36 20 2500 https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/05ebfc762218195e03aab1606ae8ed9f.jpg 253eaddc4cc76ca7585fc3d8d255669b YouTube Video A video hosted on YouTube. YouTube ID Eleven-character ID assigned by YouTube E_trLvqsUrw Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Herb Donaldson Recalls Widespread Legal Support, Including the ACLU, for the Trial Description An account of the resource From “Shedding a StraightJacket” produced by GLBT Historical Society, October 1996; Paul Gabriel, videographer and curator; Edd Dundas, editor and duplicator. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Repository: <a href="http://www.glbthistory.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GLBT Historical Society</a> https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/b5395651e930e8bcd944fb09196f69ff.jpg 0c4557c9232b2477a8bd631829575dd0 YouTube Video A video hosted on YouTube. YouTube ID Eleven-character ID assigned by YouTube KBRDLgztinA Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lawyer/Activist Rick Stokes Recalls the Social Shifts that Resulted from the California Hall Incident Description An account of the resource From “Shedding a StraightJacket” produced by GLBT Historical Society, October 1996; Paul Gabriel, videographer and curator; Edd Dundas, editor and duplicator. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Repository: <a href="http://www.glbthistory.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GLBT Historical Society</a> https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/d4f41bc3c9b2782c48f9be72d5d39723.jpg a36a6601cbff088313674cf63f7bb561 YouTube Video A video hosted on YouTube. YouTube ID Eleven-character ID assigned by YouTube KtdJ1IwWKNM Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin Tell About CRH Organizing a First Candidates’ Night in 1965 Description An account of the resource From “Shedding a StraightJacket” produced by GLBT Historical Society, October 1996; Paul Gabriel, videographer and curator; Edd Dundas, editor and duplicator. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Repository: <a href="http://www.glbthistory.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GLBT Historical Society</a> https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/33e0bedd31da92673a55b81ff9d2d36c.jpg 69091b148fe615c7245c391d411c8bf5 YouTube Video A video hosted on YouTube. YouTube ID Eleven-character ID assigned by YouTube nLXPwjGoTUo Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Historian Paul Gabriel Talks About the Roles That CRH Played in San Francisco’s LGBT History Description An account of the resource From videorecording of Gay & Lesbian (now GLBT) Historical Society 9th annual dinner on October 14, 1998; produced by Paul Gabriel. https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/0a9b99b3c86db47e65d1e535b2c665b1.jpg bbd3e4ee6c1bb48d6e4076d1ac8190ff YouTube Video A video hosted on YouTube. YouTube ID Eleven-character ID assigned by YouTube fJwGmbEDxQw Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource CRH Founder Ted McIlvenna Reminisces at GLHS 1998 Dinner Description An account of the resource From videorecording of Gay & Lesbian (now GLBT) Historical Society 9th annual dinner on October 14, 1998; produced by Paul Gabriel. https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/bdca0eef0582967d900e152995d71a16.png 92d512c415147560733c81b2f91fda43 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource GLHS 1998 Dinner Photo of 1960s Glide Church Personnel Description An account of the resource (left to right): Paul Gabriel (GLHS), Lloyd Wake, Don Kuhn, Clifford Crummey, Ed Hansen and John Moore. From private papers of Paul Gabriel. https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/bf75541d7fb179083daea48cfc5b5592.png 56706c918989aadfe6a36f35ab1bf12e Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource GLHS 1998 Dinner Photo of Key Players in the California Hall Incident Description An account of the resource (left to right): Herb Donaldson, Lewis Durham, Nancy May, Cecil Williams, Robert Cromey, Fred Bird, Chuck Lewis and Ted McIlvenna. From private papers of Paul Gabriel. https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/76365bfbf7910bd277741545507036d4.pdf fc804536b2d46beec1a62ce6579a35a9 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Page 1: The Gay Lesbian Historical Society of Northern California 9th Annual Fundraising and Awards Dinner Wednesday, October 14, 1998 The Radisson Miyako Hotel, Japantown 1625 Post Street, San Francisco Cocktails 6:00 P.M. Dinner 7:00 P.M. Awardees: For Individual Historic Achievements: Don Lucas and Trinity Ordona For Historic Achievement by a Group: SFSU Human Sexuality Studies Program The GLHS Founders' Award: Council on Religion and the Homosexual (CRH) GLHS Volunteers of the Year: Rod Geddes and Karen Gehrman Page 2: Council on Religion and the Homosexual (Founder's Award) Established as a result of a conference in Mill Valley in 1964, the Council on Religion and the Homosexual (CRH) brought together concerned clergy and activists from the local homophile movement and helped launch a wide-ranging reassessment of traditional religious concepts about human sexuality. The Council pioneered a model of radical change based on coalition politics across lines of difference: class, gender, race, sexuality, and religion. The Council sponsored talks at various seminaries; brought priests, ministers and bishops to the Tenderloin for their first direct contact with homosexuals and the prejudices faced by them; and exercised a quiet and profound effect on hundreds of key clergy throughout the nation. The Council's work led directly to the first celebrated same-gender unions, the first openly gay ordained ministers, the first queer-friendly Christian church (the Metropolitan Community Church), one of the first college-level human sexuality academic studies in the United States (at San Francisco State University), and one of the first and most influential human sexuality education programs, originally part of the original National Drug and Sex Forum, the Institute for the Advance Study of Human Sexuality. The work of the CRH involved mainly the Methodist, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, and Episcopalian churches. The Council helped to establish the Night Ministry, the Suicide Prevention Hotline, Larkin Street Youth Center, Huckleberry House, Central City Poverty Program, and the first citizen-based police watc organization, Citizen's Alert. The original group of active CRH ministers are Rev. Ted Mcllvenna, Rev. Cecil Williams, Rev. Lewis Durham, Rev. Fred Bird (all Methodists), Rev. Robert Cromey (Episcopal), Rev. Charles Lewis (Lutheran), and Rev. Clay Colwell (United Church of Christ). Other key CRH ministers include Rev. Don Kuhn (national outreach), Rev. John Moore (whose two-part sermon on the relationship between Christianity and homosexuality was reprinted on the front page of The Chronicle), Rev. Ed Hansen (co-founder of the Central City Poverty Program and other agencies), and Rev. Bill Johnson (the first openly gay, ordained minister in the U.S.). Activists who helped establish the CRH include Phyllis Lyon, Del Martin, Hal Call, Don Lucas, Rick Stokes, and the infamous three who were arrested at the CRH 1964/65 New Year's Eve Ball at California Hall: Herb Donaldson, Evander Smith, and Nancy May. The police crackdown at the Ball marked a turning point in the press coverage of homosexuals and a change of public opinion. Within two years, San Francisco had its first gay community center, had Candidates' Nights for gay and lesbian voters attended by the likes of Willie Brown, Jr., and Philip and John Burton, saw the first national protest of gay organizations on Armed Forces Day in May 1966, and hosted an international CRH conference and a national convention of gay organizations in August 1966. The work of the CRH continues through other organizations to this day. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource GLHS 1998 Dinner Program Description An account of the resource From private papers of Paul Gabriel. https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/db2f2b23bcf33abbbb169b7fb4c7e6d5.pdf dd0582780b2ae21ecabdf04100d7a14d Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Page 1: San Francisco's Stonewall Raid on Gay Dance Shoot Up the City by Allen White On Jan. 1, 1965 a growing gay community used a New Year's Day dance part to make a stand for their rights. It was, many believe, San Francisco's Stonewall. Unlike New York City, San Francisco's gay community had been growing and developing for almost a decade. Jose Sarria had already run for public office, becoming the first openly gay person to do so. Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin had founded the Daughters of Bilitis, the first lesbian rights organization in the country. Gay men had joined together to form the Society for Individual Rights. Hal Call had formed the Mattachine Society. Social Clubs had formed like the Coits and the bar owners had organized the Tavern Guild. It was a community that was becoming increasingly visible. Against that visibility was the contact threat of police harassment. Undercover police were assigned to go into gay bars and arrest people for simply toughing or hugging each other. Holding hands was an arrestable offense. The turning point came with a dance sponsored by the Council for Religion and the Homosexual. The organization was the concept of the Rev. Ted McIlvenna, then a young adult director at Glide Church. Working with him was the Rev. Cecil Williams. At the time, Williams had been at Glide for less than a year. Also in the pack of ministers was the Rev. Robert Cromey, who at the time was a special assistant to Episcopal Bishop James Pike, the Rev. Clarence Calwell of the United Church of Christ and Chuck Lewis of the Lutheran's North Beach Mission. The purpose of the ball was to raise funds to "create a dialogue between the church and the homosexual," said organizers. What they really created was a lavish party with an orchestra and a show. The location was the old California Hall on Polk Street near Turk, which now houses the Culinary Academy. The police furnished the drama. Prior to the dance they set up floodlights outside the hall. As each person arrived they were photographed. Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin had arrived early, before the police. They were at the ticket table. "I remember the people all looked stunned as they came in the front door." It would be later in the evening before they found out reach had run a gauntlet of police cameras. Herb Caen would report the following week that the police took more than four hours of footage at the event. "Longer than Cleopatra," Caen said, "and probably better." Outside on the street, the ministers gathered and observed. The ministers were outraged. "The police department wanted to deal more in theology rather than open up dialogue," Williams said, "We see you're married, how do your wives accept this?" There were three lawyers who were present to deal with any legal problems. Before the night ended they would all be in jail. Two of the attorneys were Elliot Leighton and Arroyo Seco. The third attorney who was arrested that night was Herb Donaldson. He would later Page 2: become the secondly openly gay person in California to be appointed to a judgeship. He now sits on the San Francisco Municipal Court. They arrested Nancy May, who worked for the Teamsters, because she complained of the treatment. She was charged with obstructing justice. The entertainment for the night was Franklin. Gene Boche, who many know as Bella, remembers the show as "fabulous." "Franklin wore this incredible white jewel gown and came out in front of a 25-piece orchestra," Boche said. Franklin is a hair stylist in the Fairmont Hotel. Wearing the white gown and a Barbara Streisand-styled blond wig, the entertainer came out of the orchestra, one time playing the violin, another time playing the trumpet. "The band leader played the trumpet off stage," he remembers. His big number was an impersonation of Marlene Dietrich. "They had created an outfit made of 1,500 balloons. I will never forget coming out and singing 'You're the Cream in My Coffee.'" As he performed, the police descended on the 500 people in the building. "It was really scary," Franklin said. "It seemed so safe." Franklin had a hard time seeing the crowd because of the lights. He just knew there was commotion. Somewhere between 20 and 40 police officers descended on the hall. Phyllis Lyon remembers that two people were standing on folding chairs to watch the show. As the chairs began to collapse, the two grabbed for each other. The two—Konrad Osterreich of Los Angeles and Jon Borset who worked as a display person on Pine Street—whose touching was deemed by police to be lewd were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct. As was the case in those days, part of the punishment was to have your name and where you worked published in the San Francisco Chronicle. Bob Cramer was one of dozens of people who had tickets for the event. "As drove up I could see all the police and the lights." Like most gays in those days, he drove on. The dance was held on a Friday night. On Saturday, the ministers held a news conference, angrily denouncing the police. They accused the police of "intimidation and obvious hostility. The Rev. McIlvenna said the police told them that "that they thought were being used by various homosexual organizations in this city." McIlvenna also said, "It was a very well run ball. After the police forced their way in, it took them more than an hour to find anything wrong." The following week then Mayor John Shelley ordered then-Police Chief Thomas Cahill to conduct an investigation. Raids were nothing new to gays in San Francisco. What was different was the public attention. The ministers had focused attention on the event way that had never before been done. Straights in San Francisco were exposed to the gay community through the eyes of the ministers. It made the difference and the relationship between the police, gays, the church and city government would never be the same again. