Report on the Councils on Religion and the Homosexual, Jan. 26, 1969, by Foster Gunnison, Jr.

Report on the Councils on Religion and the Homosexual, Jan. 26, 1969, by Foster Gunnison, Jr.

Organization Collection

Repository: National Archive of LGBT History

Page 1:
A Report on the Councils on Religion and the Homosexual
January 26, 1969

by
Foster Gunnison Jr.,
Institute of Social Ethics
Hartford, Conn.

Prepared for:
January 29, 1969 meeting, CRH of New York, Holy Apostle Episcopal Church, New York City.

Page 2:
Out San Francisco way the Methodist Church operates a social service institution called the Glide Urban Center. Its purpose is to provide a bridge between the church and the many and varied social problems afflicting the youth and other residents of that city. In this it is representative of current trends in all of our churches with ministers moving from pulpit to street-corner to tackle first hand the full range of, now well advertised, urban economic and social ills.

San Francisco is also the birthplace and chief operating center of several of our country's leading pioneer homophile organizations - groups of militant homosexuals fighting systematically for an equal place for all homosexuals in a traditionally hostile society. Perhaps this is why San Francisco is sometimes called the "Queen City." The Society for Individual Rights, the Mattachine Society, the all-lesbian Daughters of Bilitis, the league for Civic Education, the Tavern Guild of San Francisco, the Vanguard Society - all are headquartered out there, and all played an important part in the development and support of the unique institution now to be related.

A few years ago a Methodist minister, Theodore Mr. McIlvenna, working out of the Glide Center took a particular interest in the problems of the homosexual. He was well aware of the way our society treats its homosexual citizens, and well aware of the near total failure of the church to do something constructive about it. And so, in the activist spirit characteristic of Glide, Rev. McIlvenna set himself to this perhaps toughest of all churchly tasks, and began approaching the leaders of the San Francisco homophile organizations.

A special retreat was eventually scheduled for the spring of 1964. Sixteen brave and curious ministers of Methodist, Protestant Episcopal, Lutheran, and United Church of Christ denomination met with thirteen militant, skeptical homosexuals from the aforementioned organizations in the now-famous Mill Valley Conference held at the White Memorial Retreat Center in the Golden Gate foothills across the bay from San Francisco.

It was a three day affair during which the homosexual found the church, at least as represented here, not to be the bible-thumping, brimstone-spewing condemner of homosexuals as previously envisioned, and ministers found the homosexual, at least as represented here, not to be the amoral, anti-social, wrist-flipping weirdo of time-honored stereotype.

The conference was indeed a shared experience - a unique and courageous beginning toward rapprochement of historically antithetical views and attitudes. And it was the first time that the American homosexual had been able to establish meaningful communication with a major social institution on a systematic basic.

As a consequence of this exploratory retreat a Council on Religion and the Homosexual, embracing ministers and homophile leaders, the first of its kind anywhere to my knowledge, was incorporated in the State of California as a non-profit educational enterprise.

The council got off to a turbulent start. In order to raise funds for operations, it scheduled a benefit "gay" ball for New Years day of 1965 in a downtown hall in San Francisco, clearing first with the police department and receiving assurances that there would be no police harassment or interference.

Sure enough, the ill-fated ball was raided in classic free-wheeling, swashbuckling style. The hall was saturated with police. Ministers were rough-shouldered aside. Arrests were made on trumped up charges (1) and some of these resulted in convictions.

This was the first time the ministers of the Council were direct witness to a massive anti-homosexual action, not to mention their own abusement. It was a first, dramatic, totally unexpected confrontation with the establishment. They said it as a shocking display of force and crudity, and an unbelievable violation of public word and trust.

If there were any ministers associated with the Council who had harbored lingering doubts about their commitment to this new and controversial enterprise, such doubts were dispelled with finality. And the Council, now fully united, promptly called a press conference and brought a million dollar suit against the City of San Francisco. (2)

Today the Council is represented with clergy from all the major Christian faiths from Unitarian to Roman Catholic, plus professionals from the social sciences, psychiatry, education and the law, and, of course, a full complement of leaders from the homophile organizations.

