now coming to see that a new ethic was needed to answer the problems of the ever-increasing number of city dwellers, and particularly the large proportion of single men and women who virtually become lost in our large cities. The CRH was set up in the Bay Area to start grappling with the complex questions facing this sector of the population, and it was through an interdemoninational conference held there on the problems of ''Young Adults in Metropolis" that most of the Los Angeles ministers had been introduced to the homosexual question.

After lunch, Donald Lucas of the Mattachine Society, of San Francisco, described the origin of the Council there and its operations. Los Angeles Attorney Herbert Selwyn discussed the California laws applicable to homosexual acts, after which the San Franciscans told the Los Angeles group that they were on their own if they wished to establish a similar Council in Southern California. They did so wish, and an ad hoc committee, composed of the Revs. Alex Smith and Ron Ohlson, as well as Sten Russell of the Daughters of Bilitis and W. Dorr Legg of ONE, Inc., was chosen to arrange for the next meeting.

Over twenty meetings have been held since that date, in members' homes, in ONE's offices, and in the First Methodist Churches of Glendale and Los Angeles, as well as an inspiring weekend Retreat attended by thirty ministers and homophiles at the Presbyterian Camp Grounds at Pacific Palisades. Most of these meetings have been devoted to careful efforts to lay a sound organizational basis, and to acquaing ministers and homophiles with one another's problems and ways of thinking.

Page 3:
Ministerial representation on the Council has so far been largely limited to United Church of Christ, Methodist, Episcopal and Presbyterian clergymen, not from any intention to so limit participation. For awhile, members of ONE, Inc., carried most of the homophile side, but participation has now expanded to members of eight local organizations and publications.

The first ten months were on a provisional -- "organizing committee" - - basis. In April, 1966, the newly named SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COUNCIL ON RELIGION AND THE HOMOPHILE was "christened" at Attorney Selwyn' s office when the five original Directors (the Revs. Alex Smith, Kenneth Wahrenbrock and Marjorie Likins, along with W. Dorr Legg of ONE and James Kepner of PURSUIT magazine) signed the Articles of Incorporation. A set of By-Laws was adopted by the Board in May and ratified (with several minor changes proposed) at the first official membership meeting, held at Glendale First Methodist, June 8, 1966, one year and a week after the first Los Angeles gathering.

It had been an exciting year -- a year of exploration, of defining the problem areas, of getting acquainted, and, on both sides, of shedding preconceptions. Homophiles who came to the group thinking of all clergymen as Puritanic thunderers, or as oozing piety, had their eyes opened, just as did ministers who had stereotyped and unflattering notions about homosexuals. It was a year of spiritual growth for all concerned, and a year in which Council representatives began to present the concerns of the Council to other organizations, both homophile and religious.

We can now look forward to moving solidly, responsibly and with true concern toward the purposes stated in our Articles of Incorporation, as quoted at the head of this brief historic sketch.

NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the SC-CRH, open to persons interested in the work of the Council, will be held in the Asbury Room of the First Methodist Church, Glendale, 134 N. Kenwood St., at 7 :30 p.m., Wednesday, July 13.

The Rev. Dr. Marjorie Likins will discuss recent developments in the Churches which have made such a Council possible.

ORIENTATION PROGRAM
Because many new clergymen coming to Council meetings for the first time may have only slight acquaintance with the problems and terminology of homosexuals, and because many homophiles may be equally uninformed about the Churches today, an orientation program has been set up under the leadership of Chuck Taylor, in order to bring newcomers up to date, so that, whatever our individual differences of viewpoint, we may each enter into dialogue with a minimum store of information about our common areas of concern. Rather than trying to impose a "Council viewpoint", the Orientation sessions should acquaint persons coming from either "side" with the terminology, general problems and attitudes of the other side. Thus we hope that those who have been participating for some time can move beyond the repetitious sorts of questions which are necessarily of primary concern to newcomers.