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource <i>San Francisco’s Stonewall: Raid on Gay Dance Shoot Up the City</i> by Allen White Description An account of the resource Published in Bay Area Reporter, June 22, 1989. From research papers of James Waller. https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/8ec5fd256eb6375740053c1c08495371.pdf d4f91fe607386c2fa128203e5ed71e6d Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document California Hall A Night to Remember At its January 21st meeting, the San Francisco Bay Area Gay and Lesbian Historical Society will be remembering the infamous 1965 California Hall confrontation between the San Francisco Police Department and the gay community. For a generation of lesbian and gay San Franciscans, this incident marked a watershed in the City's gay history. In their book Lesbian/Woman, long-time gay activists Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon proclaim that California Hall ''will long be remembered in the history of the homophile movement.'' What happened at California Hall on the night of January 1st, 1965? Why is it so important? For the majority of lesbian and gay men, San Francisco gay life in the early 1960's was far from easy. Gay bars like the Black Cat and the Jumping Frog were frequently raided. Police harassment on the streets was common. Many gay bars were forced to make payoffs to the Vice Squad to avoid persecution. Early homophile groups like the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis lacked the political power to fight this oppression. It was often scary and dangerous to be gay. In 1962 Ted McIlvenna, a young minister and social worker from Kansas City, arrived at Glide Memorial Methodist Church. From talking with gay members of his Tenderloin congregation, McIlvenna developed an understanding of the problems facing San Francisco's gay community. He began to organize meetings between local church leaders and members of the homophile movement. As a result, in December 1964 the Council on Religion and the Homosexual was formed. The initial fundraising event for the new organization was to be a New Year's Eve dance. Scheduled for the California Hall on Polk Street, the dance was sponsored by six San Francisco gay organizations. The entire gay community was invited, as well as interested clergy and their families. The San Francisco Police Department viewed these plans as deliberate provocation. On the evening of the dance over fifty police officers descended on California Hall. They harassed and intimidated the guests, photographing all who entered. They eventually arrested four people: three attorneys and a ticket-taker. Yet over five hundred lesbians and gay men braved harassment and arrest, and crossed the police line to enter. The Police Department had won a victory that evening but it was short-lived. Shocked at the incident they had witnessed, concerned clergy from the Council on Religion and the Homosexual called a press conference the next day at Glide to publicly protest. The ACLU took up the cases of the four arrested, and all were eventually found not guilty. The well-publicized court cases gave the gay community its first taste of power and radically redefined its relationship with the police. No longer would it tolerate police harassment. We owe a great deal to the lesbians and gay men who passed the police cameras and risked arrest to demand their civil rights. They were our community's early freedom fighters. Please join the Historical Society in honoring these San Francisco heroes on January 21st. Eric Garber Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource <i>California Hall: A Night to Remember</i> by Eric Garber Description An account of the resource Published in San Francisco Bay Area Gay & Lesbian Historical Society Newsletter, volume 1, number 2, December 1985. From research papers of James Waller. https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/861d0e2bd0bf4d56cc397af1ddfbcaac.pdf f1d86ed7a76a08dda68157f08c09e256 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Page 1: frank fitch REMEMBER CALIFORNIA HALL "THE BLACK PIPE 21" is a rallying cry in Los Angeles today that refers to the arrest of 21 persons at a H.E.L.P. fund-raising party in the Black Pipe in August of last year. Many of the different factions of the Gay community of that city are banding together to meet the threat of police oppression, and the result is -a greatly enhanced sense of communitas. That feeling of sharing in a task, against which is set a great deal of opposition, is the best insurance that Gays will not fall prey to the tendency to attack one another, rather than the true antagonists. Also, from that feeling can come the broad support from the Gay community that is so necessary to achieve the goals of Gay Liberation. Eight years ago, the cry in San Francisco was "REMEMBER CALIFORNIA HALL." This refers to the January 1st, 1965 raid by fifty-five Vice Officers of a Mardi Gras Ball at California Hall. This ball was planned to raise money for the newly-formed Council on Religion and the Homosexual, an organization composed of Gays and Ministers and dedicated to improving relations between churches and Gay people. The reaction by Gays in San Francisco to this police outrage was largely responsible for the rapid growth of gay organizations such as the Society for Individual Rights, which had been formed the year before. In order to better understand this period in the history of the Gay movement, I turned to S.l.R. members Evander Smith and Herb Donaldson, two of the attorneys who stood up to the police and said, "No More!" They asked me why I was interested in events that took place back in 1965. Mainly, I said, because there are gay people today who were not here when it was the police practice to back a paddy wagon up to the door of a bar and herd all the Gays into it. The next day, their names and addresses would appear in the daily paper, jobs would be lost and families would be notified in the worst possible way. Not only must those who have never experienced that kind of oppression be aware that it was common and that from that kind of cruel and unusual punishment grew the indignation so necessary to the birth of a liberation movement, but also so they can be prepared to never let those days return. The large increase of gay arrests under the present Mayor must not be allowed to spiral upward, but rather be replaced with a concentration on crimes of violence against persons and property, so that all citizens can be secure in their own city. So we can learn from a study of the past, why Gay organizations burst out of their respectable closets to demand the rights accorded to other citizens. Many gains have been handed to us today by these fearless men and women. It is meet that we should build upon the foundation already laid, but not take for granted the sacrifices that were required for us to obtain the simple right to assemble in a public place to socialize and dance. So here is a story of bravery, in a time when it was rare for gay people to be so bold. Hal Call and Don Lucas called Herb Donaldson to tell him that the Council on Religion and the Homosexual, which he and Evander Smith had incorporated, was to have a Ball. But the Mattachine and CRH were anticipating some difficulty, because they had heard from the Police Department. Evander made the point that all the groups of that time cooperated very closely, for they were still somewhat newly born into an environment that did not welcome their arrival. The Daughters of Bilitis, The Mattachine Society, the Society for Individual Rights were all working together for the Ball that was to raise some money for brand-new CRH. A meeting was held at the Mattachine offices with Evander, Herb, Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin of DOB, Bob Cromey, an assistant to Bishop Pike, and others. The meeting had barely begun when Rudy Nieto and Dick Castro of the Vice Squad "burst in Iike gangbusters." They let the people there know unequivocally that if they went ahead with the plans for the Ball, there would be some busts. Evander and Herb told the group that they had a legal right to hold their dance and that they would be there to act as their attorneys. The night of the Ball, which was New Year's Day 1965, Herb and Evander parked their car and walked up to California Hall. It was early, about seven-thirty, with the dance not scheduled to begin until eight or nine. Even at that time, there were police cars parked about and a police photographer snapping pictures as people went in. They checked with the people at the door who were collecting the invitations. There were certain guidelines they had set up to safeguard the private nature of the affair. Page 2: They weren't there but a couple of minutes, and there several plain-clothes policemen, who were known by sight, and came in to check around. They were allowed in to look around, for as Herb put it, "We had nothing to hide; there was nobody violating any law." Within a few minutes after they arrived, another group came while the first group was still looking around. Then the first group left, and yet another group came. Very soon after the third group of police arrived, the attorneys had a conference between themselves. "We said, in effect, 'No more.' We've shown good faith and the last police officer has made his inspection. So the next group came and that was Officers Nieto, Castro and Margaret Hartman. And we said, 'No! You can't come in!' I think they were nonplussed; they didn't know what to do. They had never had any Gay tell them that before." They stood there, side by side, arms folded, and said "You 're not going in." Evander took over the narrative: "While we're standing there, Herbert and I are embarrassed, because we're not actors; we're fearful, because we don't know whether this thing is going to get out of hand, or not; we feel tremendous responsibility, because we have encouraged these organizations to do this, knowing that they've either got to do it or realize they can never do it. So in the meantime, we've got lots of people onlooking. We've got ministers packed against the wall, at least a dozen with their wives. Loudly enough that everyone would hear what was going on, because we felt that this was teaching class where everybody could learn how to do this in the future, we quoted the law to the police. We were really naive enough to believe that these policemen were going to respect the law, and the farthest thing from either of our imaginations was that they would violate the law by arresting anyone. So while we are standing there, we are explaining in a gentlemanly manner, just as we would to a judge in court, what the law is in regard to peaceful assembly. We then told the policemen what their rights are and what the requirements are for them to be able to come in: that they must be chasing someone, or have reason to believe that a felony or misdemeanor is being committed in their presence. And we were giving them legal citations for all of these things. And asking them questions, such as, 'Do you see anyone violating the law?' or 'Did you chase anyone into the building?' or 'Do you have reason to believe that a felony or misdemeanor is being committed? If so, please tell us, and we will let you into the building.' To all of these questions, they would not answer us. Now you must understand that the hallway was eight to ten feet wide and Herbert and I were taking up only about three feet of that space in standing side by side. So we were not physically preventing policemen from entering the hall. We were just, all within our legal rights, denying them permission to enter. But the police took the position in their own minds that they had a right to pass over the space that we were occupying. And we told them, from the moment they came in, that we were not going to move and that they were to get out, after we verified that they had no right to be there. At some point, when they refused to get out, we sent someone to call the police, on the police." Herb interjected that "in the meantime, there were more and more police officers crowding in the door; they were kind of incredulous that they were, somehow, being denied access." Evander continued, "Our procedures were being followed so well; Del Martin, Nancy May, Phyllis Lyon, and one of the ministers' wives were demanding of the police, as they were coming in the door, an invitation. When they saw the police didn't have an invitation, they would ask them to leave. So, while Herbert and I are doing our bit, these women are over there, very brave, calling the Hargrave detectives over and asking them to evict these people because they don't have tickets. So finally they left." "Then in a matter of five minutes or so," Herb said, "there was this surge of uniformed police and we were placed under arrest. They did not tell us what we were arrested for, although we did ask the reason for our arrest. We were taken out; we were photographed a multitude of times, as we were taken out, as we were led up to the paddy wagon an sitting in the paddy wagon. This all took place, still very early, about nine o'clock - early because they wanted to nip it in the bud." At that time they had spotlights outside and they were taking moving pictures of our arrest and of the guests entering the hall. But, by God, I say one has to admire the guts of the people who were just arriving, who just walked in with all the spotlights, photographers, the uniformed police, the paddy wagon, the lawyers being hauled off... " "Some of them holding American flags," Evander added. "See, we knew there would be trouble, so everybody came prepared, so as Herbert says, you've got to admire those people who had the courage to come