(1) E.g - a chair collapsed under two spectators who instinctively grabbed each other for support. They were promptly arrested and convicted for disorderly conduct.
(2) The civil suit has not as yet been resolved, but relations with police have improved markedly, and news coverage of the whole affair was extensive.

Page 3:
It is governed by 21 directors elected members at the annual business meetings.

Its purposes are to educate - to dispel myths, ignorance, and combat fear and hostility; to initiate dialogue - encourage discussion; to study - to promote research and increase the appallingly inadequate body of knowledge on the subject of homosexual; to defend and protect homosexuals against abuse - to give practical aid and counseling when homosexuals run into difficult or require guidance in their personal lives.

Its chosen methods are 1) orientation, and 2) confrontation.

It desires that society shall accept homosexuals, and judge all persons on the basis of factors other than sexual preference. In the words of Rev. McIlvenna: "Let us recognize that we are indeed sexual beings, and let us rejoice in our sexuality."

It predicts that as social isolation of the homosexual recedes, and education progresses, all members of society will have their attention directed to the correction of a multitude of governmental, commercial, and private discriminatory laws, policies, practices, and attitudes which today collectively destroy the lives of hundreds, and damage thousands more, and render quite impossible of achievement a truly great society.

Specifically how does the Council function?

First, the Council reaches out to the homophile community itself - out to all homosexuals in the local area. Some serve on the board of the council, others are simply members and attend its regular meetings. Monetary contributions are made to a National Legal Defense Fund - an independent corporation established to fight the long battles through the courts. The Council recently participated directly in a Minneapolis obscenity case which sought to deny homosexuals the right to receive male nude magazines sent through the mails as now permitted to heterosexuals. They fought hard and won.

Homosexuals in despair or in need of a job or a place to live are provided the services of professionals or referred to competent sources. Special aid is given to street youths. San Francisco has many abandoned teenagers roaming its streets and wallowing in alcohol, drugs, and homosexual prostitution. The council supports a hospitality center and helps to rebuild their likes - steering them not away from homosexual orientation, but from its commercialization and exploitative applications.

Second, the Council buttonholes fellow clergy in the religious community. The aim is to promote a re-examination of official church attitudes in these matters, and, if possible, active participation on the Council. Meetings are held with decision-making bodies of the churches. All of the denominations have been approached. Many have responded. Theologians, bishops, priests and lay leaders are consulted individually and in groups. Special seminars and retreats are scheduled from time to time.

Within the congregations of several of the churches, discussion groups - both youth and adult - have started. And the same with student groups in the denominational colleges and the seminaries.

In 1966 the Council sent two delegates all the way to London to participate in a joint U.S.-Great Britain interdenominational conference just on homosexuality and attended by noted researchers and some members of parliament.

Simultaneously it help a 3-day theological seminar in San Francisco likewise dealing solely with homosexuality, and drew clergymen all the way from the Midwest on east to Massachusetts.

And, of course, the work of the council has been documented and discussed in dozen widely circulated church magazines.

Third, the council recruits professionals from other fields - anyone who can be put to work advising, counseling, testing homosexuals, or simply re-education their fellow specialists. The need for action and contribution of of time and services is made clear.

But the Council also responds with help of its own. Research is underwritten. Subjects for testing are rounded up and presented, or contracted through the mails, and research guidance is provided throughout. In addition, the Council itself participates in other organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Friend's Service Committee.

Fourth, the Council challenges public and corporate officials and community leaders. These are tough nuts to crack. Here progress can be agonizingly slow. Such men occupy highly sensitive positions. They are caught in a bind between minority sentiment or personal conscience and unrelenting public opinion or rigid official regulations.

The army chaplain won't touch the problem with a ten foot pole. Naval authorities will show only sporadic interest in a few phases of the problem. Letters to the Civil Service and/or Defense Department are exercises in tail-chasing. But the Council has pursued all of these and many more.