Page 4:
OTHER COMMITTEES
MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE: Chairman, Dr. Marjorie Likins. Prospective Members to be routed in this direction.
COUNSELING COMMITTEE: Chairman, the Rev. Ron Ohlson. Will investigate and implement methods for counseling disturbed homophiles, and of training such counselors.
PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE: Chairman, James Kepner, currently responsible for this newsletter, this committee plans various publications aimed at explaining the general work of the Council, a major project being a general descriptive booklet.
PROGRAM COMMITTEE: Chairman, the Rev. Kenneth Barta. To plan programs for the public meetings, and investigate general programmatic directions for the work of the Council.
FINANCE COMMITTEE: Chairman, W. Dorr Legg. With the job of raising funds to pay for all the rest, this committee is certainly open to suggestions.

Members interested in working with any committee are invited to contact the chairman concerned. And we are open to suggestions as to the need for additional committees.

Several members have asked about books which might be recommended for a general
understanding of homosexuality. The following list was prepared by The BAKER MEMORIAL
LIBRARY of ONE, Inc.

Anthropology:
Ford, C. S., + Beach, F.A., PATTERNS OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, 1951

Biology:
Kinsey, A. C., SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN MALE, 1948
FEMALE, 1953

History:
Garde, N. I., JONATHAN TO GIDE, 1964
Lewinsohn, R. A., A HISTORY OF SEXUAL CUSTOMS, 1958
Licht, H., SEXUAL CUSTOMS IN ANCIENT GREECE, 1931
Taylor, A. R., SEX IN HISTORY, 1954

Law:
Drummond, I., THE SEX PARADOX, 1953
Duke University Law Review, SEX OFFENSES, 1960
Ploscowe, M., SEX AND THE LAW, 1962
Rees, T., THEY STAND APART, 1955
Wildeblood, P., AGAINST THE LAW, 1955

Page 5:
Literature:
Foster, J. H., SEX VARIANT WOMEN IN LITERATURE. 1956

Philosophy:
Benson, R. O. D., IN DEFENSE OF HOMOSEXUALITY, 1965
Gide, Andre, CORYDON, 1911
Guyon, R., THE ETHICS OF SEXUAL ACTS, 1930
Plato, The SYMPOSIUM
Thielicke, H., THE ETHICS OF SEX, 1965

Psychology:
Ellis, H., THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SEX, 1924
Marmor, J., SEXUAL INVERSION, 1965
Ruitenbeek, H. M., THE PROBLEMS OF HOMOSEXUALITY, 1963

Religion:
Bailey, D.S., HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE WESTERN CHRISTIAN TRADITION, 1955
Buckley, M. J., MORALITY AND THE HOMOSEXUAL, 1959
Cole, W. J., SEX AND LOVE IN THE BIBLE, 1959
Wood, R.W., CHRIST AND THE HOMOSEXUAL, 1960

Sociology:
Cory, D. W., THE HOMOSEXUAL IN AMERICA, 1951
Westwood, G. , A MINORITY, 1960

The above selection represents a carefully balanced sampling of viewpoints, which has deliberately avoided sensationalism and strong partisanship·. No attempt has been made to include periodicals, although a large number of useful discussions are to be found there. A separate bibliography of nearly 100 articles on religion and the homosexual, as published in ONE Magazine and ONE Institute Quarterly is available.

Ed. Note: We might suggest two additions to the above list: the now famous report by a group of English Friends, TOWARD A QUAKER VIEW OF SEX, 1963, and THE CONSENTING ADULT HOMOSEXUAL AND THE LAW: An Empirical Study of Enforcement and Administration in Los Angeles County, UCLA Law Review, March 1966.

HOMOSEXUAL - OR HOMOPHILE ?
In place of the familiar term, ''Homosexual", (the "homo" part being from the Greek for "the same", not the Latin, "man) the Council has chosen to use in its name, the term, ''Homophile", almost but not entirely synonymous. Because we shall make some use of both terms, we pre-print an explanation from the second issue of PURSUIT:

"To avoid the monotony of too-frequent use of the same term, we shall oscillate between 'homosexual' and the etymologically preferred synonym, 'homophile,' which puts the emphasis on love and friendship, rather than on sex. Sex is only a part of the attraction between persons. To put the sexual component in perspective is not to denigrate it, but to imply that all homophile feelings are merely sexual seems to us to cheapen such relationships.