there under those circumstances. For this wasn't 1973." "No, it wasn't," Herb added. "Some Page 3: of the Gays these days forget what it was like. It was a very brazen thing to have a drag ball that wasn't on Halloween. We were allocated Halloween and nothing else and finally the Gay community said 'Fuck you, we're going to put on a dress anytime we want to.' This was the wedge that opened the door that we have been streaming through ever since." Evander called attention to the ministers. "We must give credit to the ministers. They were wonderful." Some of the names they remembered were: Bob Cromey, Chuck Lewis, Ted McIlvenna, Clay Caldwell, Neal Seager, Fred Byrd, Lew Durham, and Cecil Williams. In fact, while we were sitting in the paddy wagon, Cecil came out and he asked us if it would help us if they were arrested. And we said, 'No, it will be better with you as witnesses, rather than as co-defendants. The ministers, to a man, were ready to take up the position that Herbert and I had." Later, after Evander and Herb had been whisked away, the police arrested Nancy May, then political chairperson of S.I.R., for demanding tickets of the entering policemen, and telling them to get out when they admitted they had no tickets. Also, Don Lucas and Hal Call called Elliot Layton, an attorney who was not gay. But the moment they told him that two attorneys had been arrested for exercising their first amendment rights, he couldn't get there fast enough. Upon arriving, he was briefed as to what had happened, whereupon he went up to the police and repeated what Evander and Herb had said and ordered them out. No sooner had the words escaped his mouth and they arrested him. Later still, after midnight, two guests at the Ball were arrested for lewd and lascivious conduct ... they were alleged to have kissed each other at the stroke of midnight in celebration of the new year. After arriving at the jail, Evander and Herb made a call to an attorney in their office building, who called Judge Glickfield. The judge immediately called down to the jail and ordered their release forthwith on their own recognizance This was after they had been held in a holding cell for several hours and been booked. So nearly four hours after their arrest, they arrived back at the party and found the place in a shambles. Most of the guests had by this time left, after the additional arrests. The next day, which was a Saturday, the ministers held a press conference which was well covered by the media - their pictures were on the front page of the Sunday paper. They said they had consulted with the police in advance Page 4: obtained all the necessary permits, received the word of the police that everything was in order and that word was violated. They stated that all of the guests, including themselves, were lawfully and peacefully assembled, and reported what they had seen the police do - the photographing, the spotlights, the harassing searches through the premises and the arrests without cause. On Monday, Evander Smith received a call from the corporation he worked for as their attorney and was told that his services were no longer needed because his name had been in the papers in connection with this matter. They both received numerous calls from attorneys who volunteered to assist. They also found out that a copy of the police report had been gratuitously furnished to the State Bar Association. They were offered a chance to accept plea bargaining, wherein they could plead guilty to a lesser charge, and they refused, deciding to plead not guilty, which, of course, they knew themselves to be. The four-and-a-half-day trial was held before Judge Leo Friedman, the presiding judge of the court, who decided to hold the case in his court due to the constitutional questions involved. At the end of the prosecution's case, the District Attorney announced to the court that he 'rest.' The Judge said, "Well, are you tired?" The D.A. said no. Then the Judge said, "Why did you say that you wanted to rest?" The D.A. said, "Well, I rest the case." The Judge responded, "Well, I've been thinking that if I sat here long enough I would find out what the case you have is. Now what case are you talking about? You have presented no case." He turned to the attorneys and asked if they had anything to say. They responded that they moved for an advised verdict, since there had been no violation of law shown by the prosecution. So the judge turned to the jury, and spoke to them for nearly an hour, telling them that he had been practicing law for nearly fifty years, and never in his experience had he seen any case as flimsy as this one. That the prosecution had no case, had not shown any violation of any law, and that although he could not order them to come back with a not-guilty verdict, they would be well advised to do so. Then with a big smile he said facetiously, "If you come back with a guilty verdict, I will set it aside and hold you in contempt of court." The jury was out twenty minutes, and when they came back, with the not-guilty verdict, the Judge asked in his most gruff voice, "What took you so long?" And the foreman, a cute young woman, said, "Well, you told us we had to elect a foreman, didn't you?" He said yes. "Well," she said, "it took us fifteen minutes." We must not allow the humor of the Judge's treatment of the D.A.'s whispy case to detract our attention from the seriousness of the import of the arrests and trial. The attorneys were able to bring out during the trial the preparations the police had made before the dance. They had made up numerous cards with numbers on them, the first six of which were held up before the people who were arrested when they were photographed. The reason for so many cards was that the police had anticipated making at least fifty arrests. They had a Captain sitting in a car with "all this electronic equipment. It was like a battle station and he was the battle commander." Evander and Herb conjectured as to their change of mind about the mass arrests, which we have to remember were quite common in those days. They feel that the police decided, once they had arrested the attorneys, that they would make it or break it with them. But they feel that if they had not gone through with it, if they had not taken a stand, then there would have been at least fifty arrests of other people that night. Perhaps, once the police had arrested some attorneys, they felt that they had done a serious thing and perhaps they should slow down and see how they did with them. It also came out at the trial that the police took all the photographs. of the guests entering the hall, whom they admitted they had no reason to arrest, for 'intelligence.' It turned out that 'intelligence' meant furnishing these pictures to other police departments and generally spreading them around. There were about fifty-five police officers assigned to California Hall that night to make arrests and take photographs. This was a very serious stand that was taken, a first stand, and one that galvanized the gay community at that time. Not only was it considered, with much justification, to be dangerous to take a stand against police oppression and mass arrests, it was dangerous even to be associated with a Gay organization. The groups of that time chose names such as 'Mattachine,' 'League for Civil Education' and so on, that never used the word 'Gay' or 'homosexual' in the name. Many, many people did not use their real names in these groups. There were no pickets or protests. No confronting politicians with our problems and needs. For Gay people who were arrested, "the last thing they wanted was for their name to be used in any way.'' They would plead guilty to any charge the D.A. offered in an attempt to avoid publicity. They would not notify any of the Gay organizations of the time of their arrest, let alone call asking for an attorney competent to handle their case, as is done now. As we know, there are a number of people who even today must fear for their custody of their children, even their very livelihoods, in the event of any publicity about being Gay. But not like it was in 1965 and before. No longer is it common practice for the daily paper to print the name and address of every person arrested as a Gay person. No longer does it mean instant dismissal from your job, whatever it may be, just for being Gay. Some Gay people are winning the right to retain custody of their own children. So we have come a long way from the dark ages of the beginning of the Gav movement. A great deal of progress has been made. But it is not enough. It will never be enough, until we as Gay people. until all people, are free to be whatever it is that we are. Not just free of fear, free of intimidation and oppression, but free to be proud and confident in the knowledge that all people will be judged on their merit, not on their differences from some standard or norm. That is why the stand that these people took was important, as a first giant step in this direction. That is why their decision to join the Society for Individual Rights and take a leadership role within it was so important and still is. The need for people with talent to join together to advance the cause of liberation is still great As Evander said, Gays, like Blacks, Chicanos, Women, and all groups discriminated against are Human Beings and there are rights and a certain respect that is due all human beings. When this is not the case, as Herb said, "You've got to organize. If you want to get anywhere politically, you organize. If you want to get anywhere as a Gay, you'd better organize. You'd better know who is in your corner, and you'd better have a corner to operate from. It's fine to say, oh, we just believe ourselves to be human beings and we shouldn't regard ourselves as Gays. But it's not very realistic. We are homosexuals! We are homosexuals in a society which, although they may tolerate us at times, still, by and large, regards us as oddballs, kooks, freaks, fags. And as long as we are operating in a society that is like that, we'd better be organized." DON'T FORGET! THE S.I.R. "BUY GAY" AUCTION Sunday, FEBRUARY 25th at 3:00 p.m. SIR CENTER 83 6th St. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource <i>Remember California Hall</i> by Frank Fitch Description An account of the resource Published in <i>Vector</i>, February 1973, pages 32-35. From private papers of Chuck Lewis. https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/fd21c755f8167afbadf4467a43e9bb52.pdf 02fe70b44b54977f9da56a8fed821e26 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Page 1: SYMPOSIUM on the Life-Styles of the Homosexual The conference examines "homosexuality," a societally-defined term that describes sexual activities departing from a "norm" of activities known as "heterosexual." Also societally-defined by that "norm" is the person engaging in homosexual activities, the "homosexual." While the words are useful in communications, they are far too limiting in their meaning and far too devastating in their connotations to be useful much longer. The conference is not about a sex act or even about sexual activities except insofar as such acts and activities are a part of any life-style. The conference is about a minority of people in our nation who have been forced by society's misunderstanding of human sexuality into an oppressive existence. That existence and their struggle to energy from its oppressiveness is the subject matter of symposium. Most conferences on the subject of homosexuality lean heavily on the testimony of professional "experts" whose experience has been limited to contact with those in therapy or in trouble with the law. No authentic picture of homosexuality or of heterosexuality can be drawn from such a segment of the population. Such "professional" information has succeeded, until recently, only in reinforcing the myths and stereotypes that have victimized gay people for so long. If there are experts, lesbians and gay men are those experts, and they will be the resource people that CRH will call upon for its symposium. The weekend will be an opportunity for persons unacquainted with homosexuality to meet and rap with up-front lesbians and gay men - with people from an increasingly open and vocal segment of the country's population who affirm themselves as human beings and their life-styles as humanly valuable. Page 2: Some Ground Rules The symposium is designed primarily for members of the "straight" community, particularly for professionals in counseling fields (teachers, lawyers, social workers, doctors, psychiatrists, clergy). Persons who are closely associated with the gay community and who are already familiar with the material to be covered are encouraged not to attend. Application forms must be received by October 22. The $25.00 registration fee covers resource materials, Friday and Saturday dinner and events. It does not include housing or other meals. We will furnish a list of convenient hotels and restaurants if you wish. Since the symposium is demanding both in time and in content, we expect that you will not register unless you are committed to the full program. Task groups of six or eight people will provide continuous opportunity for dialogue throughout the weekend. Participants closely associated with each other will, without exception, be placed in different groups so that there can be uninhibited participation. SYMPOSIUM on The Life-Styles of The Homosexual October 29-31, 1971 San Francisco, California SUPPORTING CHURCHES United Church of Christ United Methodist Church California Diocese of the Episcopal Church North Beach Mission Lutheran Church FROM PREVIOUS SYMPOSIA "...Every congregation needs this experience." -Seminary Professor "...Tremendous personal experience, should be repeated annually." -Seminary Student "...An outstanding success." -Clinical Psychologist "...It really blew my mind," -Teacher "...One of the most fantastic style experiences I have ever had." -Student "...Best symposium I have attended in