Page 4:
There is, however, occasional progress. A task force for fair employment practices for homosexuals has been organized. Appeals to the police department and Alcoholic Beverage Commission have reduced abuses from these sources. The police have even detailed a public relations officer to maintain continuing liaison with the homophile community. Voter registration drives have been mounted. And along with this, a special candidates' night is held before each election with all candidates invited to attend and express their view. And, it is rumored, woe betide those who don't show up. This may be a bit overstated, but political efforts do seem ready to be having some modest effects.

But, again, the Council responds with help of its own. It participates in a police relations campaign to build good will toward law enforcement officials. It participates in anti-venereal disease drives and educates the homophile community to use of caution. It cooperates with the Office of Economic opportunity in the latter's efforts to salvage and accommodate the lost youths of San Francisco.

Finally, the Council confronts the general public. It advertises to one and all its varied purposes, activities, and achievements, and it seeks every opportunity for publicity to do this. The Council has been interviews and reported in Newsweek, Time, Look, The Nation, the Wall Street Journal, and gets frequent coverage in the San Francisco papers.

It prints and distributes brochures to educate the public. Officers and board members appear on local radio and TV shows. It sends speakers out to high schools, colleges, university graduate seminars, the YMCA, the YWCA, the Junior Chambers of Commerce, women's clubs, and men's fraternal organizations.

And, of course, it holds public forums and symposiums. A brief sampling of speakers shows a sociologist, a rabbi, a representative of the Playboy Foundation, a researcher from the famed Kinsey Institute, a public health official, and the executive director of London;s Albany Trust (an overseas homophile outfit.)

Once in a while the Council will take to the streets in a physical show of support when the occasion suggests. In 1966 a National Protest Day Demonstration was staged on the steps of the city's Federal Building. That same year, after being first promised, and then later denied, a literature booth at the California State Fair in Sacramento, the Council stationed itself at the entrance to the fair grounds - a location far more strategic than any booth could have afforded - and did a brisk business that well expected earlier expectations. And, as usual, newspaper coverage of the entire affair was lavish.

But amid this beehive of activity, certain landmark achievements beyond police relations and political influence stand out.

First, in 1965 the Council wrote and published a document entitled "A Brief of Injustices." This document has stood virtually as a a manifesto for the homophile movement in America. It was the first major, comprehensive statement of grievances to come from the movement and gain respectable circulation. It listed in detail - one by one - all the principal areas of discrimination and abuse to which homosexuals were being subjected. And it called again and again for correction and reform.

Second, through the Council's persistent efforts, the United Church of Christ became the first denomination to officially and publicly declare its commitment to the Council's work and to back this commitment with funds. Today the Council has the financial support of the United Church of Christ's Board of Homeland Ministry and Northern California Council of Churches, plus the Methodist's California Board of Christian Social Concerns and Glide Urban Foundation, plus the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of California, and, of course, the homophile organizations themselves. It has furthermore won the moral support of the National Council of Churches, the Young Democrats of San Francisco, and a variety of local and regional religious and professional groups.

Third, the Council was influential in Protestant Episcopal Bishop Pike's 1965 anointment of a special study committee on homosexuality for the state diocese and his inclusion of homophile representatives on the committee. The committee's sympathetic recommendations for abolishment of abuse and encouragement of future study were adopted by the diocese in 1967.

Fourth, the Council was influential in the 1967 Southern California American Civil Liberties Union official statement condemning state laws impinging on homosexual relationships.

And fifth, two ministers of the Council, excelling in group coordinating and moderating capability filled the first two chairmanships covering the first four annual meetings of the North American Conference of Homophile organizations, and, by virtue of their patience and perseverance and the respect which they as individuals, commanded, these men were key

Page 5:
factors in holding the conferences together in these sensitive early stages long enough to allow them to take firm root and continue on as annual events.

And indeed, the Council as a whole has stood to all homophile organizations everywhere as a symbol of an awakening social conscience of the future, and - a source of inspiration to better their own efforts and not lose heart in the face of public opinion as it exists today.

Now, what about other similar councils around the country? It is difficult to report accurately on this because inter-organizational communications are still somewhat erratic, and, with some exceptions, one is frequently reduced to guesswork unless he does a lot of traveling. I have traveled a little, but the picture can change rapidly from year to year, and sometimes month to month.