Page 6:
"Clearly, not all homophiles are homosexuals, nor all homosexuals homophiles, which is to say that one may have sex without love, or love without sex. Recently, the East Coast Homophile Organizations (a confederacy of Mattachine, Bilitis and other groups on the Atlantic Seaboard) resolved to restrict the term 'homophile' to adjectival usage, defining the collective effort to seek justice and understanding for homosexuals, as in 'homophile magazines' and 'homophile organizations' and the 'Homophile Movement.' Since the well-established and more inclusive usage of the term also allows speaking of homophile persons (as being sometimes distinct from homosexual persons -- a distinction we think worthwhile) we shall not adopt ECHO' s terminological limitation, nor that of the late, excellent Dr. Kinsey that the term 'homosexual' never be used to describe persons, only acts.''

ODYSSEY
At the June 8 meeting of the SC-CRH, Council co-chairman W. Dorr Legg briefly reported his impressions of some current religious developments in the United States and in Europe as seen during a five-week trip from which he had just returned.

He stated his belief that the Southern California Council and the Council on Religion and the Homosexual of San Francisco were as of that date the only two formally incorporated such organizations existing anywhere, but referred to groups in Washington, D. C. and in Ottawa, Canada, with whose exact status he was not fully acquainted. Attempts were being made, he reported, to launch Council-type activities in New York City and in Chicago, a two-day consultation between clergymen and representatives of homophile organizations having already been scheduled for June 10 and 11 in the latter city.

In Europe, relationships between homophile organizations and the churches vary widely from country to country, he reported. In Switzerland, home of the world's oldest homophile group, virtually no contacts had been made, or attempted, between homophiles and the churches. In Western Germany, a similar situation prevails. Legal sanctions against homosexuals, instituted during Hitler's regime, have been of extreme severity during the past thirty years, making concerted action of any sort extremely hazardous for Germans.

In Denmark, quite a different situation was found. Having as it does a State Church (Lutheran) and a strongly secular society, both of the principal homophile organizations in that country indicated a lack of interest in fostering contacts with religious bodies or leaders. The feeling seemed to be that the Church was an institution of historical interest and to be respected as such, but not one from which social gains might be expected.

In Holland, home of the world's largest homophile organization, things are very different. The country is divided numerically almost equally between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Both of these religious bodies have participated actively in many types of social reform developments, including interest in and concern for the welfare of homosexual men and women. One way in which such interest has been demonstrated is in the maintenance in Amsterdam during the past few years of Protestant and Catholic counseling centers organized especially for homosexuals. These are staffed by clergy and psychiatrists and open during regular hours. Reports of their work have been rather widely published and favorably received.

Page 7:
Contacts between the homophile organization and religious bodies seems to have been largely informal in France. Predominantly Roman Catholic in its history, French urban society appears to be nearly as secular as that of Denmark. Little interest in or expectation of closer association between homophiles and the Church was noted.

In England, the Church, on the other hand, has shown marked concern on the part of many of its officials for the problems raised by the extreme severity of the legal sanctions against homosexuals prevailing there. Various high Church officials, including the former Archbishop of Canterbury, have come out strongly in favor of reform of the oppressive laws. So long as these continue in force, it has been impossible to have any organized activities for the male homosexual in Britain. Hence, Church of England direct contacts with them have been mainly limited to instances when individual homosexuals have come to individual clergymen or other church authorities within their own parishes.

In summary, it would be quite easy to conclt1de that a concept such as the coming together of religious officials and persons from organized homophile groups may for some time to come be an American phenomenon solely, save for the Dutch exception.