my professional life." -Doctor The objective of the Council on Religion and the Homosexual is to promote continuing dialogue between gay people and the heterosexual would in which they live. Additional information on the activities and goals of CRH is available at: CRH, 330 Ellis Street, San Francisco. Phone Phyllis Lyon at (415) 771-6300 Photographs by Constance Beeson Page 3: Symposium Oct. 29-31 Application Blank Name ___ Address ___ City ___ State ___ Zip ___ Profession ___ Students please indicate if graduate or undergraduate and major ___ Will you have a car available to you during the Symposium? Yes_No_ Age Range 18-21_ 21-30_ 30-40_ 40-50_ 50 or older_ If you know of other persons who should receive this brochure, please enclose names and addresses with your registration form. Enclosed is $___ for ___ (number of registrants at $25.00 each) Please make checks payable to The Council on Religion and the Homosexual or to CRH. REGISTRATION IS LIMITED EARLY APPLICATION URGED Registration will begin at 9a.m. on Friday, October 29, at the Glide Foundation, 330 Ellis Street, San Francisco. All morning sessions begin promptly at 10 a.m. Donuts and coffee will be available. Friday dinner will be at gay bars and restaurants, and on Saturday in gay homes. During the weekend there will be optional visits to Halloween festivities going on in the homophile community. The weekend will be devoted to panel/forum presentations by gay women and men and to discussions in small groups with two gay people serving as enablers. The areas of exploration will be wide, undoubtedly touching on: HOW GAY PEOPLE LIVE WITH (OR WITHOUT) ONE ANOTHER: gay marriages; the question of monogamy/monandry or plural relationships; the meaning of commitment, love and/or romantic love; bisexuality: evasion or vision? homosexuality as a part of human sexuality; gay bars; the drag queen; the butch/femme roles. GAY PEOPLE'S PARTICULAR OPPRESSION: discrimination in employment, housing, social functions; the "sickness" theory; being a teenager and gay; the lesbian mother; the law and the lesbian, the law and the gay man; the military; gay convicts; the meaning of "coming out" - emotionally, physically, publicly; the gay man and the heterosexual church; the lesbian and God-the-Father. THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS IN 1971 OF BEING GAY: the Gay Liberation movement - convictions and tactics; the lesbian and the women's movement; radical lesbians; the homophile movement and how it grew. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 1971 Symposium Brochure Description An account of the resource Phyllis Lyon & Del Martin Papers. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Repository: <a href="http://www.glbthistory.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GLBT Historical Society</a> https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/0bf6430f46c4730c01fa427a1ebd0554.pdf 12636c4547ae534872784566a19493b8 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Page 1: THE OBJECTIVE OF THE COUNCIL ON RELIGION AND THE HOMOSEXUAL IS TO PROMOTE CONTINUING DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY AND HOMOSEXUALS IN ORDER TO DO THIS, AND IN ENDEAVORING TO UNDERSTAND BETTER THE BROAD SPECTRUM OF VARIATION IN HUMAN SEXUALITY, CRH SETS FORTH THESE GOALS AND PURPOSES: To orient members of religious communities on aspects of homosexuality in accordance with homosexual testimony and available scientific data. To study systematically the deeper dynamics of authentic human relationships from the biblical, theological and social science perspectives. To encourage members of the religious communities to provide opportunities for homosexuals of both sexes to present their views of homosexuality to various religious organizations. To open up channels of communication so that members of the religious communities may engage in dialogue with homosexuals in order to bring about new and deeper understanding of sexuality, morality, ethical behavior and the life of religious faith. To engage in res ear ch which will further understanding of homosexuality within the larger framework of the present sexual revolution. To enlist the aid of religious publications and other media in working toward a broadened editorial policy including more accurate and objective articles on homosexuality. To provide an effective voice throughout the nation in matters of laws, policies and penal reforms governing adult sexual behavior. To help professional people working in mental health and counseling fields to understand better their role in dealing with problems of human sexuality in our society with special reference to young people. To instigate the formation of similar councils on religion and the homosexual in other areas of the nation and the world. WHAT IS A HOMOSEXUAL, A STATEMENT ISSUED IN AUGUST, 1966, BY DOCTOR JOEL FORT, PUBLIC HEALTH SPECIALIST AND SOCIOLOGIST CRIMINOLOGIST; DOCTOR EVELYN G. HOOKER, RESEARCH PSYCHOLOGIST UCLA; DOCTOR JOE K. ADAMS PSYCHOLOGIST AND FORMER MENTAL HEALTH OFFICER IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, should be treated as individual human beings, not as a special group, either by law or social agencies or employers. Laws governing sexual behavior should be reformed to deal only with clearly anti-social behavior involving violence or youth. The sexual behavior of individual adults by mutual consent in private should not be a matter of public concern. Some homosexuals, like some heterosexuals, are ill: some homosexuals, like some heterosexuals, are pre-occupied with sex as a way of life. But probably for a majority of adults their sexual orientation constitutes only one component of a much more complicated life style. " ... HOMOSEXUALITY IS NO EVIDENCE OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY... "Dr. Norman Reider " ... CURRENT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SHOWS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR CLASSIFYING HOMOSEXUALS AUTOMATICALLY AS PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITIES." Dr. Judd Marmor. "HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR CANNOT POSSIBLY BE INTERPRETED AS EVIDENCE OF PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY. "Dr. Harry Benjamin "HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A PATHOLOGY IN ITSELF NOR NECESSARILY A SYMPTOM OF SOME OTHER PATHOLOGY." Dr. PaulH. Gebhard "IT IS GROSSLY INACCURATE TO CONFOUND PSYCHOPATHIC OR SOCIOPATHIC CHARACTERISTICS WITH SEXUAL PREFERENCE." Dr. Ray B. Evans " .... IN MY JUDGMENT, HOMOSEXUALITY IS NEITHER A BODILY DISEASE,NOR A MENTAL ILLNESS, NOR A SYMPTOM OR MANIFESTATION OF 'PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY'." Dr. Thomas S. Szasz "THE AVAILABLE DA TA INDICATE ANY HOMOSEXUAL WOULD BE NO MORE LIKELY TO BE PSYCHOPATHIC THAN ANY RANDOMLY SELECTED HETEROSEXUAL." Dr. Peter M. Bentler " ... JUST AS HETEROSEXUALITY CANNOT BE AUTOMATICALLY EQUATED WITH HEALTHY PERSONALITIES, SO IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EQUATE HOMOSEXUALITY WITH PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY." Dr. Lester Kirkendall FROM THE FIRST SYMPOSIUM... " ... TREMENOOUS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, SHOULD BE REPEATED ANNUALLY," Seminary Student. " ..... AN OUTSTANDING SUCCESS." Clinical Psychologist " ... IT REALLY BLEW MY MIND" Teacher " ... ONE OF THE MOST FANTASTIC STYLE EXPERIENCES I HAVE EVER HAD." Student " .... BEST SYMPOSIUM HAVE ATTENDED IN MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE. " Doctor A UNIQUE EVENT SYMPOSIUM ON THE LIFE STYLE OF THE HOMOSEXUAL Sponsored by: THE COUNCIL ON RELIGION AND THE HOMOSEXUAL, INC. in cooperation with members of DAUGHTERS OF BILITIS. INC. MATTACHINE SOCIETY.INC. SOCIETY FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, INC. TAVERN GUILD OF SAN FRANCISCO,INC .. NATIONAL SEX AND DRUG FORUM Supporting churches: UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH CALIFORNIA DIOCESE OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH NORTH BEACH MISSION LUTHERAN CHURCH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 24-26, 1969 Page 2: THE LIFE STYLE OF THE HOMOSEXUAL Symposium, October 24-26, 1969 APPLICATION BLANK MAIL TO: The Council on Religion and the Homosexual, Inc. 330 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Please make checks payable to The Council on Religion and the Homosexual or to CRH ENCLOSED IS ( amount ) $ ------- FOR (number of registrants) ------- AT $25 EACH NAME ADDRESS --------------- CITY ---------------- STA TE ---------- ZIP---- PROFESSION Students, please indicate if graduate or undergraduate and major: ______ _ Will you have a car available to you during the Symposium? Yes _ No _ Age Range: 18-21_ 21-30_ 30-40_40-50_ 50 or older_ If you know of other persons who should receive this brochure, please enclose names and addresses with your registration form. REGISTRATION IS LIMITED EARLY APPLICATION IS URGED Deadline is October 20. EARLY APPLICATION IS URGED. WHY THIS SYMPOSIUM? Because conventional methods of gaining information about homosexuality leave large holes, this symposium is designed to fill in the gaps, to provide a forum in which professional persons ( doctors, clergymen, social workers. etc. ) may talk to as well as about homosexuals. Most conferences on the subject of homosexuality are based upon the testimony of professional "experts" whose experience has been limited to contact with those in therapy or those in trouble with the law. This conference provides a rare opportunity for the professional person to get a more rounded perspective of the homosexual by visiting the homophile community and gaining a first hand view of the homosexual subculture. For, just as a true evaluation of heterosexuality cannot be based on the small segment of the heterosexual population which gets in trouble, the professional "experts" cannot possibly provide a total view of the homophile community from their small, selected sample. The Symposium will be of utmost value to all who, in ·their professional work, are called upon to counsel youth or young adults. But more, it will be a unique opportunity to unlearn stereotypes fostered by myth and misinformation and to meet head-on the humanity and humanness of the homosexual. PROGRAM "THE LIFE STYLE OF THE HOMOSEXUAL'' A story that can only be told by those who live it. Speakers from the homophile community will present material covering a wide scope of topics which are representative of problems and concerns confronting the homosexual in today's world. They will include: • Isolation • Creation of sub-cultures • Homophile movement • Drag • Gay "marriage" • Gay bars • Literature and research • Lesbianism • Youth and the new generation of militants • The law - civil as well as penal law reform The draft • Employment discrimination • Counseling • Multi-media presentation on sexuality Formal presentations will be followed by in depth discussions in small task groups headed by two enablers from the homoph1le community. TIME SCHEDULE Registration at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, October 24. The Symposium will begin promptly at 1:30 p.m. and will include dinner at a gay bar and restaurant that evening followed by the '' late show" 10:30 performance of "Geese" at the En core Theatre. Morning sessions on Saturday and Sunday, October 25 and 26 will begin promptly at 10:00. Coffee and donuts will be served at 9:30. The Saturday evening session will adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Optional visitations to week-end events in the homophile community will be available to those with the stamina to go on. The Symposium will adjourn at 4:30 p.m on Sunday, October 26. BUT ... THERE ARE CERTAIN GROUND RULES: Please complete the application form and mail with check payable to The Council on Religion and the Homosexual so as to be received by Friday, October 20. This is necessary to insure your reservation for the Friday night dinner and theatre performance. Late applicants, if accepted, will be charged an additional fee of $5.00. The $25.00 registration fee covers resource materials, Friday dinner and theatre, but does not include housing or other meals. A list of convenient hotels will be furnished on request. Since the Symposium is demanding both in time and content to be covered, no part- time participation is permitted. Please do not register unless you are committed to the full program. It comes as a full package and must be experienced in its complete context for full value to all participants. All registrants will be assigned to task groups of six or eight persons to provide ample opportunity for dialogue throughout the course of the Symposium. Couples and other groups of persons coming together will be broken up among the groups without exception, to allow for free, uninhibited group discussion. The Symposium is designed primarily for professional persons in the counseling fields, (school teachers, lawyers, social workers, doctors, psychiatrists, clergy), and those of the "straight community" who are unfamiliar with "The Life Style of the Homosexual." Therefore, persons who are associated with the homophile community who are already familiar with the material to be covered are not encouraged to attend. The Symposium will be held at the Glide Foundation, 330 Ellis Street, San Francisco. Phone Phyllis Lyon (771-6300) for further information. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 1969 Symposium Brochure Description An account of the resource Phyllis Lyon & Del Martin Papers. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Repository: <a href="http://www.glbthistory.