In 1965 representatives of the grandady San Francisco Council went to Los Angeles and met with other ministers from that city plus some from Dallas. As a result of this meeting two new Councils on Religion and the Homosexual were started.

Of these, the Los Angeles group appears to have been more successful to date, and indeed probably ranks second only to the San Francisco enterprise in energy and scope of activities.

It meets at least monthly. It operates a counseling center. It has held 3-day retreats and symposiums. It has appeared on local radio and TV. It was publishing its own newsletter for a while, and [illegible]. It has scheduled parties and outings. It even organized an educational field trip to all of the city's bars. And it has taken a great many public forums to which guest speakers are invited, and it makes and and sells duplicated recording tapes of the speeches.

Here is a brief sampling of topics covered in the forums or in the monthly discussion meetings:

Do homosexuals drink to much?
Is "bar-hopping" bad?
Must Male and Female homosexuals hate each other?
Financial security for the homosexual.
On being involved.
Our out-moded sex laws.
New trends in sex morality.
What message does the church have for homosexuals?
How homosexuals look at the bible.
The homosexual's responsibility to the community.

The Dallas Council, on the other hand, after two years of effort, does not appear to have gotten fully off the group as best as I can determine. I do not know why or what can be expected from it in the future.

So much for these two.

In Miami, in 1967, through the personal efforts of a local homophile leader, the Center for Dialogue - a missionary service center, Lutheran I believe, or perhaps interdenominational - took no problem and scheduled monthly discussion meetings for interested homosexuals. There were plans for setting up similar groups in Tampa and a dozen other Florida cities. I do not know if anything ever came of these, nor even if the Miami operation is still functioning. I have not had word from down there in a good many months.

In Hartford, for several years, now, a subdivision of an interdenominational social service sub-committee, by the name of Project "H," has been meeting monthly. Ministers, sociologists, educators, lawyers and other disciplines are represented on it , and it is currently contemplating adding selected members of the homophile community. It offers counseling services as an extension of New York City's venerable George W. Henry Foundation, and it works at public education and legislative reform. It has organized public symposiums, and is now sponsoring a bi-weekly, partially self-sustaining discussion group for local homosexuals. Project "H" is solidly established and rapidly growing in scope and effectiveness. The future for it looks very bright indeed.

Neither of the two foregoing organizations are formally identified as Councils on Religion and the Homosexual, as are the others in this report, and neither are directly affiliated with the national and regional networks of homophile organizations spanning the country. But both work to the same end and follow along essentially similar lines.

There have been reports of a Council in Ottawa, Canada, and I have had one communication form the minister up there. But it has appeared to be an on-again, off-again effort, and its present existence, if any, remains unverified so far as I am able to tell.

Councils were planned for Philadelphia and Chicago with the backing of homophile organizations in those cities, but to

Page 6:
to my knowledge neither ever really got going, and both I believe are now defunct.

A Council did get off the ground in Washington DC a while ago. It lasted for a couple of years or so and then, I understand, evaporated.

Off-hand, I know of no additional Councils current or of the past. But, as said, the picture can change very rapidly, and one is always hearing of this or that enterprise being planned or in the works.

Why do some Councils succeed and others fail? I am not at all sure I know the answer. With one exception my direct experience with these organizations has been next to nil. I am not sure that it matters much. One always seems to have a different opinion as to why these things happen.

I do, of course, hear reports from time to time - about organizations that have failed. I can never know whether they have substance or not. I have heard, for example, that the homophile representatives to a Council were belligerent, or domineering, or defensive beyond what might reasonably be expected. Or that the ministers were apathetic, skeptical, or uncommitted - or perhaps overly committed to the past. Maybe so. Maybe not.

I will hazard a guess, however, and suggest that Councils fail because the initial group is simply weak in leadership and organizing capability, and because no effort is made to function systematically with planned and varied programs relevant to the purpose but of equal interest to ministers and homosexuals. Such programs under strong leadership are the best cure for belligerence, and apathy, and lack of commitment.

I never knew an organization of any kind to fail that had them.