NEWS
THOUGH it has been frequently reported that England has recently "legalized'' homosexuality, this unfortunately is not yet the case. A government commission, appointed in 1954 under Sir John Wolfenden, then Chancellor or Reading University, brought in a report in 1957 recommending that homosexual acts performed in private by consenting adults should no longer be punished by law. Similar reports by the Church of England and British Catholics insisted that that while such acts might still be considered sinful, they were properly matters of conscience, not of law. England's Quakers went farther, insisting that sex was a proper part of a love relationship, and not merely to be considered as a tool of procreation, therefore any such sexual activity could be judged moral or immoral only on the basis of the intrinsic quality of the relationship between the parties concerned. Thus homosexual relationships per se could be as good or as bad as other relationships.

In the last Parliamentary session, as most American papers reported, both houses did approve the proposed reform bill, presented in Lords by the Earl of Arran and in Commons by Mr Humphrey Berkeley. But although both houses approved the matter twice by heavy majorities, it was not actually passed, for lack of a formally required "third reading" -- so the issue died when Parliament adjourned this Spring for elections. Now the whole process needs repeating, though on the motion again of Lord Arran, a conservative peer and a peppery news columnist, Lords has again passed a new ''second reading" by vote of 70 to 29. Though opponents and proponents of the reform are found in each party, and neither party wishes to claim sponsorship, the return of a heavy labor majority was interpreted by some as weakening the reform's chances. It is widely felt that Commons may not discuss the matter in this session, though the new Home Secretary expressed his personal approval. But it is generally agreed that in time, the reform will come, and 63% of the populace is said to support it. Meanwhile, for those who get caught, punishments remain severe, and even when the reform passes, the new law will retain astonishing areas of severity. In order to have any real chance for reform, proponents have t1nanimously (except for the Quakers) agreed that all homo-

Page 8:
sexuality is a terrible and tragic condition, which still requires severe legal restraints in all cases not involving private consensual adult acts. In time, they may pay a dear price for this strategic concession to prejudice.

A LANDMARK report published in the March 66 UCLA LAW REVIEW has recommended major reforms in the several California laws penalizing homosexual behavior. In a foreword to the 189-page study, fat with footnotes, charts and appendices, State Supreme Court Justice (and former Calif. Atty. General) Stanley Mosk decried "the punitive and preventive activities of law enforcement" in this area, and expressed hope for "modificatio11 of penal statutes... in the foreseeable future."

The reforms "advocated by the American Law Institute and the Wolfenden Committee cannot be analyzed meaningfully in the absence of data concerning enforcement and judicial practices under existing statutes." Most discussions on moral legislation have ignored the disparity between the law revealed in penal statutes and appellate decisions, and the law expressed in police and trial practice. "This Project attempts to provide some of the missing data. . . by reporting the results of an empirical study, conducted in the county of Los Angeles, of the enforcement and administration of the sections of the California Penal Code regulating adult homosexual behavior."

The Project, result of 14 months of intensive study by a group of top UCLA law students, examined the manner in which unspecific or contradictory laws permit the exercise of individual prejudices in enforcement, with detailed study of methods used by the police to effect arrests, and of the legality of some of those methods. It would require a different sort of study -- examining the assumptions and value judgements underlying such legislation -- to judge the desirability of abolishing such moral legislation. An empirical study of the daily enforcement of morals legislation can determine
neither the propriety of the use of criminal law to regulate sexual morality, nor the relative validity of competing philosophies as to the law's purpose, nor whether homosexual behavior is intrinsically harmful. It was felt that the study could evaluate the present law's effectiveness at regulating private morality.

After detailed analysis of several hundred felony and misdemeanor cases, from police methods to post-conviction disposition, the Project' s authors dispaired of determining the law's deterrent effect, though many judges feel that the law does deter acts in public. Almost all the authorities consulted rejected the contention that homosexuals are a menace to society in general or to children in particular.

"This Project, taking the position that the deviant nature of sexual conduct, alone, does not warrant the imposition of criminal sanctions, concludes that only public displays of consensual homosexuality should be the legitimate concern of the criminal law" -- and those to be punished as nuisances, not as heinous crimes.