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GLBT Historical Society</a> https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/7ebd2f17063583589ce0ca5ab3f59a1b.pdf 2aa24db2d8f415246c55632a41c7875d Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Page 1: THE LIFE STYLE OF THE HOMOSEXUAL Registration fee of $25 includes a packet of materials to be mailed on receipt of registration, two dinners, ball ticket and cost of Symposium. It does not include housing or other meals. A list of convenient and reasonable hotels wi 11 be furnished registrants. All sessions will be held at the Glide Foundation, 330 Ellis St. , San Francisco, California 94102 REGISTRATION IS LIMITED AND WILL BE ACCEPTED IN THE ORDER RECEIVED. APPLICATION BLANK MAIL TO: The Council on Religion and the Homosexual, Inc. 330 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Please make checks payable to The Council on Religion and the Homosexual or to CRH ENCLOSED IS ( amount ) $___ FOR (number of registrants) ___ AT $25 EACH NAME ___ ADDRESS ___ CITY ___ STATE ___ ZIP___ PROFESSION ___ STUDENT? [ ] REGISTRATION IS LIMITED. EARLY APPLICATION IS URGED. WHY THIS SYMPOSIUM? Because conventional methods of gaining information about homosexuality leave large holes, this symposium is designed to fill in the gaps, to provide a forum in which professional persons ( doctors, clergymen, social workers. etc. ) may talk to as well as about homosexuals. Most conferences on the subject of homosexuality are based upon the testimony of professional "experts" whose experience has been limited to contact with those in therapy or those in trouble with the law. This conference provides a rare opportunity for the professional person to get a more rounded perspective of the homosexual by visiting the homophile community and gaining a first hand view of the homosexual subculture. For, just as a true evaluation of heterosexuality cannot be based on the small segment of the heterosexual population which gets in trouble, the professional "experts" cannot possibly provide a total view of the homophile community from their small, selected sample. The Symposium will be of utmost value to all who, in their professional work, are called upon to counsel youth or young adults. But more, it will be a unique opportunity to unlearn stereotypes fostered by myth and misinformation and to meet head-on the humanity and humanness of the homosexual. PROGRAM OCTOBER 24, 1968 THURSDAY EVENING 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Registration 6:30 PM Dinner 8:00 PM Orientation; Film: "One In Twenty" 10:00 PM Reactor Panel OCTOBER 25, 1968 FRIDAY MORNING 9:00 AM "Telling It Like It ls"- - Problems of Communication and Research on Homosexuality. 10:45 AM Task groups meet to discuss the above. * FRIDAY AFTERNOON 2:00 PM "Life Style of the Homosexual" - - isolation, creation of subcultures, drag, gay marriage, gay bars, other social groupings. 3:45 PM Task Groups Meet. FRIDAY EVENING 6:00 PM Dinner and visitation experiences in the gay community. OCTOBER 26, 1968 SATURDAY MORNING 9:00 AM "In Bed With The Law" an examination of the law in regard to a sex acts. "Homosexuality and the Armed Forces" - - The problems facing young men about to be drafted or already in the service. SATURDAY MORNING (Continued) "Homosexuality and Employment - - Including the myth of susceptibility to blackmail, etc. 10:30 AM Questions and talk- back 11:00 AM Task Groups meet. SATURDAY AFTERNOON 2:00 PM Task groups meet with emphasis on counseling problems. 4:00 PM Task groups report significant ideas and suggestions which should be shared. SATURDAY EVENING 8:00 PM Multi- media collage of homosexual life style including film, poetry, etc. OCTOBER 27, 1968 SUNDAY MORNING 11 :00 AM "The Church and the Homosexual" - - Worship service at Glide Church. SUNDAY AFTERNOON 2 :00 PM "The Teenage Homosexual" - - flow can the home and the community help teenagers deal with homosexual tendencies? Where can they get help? SUNDAY EVENING 9:00 PM Tavern Guild Halloween Ball, "Pumpkin Panic". * All participants will be assigned to a small Task Group headed by two enablers from the Homophile Community. Page 2: THE OBJECTIVE OF THE COUNCIL ON RELIGION AND THE HOMOSEXUAL IS TO PROMOTE CONTINUING DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY AND HOMOSEXUALS IN ORDER TO DO THIS, AND IN ENDEAVORING TO UNDERSTAND BETTER THE BROAD SPECTRUM OF VARIATION IN HUMAN SEXUALITY, CRH SETS FORTH THESE GOALS AND PURPOSES: To orient members of religious communities on aspects of homosexuality in accordance with homosexual testimony and available scientific data. To study systematically the deeper dynamics of authentic human relationships from the biblical, theological and social science perspectives. To encourage members of the religious communities to provide opportunities for homosexuals of both sexes to present their views of homosexuality to various religious organizations. To open up channels of communication so that members of the religious communities may engage in dialogue with homosexuals in order to bring about new and deeper understanding of sexuality, morality, ethical behavior and the life of religious faith. To engage in research which will further understanding of homosexuality within the larger framework of the present sexual revolution. To enlist the aid of religious publications and other media in working toward a broadened editorial policy including more accurate and objective articles on homosexuality. To provide an effective voice throughout the nation in matters of laws, policies and penal reforms governing adult sexual behavior. To help professional people working in mental health and counseling fields to understand better their role in dealing with problems of human sexuality in our society with special reference to young people. To instigate the formation of similar councils on religion and the homosexual in other areas of the nation and the world. WHAT IS A HOMOSEXUAL A STATEMENT ISSUED IN AUGUST, 1966, BY DOCTOR JOEL FORT, PUBLIC HEALTH SPECIALIST AND SOCIOLOGIST CRIMINOLOGIST; DOCTOR EVELYN G. HOOKER, RESEARCH PSYCHOLOGIST UCLA; DOCTOR JOE K. ADAMS PSYCHOLOGIST AND FORMER MENTAL HEALTH OFFICER IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, should be treated as individual human beings, not as a special group, either by law or social agencies or employers. Laws governing sexual behavior should be reformed to deal only with clearly anti-social behavior involving violence or youth. The sexual behavior of individual adults by mutual consent in private should not be a matter of public concern. Some homosexuals, like some heterosexuals, are ill: some homosexuals, like some heterosexuals, are pre-occupied with sex as a way of life. But probably for a majority of adults their sexual orientation constitutes only one component of a much more complicated life style. "HOMOSEXUALITY PER SE IS NO EVIDENCE OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY ..... " Dr. Norman Reider. " ...... CURRENT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SHOWS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR CLASSIFYING HOMOSEXUALS AUTOMATICALLY AS PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITIES." Dr. Judd Marmor. "HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR CANNOT POSSIBLY BE INTERPRETED AS EVIDENCE OF PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY." Dr. Harry Benjamin. " .. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A PATHOLOGY IN ITSELF NOR NECESSARILY A SYMPTOM OF SOME OTHER PATHOLOGY." Dr. Paul H. Gebhard. "IT IS GROSSLY INACCURATE TO CONFOUND PSYCHOPATHIC OR SOCIOPATHIC CHARACTERISTICS WITH SEXUAL PREFERENCE." Dr. Ray B. Evans. "IN MY JUDGMENT, HOMOSEXUALITY IS NEITHER A BODILY DISEASE, NOR A MENTAL ILLNESS, NOR A SYMPTOM OR MANIFESTATION OF 'PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY'." Dr. Thomas S. Szasz "THE AVAILABLE DATA INDICATE ANY HOMOSEXUAL WOULD BE NO MORE LIKELY TO BE PSYCHOPATHIC THAN ANY RANDOMLY SELECTED HETEROSEXUAL." Dr. Peter M. Bentler. "JUST AS HETEROSEXUALITY CANNOT BE AUTOMATICALLY EQUATED WITH HEALTHY PERSONALITIES, SO IS IT IMPOSSIBLE TO EQUATE HOMOSEXUALITY WITH 'PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY'." Dr. Lester A. Kirkendall A Unique First Time Event A Symposium ON THE LIFE STYLE OF THE HOMOSEXUAL October 24- 27, 1968 The Glide Foundation San Francisco Sponsored By THE COUNCIL ON RELIGION AND THE HOMOSEXUAL, INC. In cooperation with members of: Daughters of Bilitis, Inc., Mattachine Society, Inc., Society for Individual Rights, Inc, Tavern Guild of San Francisco, Inc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 1968 Symposium Brochure Description An account of the resource Phyllis Lyon & Del Martin Papers. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Repository: <a href="http://www.glbthistory.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GLBT Historical Society</a> https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/2e8fecc52deccb83569adc3ef64691e9.pdf a6bd5793a6519cd33b016f3db1b8725e Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Page 1: Homosexuality: A Contemporary View of the Biblical Perspective by The Rev. Dr. Robert L. Treese Prepared for the Consultation on Theology and the Homosexual, sponsored by Glide Urban Center and The Council on Religion and the Homosexual in San Francisco, August 22-24, 1966. Page 2: I. INTRODUCTION What is God trying to tell us about homosexuality? About sexuality? About creativity and the redemptive community today? This is the proper focus of the question this paper attempts to face; a focus into which our sight and insight are being forced by events of which we are all aware. The pioneering work of the Moral Welfare Council of the Church of England in the early 1950's, bringing into existence the official Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution in 1954, marks the end of a long ecclesiastical silence about homosexuality as a recognized condition of a segment of humanity. Not only did the Wolfenden Reportl challenge the basic presuppositions of the laws regarding homosexual practices (so that on the third attempt before Parliament the law assigning criminality to homosexual acts between consenting adults was repealed) but it also raised inescapable theological questions which must now be faced. The evolution of the Council on Religion and the Homosexual out of faithful and persistent attempts of a few pastors and a few members of the homophile co~munities to communicate mutually in search of the common human bases for understanding and fellowship marks the second reason we must ask the question of what God may be trying to tell us. The C.R.H. has made it possible for "straight" and "gay" persons to meet one another in mutual trust in search of mutual acceptance. It has helped us to begin to sense the dimensions of depth and integrity which exist, actually or potentially, within and among groups of people who have traditionally written each other off as "pious frauds" or as "perverts" and "sinners." Page 3: Theological wrestlings in these years of an affluent but relatively ineffectual church have focused on attempts to view contemporary human experience through a renewed Biblical understanding of God's purposes for the Church as well as for all of the world . These struggles have exposed us to a new awareness of how God has acted and continues to act in and through His creation to bring it to fulfillment. No longer can we think heretically of the Church as the redeemed portion of humanity who have been rescued from the God-forsaken world and whose work now consists of waiting faithfully and in purity for death and heaven or for God to vindicate their own and His righteousness by the destruction of the world and the re-construction of His Kingdom with them as His subjects. Jesus Christ affirmed human life and showed us that the ultimate rest of our love of God, of our commitment to value, lies in our attitudes toward and treatment of other human beings . The Church , the community of those who call Him "Lord," far from being in retreat from the world is 'rather thrown into the world to participate in God's continuing reclaiming restoring, dignifying, humanizing action. In the realm of human sexuality I, as a churchman, feel moved to confess that a great deal of the blame for preserving, if not indeed creating , the fears and guilt of sex which permeate our culture, lies at our feet. The failure to see sexual relationship in any other light but the functional one of reproduction has resulted in t he limitation of sex to the purely physical with no concept at all of t he depth of significant interpersonal trust, empathy and love of which sexual intercourse, at best, is the expression . Of course our generation in the Church has Page 4: modified these ancient views but the pall of centuries of sin-obsessed taboos and misanthropic caricatures of human nature still blankets our culture and informs our mores. The current reduction of sexuality to the status of experience devoid of relationship and responsibility to a biological function needing only satiation, to a medium for mass marketing seems to me to be only the expected result--the acting out of a low view of sex which we have fostered. With regard to homosexuality and homosexual practices the Church has maintained a consistent, perhaps because unexamined, attitude. Between Thomas Aquinas' 13th Century designation as peccatum contra naturum and 1950, no theologian, to my knowledge, has seriously reexamined the nature and meaning of this phenomenon. 2 As mentioned earlier, the ice has been broken and perhaps a thaw is on its way if enough heat is generated. D. S. Bailey in England has done a remarkable study of the historical roots of our attitudes and now Helmut Thielecke, in Germany, has come out with a forthright o.pener to theological discussion. A word of caution and perhaps of reprimand to us is in order at this point. As D. S. Bailey reminds us, we are all in the habit of attributing instinctively to our favorite whipping boy, the Church, every idea or development of which we may disapprove. To be sure the Church is not blameless but surely it is not wholly responsible for the present condition either. We must see the Church as trying earnestly, in each generation, both to conserve values from our tradition--values and tradition from which, in part we gain our identity--and to respond openly to the new in human experience in terms of attempts to understand God's leading. Page 5: Sometimes she does the former more effectively than the latter . Naturally her decisions are limited to and by the knowledge and understanding of the time. Thus, from our superior position, we should not feel justified in deriding the 6th Century rationale for supporting repressive legislation against homosexuals because homosexual acts cause earthquakes, plague and other natural disasters. This was the level of knowledge and understanding of causation current in that day. Bailey puts in pugently: "It is not as if throughout the last two millenia reluctant legislators had been forced by the spiritual authority to enact laws and to prescribe punishment which they secretly detested.,,3 Having said this, we also recognize that the medieval attitude of the Church with regard to the problem at hand must be brought up to date. The Church, for all her weakness, can be an opinion-leader and can influence culture as she has in the past. II. THE NORMATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE BIBLE Before we can consider relevant passages it is in order to discuss our stance toward the Bible. We cannot simply write off the Bible as being irrelevant . It has helped mold the attitudes of Western Civilization . Even though grossly abused by many, it is still normative in the life of the Church, that is, it provides the norms, value structure and guidelines for understanding contemporary life and God's purposes for history; it is still influential, often negatively so, in decision making in our time. Page 6: The typical, unthinking approach to the Bible is that of the literalist, and in varying degrees perhaps we all employ it. This is the approach which says, "That's what it says--and its God's word, so .... " Many homosexuals reject the Bible because they are literalists. Because of a half dozen brief passages describing homosexual acts as grievous sin; they say that the Bible can have no relationship to contemporary life. The literalist must necessarily be highly selective in his choices of the words which he takes to be God's word. For example the Old Testament command for circumcision of the male as a sign that he was a son of the covenant is set aside by the Christian because of the new covenant in Christ, but many are not so consistent when dealing with the Old Testament Sabbath laws. The elaborate regulation for proper observance of the Sabbath which is Saturday, the seventh day, are transferred to the Christian Sunday, the Lord's Day meant to be a day of rejoicing, even though Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." The verse, "Slaves be obedient to those who are your earthly masters" (Ephesians 6:5) was taken to be God's word in support of the institution of slavery until the interpretation of other portions of Scripture supported a confluence of political-historical-economic forces which overthrew slavery and caused reconsideration of that verse in its proper context . The command that witches should be burned to death was taken at face value in Salem, Massachusetts and other places until the human spirit was sickened and revolted at the fiendish excesses enacted and until witchcraft was shown by modern science to be a combination of superstitution and coincidence. Page 7: An approach or stance for understanding and appropriating the Bible today includes: (1) The affirmation that the Bible is not the Word of God, but the words of men in which and through which, we believe, the living, active, constantly contemporary Word of God comes to men . (2) The Bible passage is to be interpreted in terms of the experiences, life-setting, and problems of the writer of the particular section, as well as of the purposes for which it was written. (3) The passage is to be further explicated in the light of our contemporary experience and knowledge. Here we try to see it in perspective with our social-psychological-historical-philosophical as well as existential knowledge . There may not be agreement for sometimes, in fact often, the Bible stands in judgment on our contemporary life, but the task is to discern, as nearly as possible, the meaning for us today. (4) The realization that the Bible writers faced the same basic existential questions which we face, but their answers are time-caught, as are ours, and valid only for them. The values they affirmed by their answers are of significance to us. (5) The whole Bible is to be seen in light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the experience of the early Church. III. A CONSIDERATION OF RELEVANT BIBLICAL PASSAGES A consideration of Biblical passages which specifically refer to homosexual practices must precede any attempt to see our problem in the Page 8: perspective of the Christian faith. There are about a dozen places in the Bible which have been seen as supporting the idea that our current laws and attitudes toward the homosexual are true to "God's law.,,4 Five Instances of Mis-translation The first five we shall consider have been shown to have been due to mis-translation, an error since corrected in the R.S.V. In I Kings 14: 22-24; 15:12; 22:46; II Kings 23:7; and Deut. 23:17-18 there are references to what was apparently a fertility cult flourishing in the temple at Jerusalem. Such cults were more the rule than the exception among primitive peoples; the mystery of fertility and man's utter dependence upon its continuation in plant, animal and human for his survival was hedged in by a variety of religious rituals including sacred prostitution. The concept (strange to our ways of thinking unless one thinks of the Playboy cult, where, however, the values guaranteed are virility and success) was that the devotee guaranteed fertility of crops, animals, and of his wife (wives) by participating in sexual intercourse with the prostitutes who were dedicated to serve the diety in charge of fertility. (There's more than one way to get people into church, I guess). Bailey has shown5 that, whereas the King James Version translation correctly rendered the Hebrew noun Qedheshah ("consecrated one") as (female) temple servant (or prostitute) they erred by translating the masculine form of this noun (Qadhesh, QedheshIm, plural) as "sodomite," thinking no doubt that it referred to a male homosexual temple prostitute. They gave, apparently, no thought to the utter incongruity of homosexual prostitutes Page 9: serving in a fertility cult. The correct translation is as in the R. S.V., "male cult prostitute," whose duties, along with those of his female counterpart, were deplored in successive passages and finally banned and their houses destroyed by King Josiah about 625 B.C. (II Kings 23:7; Deut. 23:17- 18). This error having been corrected in current translations would seem not to be worth mentioning except that the King James Version is still very influential, more especially perhaps with the literalists among us. Sodom and Gomorrah This brings us to the Biblical passage which has perhaps been most influential in justifying our civilization's legal and social abhorrence of homosexuality and homosexual practices. That i s the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:1-28) . Throughout the centuries, especially in the eras before modern science, and even today among literalists, this story has been proof positive that God abhors homosexuality, to such a degree, in fact, that he literally destroyed two whole cities with fire and brimstone from heaven . Recapping the story briefly, God was bent on destroying Sodom and Gomorrah "because the outcry against . (them) is great and their sin is very grave" but Abraham importuned Him to first search for as few as ten righteous men who, if found, would justify a change in God ' s plan (Gen. 18:20-33) . So God sent two emissaries, male angels, to Sodom and they lodged for the night in the house of Lot (Abraham's nephew) . The "men of Sodom, both young and old , all the people to the last man" (19:4) surrounded Lot's house and demanded that he bring out the visitors "that we may know them." (19 :5) When Lot refused, offering them his two daughters instead, they became angry and would have stormed Page 10: the house had not the angels struck them blind. In the morning, when Lot and his family had fled, the city was utterly destroyed. The issue lies in the meaning of the yadha' (to know) . This verb is used ten times in the Old Testament to denote sexual intercourse (as in Gen. 4:1, "Now Adam knew Eve his wife and she conceived and bore Cain." Bailey points out that this verb is used nine hundred forty-three times in the Old Testament of which fewer than a dozen uses denote coitus, and that furthermore these latter always refer to heterosexual coitus. Another Hebrew verb (shakhabh) is used directly to describe "both homosexual and bestial coitus, in addition to that between man and woman."6 Thus there is no necessity linguistically to see the verb y~dha' as implying a desire for homosexual acts. In fact, it could well be translated "get acquainted with. " This linguistic argument alone would prove little were it not for the fact that the "Old Testament depicts Sodom as a symbol of utter destruction (cf Isaiah 13:19; Jeremiah 49 : 18; 50:40), and its sin as one of such magnitude and scandal as to merit exemplary punishment, but nowhere does it identify that sin explicitly with the practice of homosexuality.,,7 Two quotations from the 6th Century B.C. prophets illustrate this: But in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing: they commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that ,no one turns from his wickedness; all of them have become like Sodom to me. (Jer. 23:14) Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. (Ezekiel 16:49-50) Page 11: In the latter verses the words " abominable things" could lend themselves to homosexual interpretation in light of later attitudes toward Sodom, but in the Old Testament " abomination" or "abominable things" is the "conventional term for idolatry."8 How did the homosexual interpretation of Sodom' s sins originate? Bailey, after thorough study of the writings of the period, finds that the idea began in the second century B.C . in non- Biblical writings of the Jews . This was the period of Greek ascendency and rule in Palestine and a life-and-death struggle ensued, over more than two centuries, between the more orthodox Jews , who did not want Judaism contaminated with Greek ideas and practices, and more liberal Jews who embraced Hellenistic customs and manners. Homosexual practices were among the more objectionable Hellenistic Customs eschewed . (A listing of such practices, manners, customs, etc. which were in controversy would include dress, speech, athletic activity, architecture, sculpture , etc .; some Jews wen t so far as to seek surgery which would remove the scars or marks of circumcision in order to be more Hellenistic.) Appearing first as an allusion in the late second century B. C. - - for example, "that ye become not as Sodom which changed the order of nature" (Testament of Naphtali, 3:4-5) ca . 109 B. C. --the concept of t he sin of Sodom as homosexual practices developed more directness in t he first century B.C . and came to full flower in the writings of Philo and Josephus in the first century A. D. Philo' s imagination ran wild as he described men of Sodom who threw off from their necks the law of nature and applied them- Page 12: selves to deep drinking of strong liquor and dainty feeding and forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for women did they violate the marriages of their neighbors, but also men mounted males without respect for sex nature which the active partner shares with the passive. (DeAbr . 26 : 134-136) Josephus, the Jewish historian and contemporary of Philo, writes Now when the Sodomites saw the young men (the angels) to be of beautiful countenance, and this to an extraordinary degree • .. they resolved themselves to enjoy those beautiful boys by force and violence . (Antiquities I. xi. 3:200) It is significant that the Rabbinical literature, according to Bailey, "reflects scarcely anything of this development." With the single exception of an allusion to adultery in the Midrash on Genesis, "no sexual (let alone homosexual) implications can be read into these conceptions (Rabbinical interpretations) of the sin of Sodom ... Traditionally , the offense of the Sodomites was supposed to be that of the dog-in-the-manger." The early Church Fathers, taking Philo and other Hellenistic-Jewish writings at face value, set the tradition in the Church for the homosexual interpretation of Sodom's destruction.9 The significance of this whole disclosure lies in the fact that we cannot, in truth, say that Sodom proves that God is categorically against homosexuality. Bailey puts it sharply in the concluding chapter of his important book: It has always been accepted without question that God declared his judgment upon homosexual practices once and for all time by the destruction of the cities of the Plain. But Sodom and Gomorrah, as we have seen, actually have nothing whatever to do with such practices; the interpretation of the Sodom story generally received by Western Christendom turns out to be nothing more than a post-Exilic Jewish re- interpretation devised and exploited by patriotic rigorists for polemical purposes. Thus disappears the assumption that an act of Divine retribution in the remote past has relieved us of the responsibility for making an assessment of homosexual acts in terms of theo- Page 13: logical and moral principles. It is no longer permissible to take refuge in the contention that God himself pronounced these acts "detestable and abominable" above every other sexual sin, nor to explain natural catastrophes and human disasters as his vengeance upon those who indulge in them. 10 The Six Specific References The exposure of the