They proposed replacing the several currently applicable Code sections with a single misdemeanor statute on specific sexual acts or solicitations (homosexual or heterosexual) which risk offending public decency, to be penalized generally by fines or probation, without registration. They recommended abandoning police decoys, entrapment and most clandestine police observation in toilets, but continuing the use of abatement and licensing provisions so as to encourage bar owners to prevent offensive acts on their premises.

While some homophiles will wish the Project had been less cautious, or less inclined to accept, apparently, the view that homosexual behavior does require legal harassment this publication ranks as one of the major documents in the movement toward equitable

Page 9:
legal treatment of homophiles.

THE Board for Homeland Ministries of the United Church of Christ, and the Northern California Conference of that denomination have each voted to contribute $1500 to the work of San Francisco's COUNCIL ON RELIGION AND THE HOMOSEXUAL. Our local treasury has not as yet at any time exceeded $25...

IN A group that has to date been remarkable for the steadiness of its membership, we regret the loss of active participation by the Rev. Lynn Jondahl, who has been promoted to important work in another part of the country. Good luck, Lynn.

Two new homophile organizations recently formed in Los Angeles have been welcomed to the Council. Sparked by girls from Manhattan Beach, the Daughters of Bilitis, after long dormancy, now has a Los Angeles chapter again. P.O. Box 727, Manhattan Beach, Cal. 90266. PRIDE, an all-male group, (P. 0. Box 46545, L.A. 90046) has been formed with a social activities, community service and legal defense program resembling somewhat that of the Society for Individual Rights in San Francisco.

AT suggestion of the CRH up north, several homophile organizations sponsored various forms of protest on Armed Services day, May 21, against the exclusion of homosexuals from the armed forces. Though our Council here did not participate, our Chairman did join in a 13-car motorcade which paraded silently along several of Los Angeles' typically deserted streets. As a result of the motorcade, TANGENTS editor Don Slater and Council members Harry Hay and John Burnside made several television and radio appearances which ably got the message across to a larger audience.
In San Francisco, 300 persons gathered in front of the Federal Building to hear several clergymen (Rev. A. Cecil Williams, Glide Methodist Foundation; Rev. Robt. Cromey, St. Aidan's Episcopal; Rev. Charles Lewis, North Beach Mission) speak in favor of the right of homosexuals freely and openly to serve their country.

TELEVISION access continued to open, as the Rev. Ron Ohlson of the SC-CRH and your editor, James Kepner joined one of the editors of the UCLA Law Report, a psychologist and a homosexual identified only as ''Will", in a brief round on the subject on Louis Lomax generally controversial show on KTTV. This will be continued, it is expected, with a smaller cast but more time, about midnight, July 10, Channel 11.

YMCA Le ad er s, meeting in L.A. late in June, discussed the Y's role in helping a new generation of young adults in the city,. different from any previous generation, many (such as LSD users, and homosexuals) being termed "psychological dropouts," looking for new value systems, instead of either simply rejecting or accepting the old views of God, life and man. In discussions of changing morality, the Y leaders generally agreed that the Y itself is changing, ecumenical now rather than sectarian, and much more oriented to socio-economic thinking - - but trying to get at the real social
issues of contemporary urban life. Certainly, few organizations are better equipped to directly confront the problems of young homophiles.

The illustration on the cover of this newsletter is reprinted by permission from the June 1954 issue of ONE Magazine, and marked the first issue of a homophile publication devoted to considering the religious needs of homophiles.

CONCERN, # 1, published monthly by the Southern California COUNCIL on RELIGION and the HOMOPHILE. Chairman, the Rev. Alex Smith, 813 S. Hope, Los Angeles 90017 Secretary, the Rev. Kenneth Wahrenbrock, 134 N. Kenwood, Glendale, Calif. Editor, James Kepner, 2141 Baxter St., Los Angeles 90039. Price: 10¢ plus postage if needed.