historical roots of error in interpretation of the Sodom story leaves us with six remaining passages in the Bible which explicitly designate homosexual practices as gross sins, five dealing with males and one with females. These can neither be ignored nor explained away, but they can be put in perspective. It may be well to point out, at the outset, that the Bible shows no knowledge of homosexuality, per se; it knows nothing of the condition of homosexuality in distinction to heterosexuality, the complexity of human sexuality, or the possible causes of sexual inversion. All the references are to homosexual practices as acts of choice and of will. The two references in the Old Testament are in the Levitical Holiness Code, the codification of laws for maintaining spiritual, ritual, and ceremonial purity and separation from other peoples . Leviticus 18:22 is imbedded in a long passage proscribing incest, intercourse during menstruation, adultery, bestiality, and, incongrously on the surface, child sacrifice: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 20:13 likewise is in the midst of a passage repeating essentially the same list of grievous sins, with the addition of the death penalty, rather than exile, for those who commit the immoralities of child sacrifice, incest, adultery, homosexual acts, and bestiality: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." Page 14: Two things must be said about these very specific statements about homosexual acts between males: (1) The fact that homosexual acts appear in a listing of offenses which are attributed to Egypt ("where you dwelt") and Canaan ("to which I am bringing you"), and are considered an "abomination" raises the question of underlying meaning. Bailey discusses "abomination" (To ebhah) in this perspective: Research fails to establish any satisfactory positive support for the allegation that homosexual practices were customary among the nations. surrounding the Hebrews ... it is not impossible that the attribution in question (i.e. of homosexual practices in Egypt and Canaan) is simply a piece of rhetorical denigration ...designed to intensify Israel's sense of national "holiness" or separation as a peculiar people dedicated to Yahweh. Supposing this to be the case, it would seem that the significance of To ebhah (abomination) in these verses has often been misunderstood. This term, as we have seen, is closely associated with idolatry and designates not only false gods but also the worship and conduct of those who serve them. By a natural extension of meaning, however, it can also denote whatever reverses the proper order of things and this seems to be the connotation (of abomination in these verses) ... Such acts are regarded as an "abomination" not ... because they were practiced by Egyptian or Canaanite idolators (for of this there is no proof) but because, as a reversal of what is sexually natural, they exemplify the spirit of idolatry which is itself the fundamental subversion of true order ••. They (these laws) condemn homosexual acts •.• between males as typical expressions of the ethos of heathenism which Israel must renounce no less than religious and cultural syncretism with the nations which bow down to idols .ll Until proved wrong by Hebrew scholars, this interpretation is stimulating to this writer. The Holiness Code sought to fence out the alien world and to establish rules for the separation (holiness) of the People of God . Seen in this light, homosexual acts then are proscribed as an indication of idolatry, the reversal of the true order. At this juncture, it is seen that child sacrifice is not incongrously included in the listings quoted above, but rather would tend to support this interpretation of idolatry. Page 15: This leads directly to my second comment. (2) For the Christian, the Jewish legal code has been superceded by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As Thielicke suggests, "It would never occur to anyone to wrench these laws of cuItic purification from their concrete situation and give them the kind of normative authority that the Decalogue, for example, has." We tend to deal with the Holiness Code selectively, naturally rejecting all instructions for animal sacrifice, all injunctions regarding ritual purification, such as after childbirth, menstruation, the handling of anything dead, etc., as well as all dietary laws such as eating flesh with blood in it; and accepting, as in line with the Christian Gospel any of the admonitions against behavior which causes harm or abuse to another human being or dishonors God. It is the Gospel which frees man from the Law that becomes the criterion for the Christian. To accept Leviticus 20:13 (that those guilty of homosexual acts should be put to death) and to reject, for example, Leviticus 20:25 ("You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean beast and the unclean"), or Leviticus 20:27 ("A man or woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death, they shall be stoned with stones."), is inconsistency of the rankest sort, to say the least. This, however~ still leaves us with the problem of homosexuality and homoerotic acts as they may be seen in light of the Gospel. To this we will turn in a later section. Probably the best known New Testament verses on our problem are Romans 1:26-27: For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing Page 16: shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. These verses serve as illustrations of Paul's discussion of why man (he seems to be referring specifically to Gentiles, i.e . non-Jews) does not know God or does not live as though God exists . Even without any special revelation, as that granted to the Jews, he implies that man should be able to acknowledge the Creator in the very facts of Creation : "Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, his eternal power and diety, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made . " (vs . 20) He goes on to say that man, refusing to honor God, turned instead to "images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles (thus God has abandoned them) • . • to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator . " (vss . 23-25) Then follow the verses which concern us: this would-be- autonomous man's refusal to accept his creatureliness by honoring the Creator is exemplified by disorders in the natural relationships of man to woman. "Because the lower and the higher, the creature and the Creator, are exchanged ('perverted') the result is a perverse supremacy of the inferior desires over the spirit ."13 Paul could just as well have chosen other examples of human behaviour as a means of illustrating the distortions of the Creator ' s purposes by man's willful refusals to acknowledge his dependent status : pride or sloth would have served as well to point out "the hidden connections between the Fall, as a disordering of creation, and the pathological changes in existence in the world as a whole."14 He is obviously discussing original sin ("Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity" (vs. 24) as Page 17: exemplified by specific acts contrary to the Creator's purposes. It is important at this point to bear in mind that Paul is talking about concrete libidinous acts, of a homosexual nature, and is not discussing the pre-disposition to homosexuality or what could be called constitutional homosexuality, which characterizes some persons. The theological issue here is not in the concrete acts, but in the meaning of the homosexual condition, as an empirical fact, in light of God's order of creation. It would have been out of place for Paul to have discussed this issue in this context, even had he known of the reality of constitutional homosexuality. But the common interpretation that verses 26-2 7 of Romans I indicate that homosexuals have been abandoned by God (unless they become heterosexuals) is certainly not consistent with Paul's purpose in this whole passage. This issue will be dealt with in section IV of this paper. It must not be supposed from anything that has been said to this point, that Paul was not rejecting homosexual acts. In I Corinthians 6:9-10 he includes them in a catalogue of unrighteous practices which will deny the kingdom of God to persons guilty of such offenses : Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. (It is very misleading and unfortunate indeed, as Bailey has pointed out,15 that the translators of the Revised Standard Version, now so widely used in our land, have elected to combine two separate Greek words denoting homosexual practices into the word which can only mean all persons of homosexual pre-disposition, without regard to libidinous practices on a par with adultery. The meaning is obvious in the Greek text where malakoi Page 18: (meaning in this context "effeminate" or "the passive male partners") and arsenokoitai (referring to the active males in the homosexual acts, sometimes also being rendered simply as "sodomites") are used to refer to specific homosexual practices. It is clear that again Paul was speaking of such acts, without qualification, as being seriously sinful. A similar catalogue listing of grievous sinners for whom the law has been made includes "sodomites" in company with murderers, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and "whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine." (I Timothy 1:9-10) Summary of Biblical Evidence Even though the two Old Testament verses (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) can be considered as of historical interest but not of contemporary relevance because of their setting in the rules for cultic purification, and the lack of clarity in their underlying meaning, and even though the Sodom story has been shown to have been used fallaciously in condemnation of homosexuality, the four verses cited from the New Testament (Romans 1:26, 27; I Corinthians 6:10; and I Timothy 1:10) indicate with no possibility of qualification that homosexual practices were considered by Paul (and the writer of I Timothy) as concrete sins on a par with adultery and murder, as evidence of the original sin with which the human race is infected. Thus the moral question has been illuminated somewhat, but the theological issue of homosexuality remains unopened in the New Testament. Toward the tentative exploration of this theological question we now turn in the next section. Page 19: IV. A LARGER BIBLICAL VIEW OF HOMOSEXUALITY We must begin this final section by setting the context for theological discussion from two perspectives: (1) a consideration of the causality and the definition of homosexuality; and (2) meditation on the meaning of the writer ' s personal knowledge of homosexuals; for theological reflection , to be true to its essential nature, must be grounded in contemporary phenomena and knowledge. Most persons who have given any thought to the problems of the definition and the causality are aware of t he vast sea of confusion into which this leads. Everybody seems t o have an opinion on causation from the extremes of " I (he) was born this way" to "My (His) mother made me (him) this way." From genetics, to psychodynamics, to social-cultural conditioning, theorists run the gamut, for there is truth in all factors . Most of the research and writing in this field has been done by psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, anthropologists, and psychologists with little or no attention from sociologists . In the midst of much continuing hard work the confusion seems to be settling into definable patterns which give us a great deal of guidance on these basic problems . The recent book Sexual Inversion (The Multiple Roots of Homosexuality)16 edited by Dr. Judd Marmor, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California at Los Angeles, and President-Elect (1965) of the Academy of Psychoanalysis, brings a great deal of order into this chaos and offers refreshing analyses of the current state of various theories . The introduction to this anthology , written by the editor, Dr. Marmor, is a frank and open-ended critique of current views of homosexuality and it will be helpful to lean heavily, in this section, on Page 20: what appears to be the latest (and in this layman's view the best) attempt to put homosexuality in perspective as a human phenomenon. There are a variety of reasons why persons participate in homoerotic practices: from the true homosexual, for whom heterosexual experience is neither possible nor desirable; to those who engage in transitory homosexual acts because of enforced deprivation of heterosexual outlets over long periods of time (prisoners and military personnel, for example),17 or because of rebellion or hostility, or for money and status (as, for example, the young male prostitutes, many of whom have little homosexual predisposition), or the adolescent experimentation with which many are personally familiar. A definition of homosexuality must "exclude patterns of homosexual behaviour that are not motivated by specific, preferential desire," says Dr. Marmor and he, therefore, offers the following definition: (T)he clinical homosexual (is) one who is motivated, in adult life, by a definite preferential erotic attraction to members of the same sex and who usually (but not necessarily) engages in overt sexual relations with them.18 This writer is not entirely clear why Marmor uses the qualifier "clinical" here, but the significant phrase is "definite preferential erotic attraction," with its implication that the patterns of need and behaviour are a part of the personality structure of the individual and the desire is the same, even when the other alternative is present. This means, then, that an individual having a "definite preferential erotic attraction to members of the same sex," may in all respects but this one be as like another individual who has a "definite preferential erotic attraction" to members of the opposite sex as any two persons can be alike. The common tendency to stereotype all homosexuals on the basis of the most Page 21: deviant or most bizarre behaviour of some is a cultural prejudice, the nonsense of which becomes obvious if we make the equally absurd assumption that all heterosexuals are alike, or are to be judged by the mos t bizarre behaviour of any heterosexual. Dr. Marmor develops this thought further: One reflection of this stereotyping is the almost universal belief that homosexuals are not to be trusted "with young people of the same sex. The assumption that t hey are somehow less in control of their impulses than are heterosexuals is the same kind of assumption that underlines white prejudice against Negroes or native-born prejudice against foreigners. In all these instances, the feeling is a reflection of fear based on lack of intimate knowledge of the people involved. A homosexual individual -is neither more nor less trustworthy, necessarily, with young people of the same sex than a heterosexual is trustworthy with young people of the opposite sex. 19 Without sacrificing the force of this claim that there is no "homosexual personality" ~, Marmor qualifies the above statement. He reminds us that, because of the extreme pressures of a society which makes the homosexual's "behaviour ipso facto maladaptive", he tends "statistically (to be) more likely to feel inadequate and to show evidence of less adequate ego formation" than the heterosexual: (T)here is, nevertheless, as wide a personality variation among homosexuals as among heterosexuals: from extremely passive to extremely aggressive ones; from quiet introverts to loud and raucous extroverts; from hysterics to compulsives; from sexually inhibited and timid types to sexually promiscuous and self-flaunting ones; from irresponsible sociopaths to highly responsible and law-abiding citizens. 20 With regard to causality, the origins of homosexuality are seen now to be multi- factorial, including socio-cultural, psychodynamic, biological and situational. "There is yet no single constellation of factors that can adequately explain all homosexual deviations...21 Page 22: Investigations into the possible genetic origins of homosexuality so far have proved relatively fruitless . There is some evidence that a chromosomal abnormality, originating perhaps in the mother's ovaries as in Mongolism, may be the mechanism involved in many of the cases . . . (but) the nature of this defect can, at the moment, be only a matter of guesswork. It should be pointed out, however, that it need not influence the direction of the libido directly and that its action can be indirect via general personality characteristics. Environmental factors do, of course, playa part in most genetically determined conditions ... the degree to which genetic and environmental factors are important, in homo- 22 sexuality, as a whole and in any individual, remains uncertain. We have assumed naturally, on the basis of limited experience, that heterosexual is the biologic norm and that therefore "normal" and natural" mean "heterosexual." Strange as it sounds to our ears, this may not in fact be the situation. All the evidence from comparative zoology indicate that bisexuality or "ambisexuality" is the biologic norm and that exclusive heterosexuality is a culturally imposed restriction . 23 In addition there is some evidence that sexuality operates adaptively, that is that at birth a human being is psycho-sexually neutral and this potential "permits the development and perpetuation of divers patterns of psycho-sexual orientation and functioning in accordance with the life experience each individual may encounter and transact. ,,24 The human being--unlike the animal lower on the evolutionary scale which has a complex inherited pattern of instincts subject to little manipulation by the environment--is born "not with complex instinctual patterns, but with relatively unfocused basic biological drives . The direction these drives take in human beings and the objects to which they become attached are subject to enormous modifications by learning...25 This means that a Page 23: human being has what could be called bi-sexual potentialities and that the direction his sex drives take is determined to some degree by the positive and negative learning he attains from his environment. Marmor goes so far as to affirm that on the basis of research by Money and by Hampson and Hampson into the origins of sexual behavior and gender role, "the objects of human sexual drives are experimentally determined rather than biologically determined." And he concludes, on this basis: that there is nothing inherently "unnatural" about life experiences that predispose an individual to a preference for homosexual object-relations, except insofar as this preference represents a socially condemned form of behavior in our culture and consequently carries with it certain sanctions and handicaps.26 While admittedly all this is theory, based on research which no doubt will be extended and re-examined, the concept of bi-sexual potential presents a serious problem for the theologian, because from the doctrine of creation which includes "male and female created He them" the assumption has always been that the sex roles of male and female are immutably a part of the order of creation. Marmor is refreshing and a bit unusual in the experience of the writer when he considers the question of whether homosexuality is, as such, a sickness. He states, with remarkable and welcome candor that The concepts of psychoanalysts are all derived from the study of homosexuals who have sought psychoanalytic therapy or else have been referred by external difficulties .. . a strong possibility thus exists that traditional psychoanalytic concepts about the characteriological defects of homosexuals are based on a skewed sampling of homosexuals and may not accurately represent the spectrum of personalities present in the total homosexual population ... lf the judgments of psychoanalysis about heterosexuals were based only on those they see as patients, would they not have the same skew impression of heterosexuals as a group?27 Page 24: One other factor ought to be mentioned in this brief summary of the causes of homosexuality and that is the power of social-cultural role expectation in the determination of gender- role patterns. Every culture has developed patterns of expectation of "masculine" and "feminine" behaviour and these patterns vary greatly among cultures. Anthropologists and psychologists have noted marked variations in these gender-role patterns in human societies. This can only lead to the conclusion that the common assumption that our "Western concepts of masculinity and femininity are rooted in the biological difference between the sexes" is fallacious. 28 Social-cultural factors are a powerful determinant in the acquisition of gender-role by the individual. The person whose body build, and/or interests fits the pattern has significant emotional support, of which he may be unaware, for this proper development. But the individual whose physique, inclinations, or interests do not fit, faces conflicts with culture and with self. In our culture the unathletic or poorly coordinated boy and the unattractive or "masculine-looking" girl are sometimes ... "pushed" into inverted gender roles, not only bht reactions of people on the outside, but also by the distortion of their own self-concepts, which are similarly dependent on the dominant social values of their environments. Even such non-physiological personality attributes as mathematical ability in a girl or artistic talent in a boy may be endowed by a culture with values that then tend to push such children t~ward distorted self-concepts and inverted gender roles. 29 This realization leads the theologian to ask the hard question of the helpfulness of a theological construct which may well be social-culturally conditioned, and of the effectiveness of a culturally-accommodated church. Page 25: (2) The theological issues have been raised inevitably and abruptly for this writer by the experience of working together with homosexuals on projects of common concern. From a traditionally naive acceptance of the cultural norm of heterosexuality and its accompanying attitudes of ignorance and condescension of homosexuality, and of rejection of the idea of such perversion (with, however, no conscious rejection of the homosexual person) he was suddenly faced with t he realization that something didn't add up . Life isn't that neat and simple. The writer has seen "gay" persons accept Christ and join His body . Was grace witheld? This same question was raised by the elders of Jerusalem when they had Peter on the carpet for baptizing Cornelius, a Gentile. He had been amazed when the Holy Spirit had directed him to the home of a non-Jew and had likewise prepared Cornelius for his message . "Truly," he said, "I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable." (Acts 10 : 34-35) In Peter ' s experience I see a parallel to my own. The question comes in Peter's phrase, "does what is right." Is it possible that homosexuality can be "right" for some persons? I have come to know and admire some homosexuals who are mature and responsible persons. They have fought through God knows what kind of hell in the identity-formation crisis, and still face daily the threat of the ruination of their lives, and the loss of jobs and social standing if their true natures were known to employers and the authorities . Yet, these persons are committed to relationships which are fulfilling and have redemptive qualities. The plumbline of judgment must be my own perception of the capacity of these persons for openness to other human Page 26: beings, for mature and responsible social involvements, and for love in its fulfilling depth. I must, in the face of the church's "no", speak a loud "yes" to these persons, for I have seen the marks of self-giving Christian love upon their lives. With these two contemporary perspectives in mind--current definitions and theories of causality,and the admittedly subjective (but not therefore invalid) experience of the writer--we turn finally to ask questions of our theology and to propose tentative guidelines for a theology which includes the phenomenon under consideration. 1. The Creation of Man So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27) Man, created male and female, in the image of God, raises at once the question of obvious physical sex differentiation and what has been taken as inevitably concomitant, the psycho-sexual expression of this sex differentiation. Are they the same onto logically? The Hebrews believed that a man was incomplete without a woman and children. The good life was the family life, barrenness was a curse. (This may explain the extremity of punishment for persons involved in homosexual practices in Leviticus 20 : 13). They thus affirmed the unity of sex difference and of the psycho-sexual expression, which is part of the Judeo-Christian view of man. Without in the least belittling the ontological reality of this unity, we must ask the question, "Does this fit all of the facts?" Thielicke discusses this unity as follows: The differentiation of the sexes is so constitutive of humanity that, first, it appears as a primeval order (Gen . 1:27; 2:18ff) and endures as a constant despite its deprivation in the Fall Gen. 3 :16), and, second, Page 27: that to it is attributed symbolic value for the fundamental structure of all human existence, that is to say, for the existence of man in his relationship to his fellow man, for the fact that he is defined by his being as a Thou in relationship to a Thou.30 It is apparent to this writer that, perceptive as this statement is, it nevertheless errs by equating biological (and perhaps psychological) sex differentiation with essential being. To say that, to the factor of sex distinction "is attributed symbolic value for the fundamental structure of all human existence" and to qualify this statement, as Thielicke does, by further stating that this means a man's relationship to his fellow man defines him as a man, is to affirm the ontological unity of biological sex difference and psycho-sexual expressions, that is, that such unity is inherent in the creation of man. If we assume that scientists, working on the frontiers of anthropo logical knowledge, are moving toward what may one day be determined to be a true assessment of man's psych-biologic-social nature, then we must question this unity. For, as discussed above, if male-and-female, at birth, is not more than a physical differentiation (in terms of the eventual kind of sexual relationship which may develop), and if the potentiality for sexual expression is neutral (or "ambisexual") at birth so that the direction which the sex drive takes in seeking expression and the "choice" of another human being to which the drive shall be attached are truly conditioned by learning, then Thielicke has not taken all the facts into account. For "the differentiation of the sexes" may not be so "constitutive of humanity" as he assumes. Page 28: Does the answer to the question of what it means to be a human being hinge on heterosexual union? This question is ultimately ridiculous, but it would seem to be required of Thielicke's statement above. The real question is also implied by Thielicke. This is the question of relationship, what he calls "a Thou in relationship to a Thou." He quotes Barth with approval "that man does not have" the choice to be fellow-human or something else . . . Man exists in this differentiation, in this duality.31 because Barth is saying the same thing about sex differentiation . With the first part of Barth's statement this writer could not be more in agreement. Certainly man is defined by his relationship--he has no choice but to be "fellow human". But must the "fellow human" be in relationship to a fellow human of the opposite sex? The theological norm would correctly be seen as "fellow-human relationship". But there is a good possibility, given the current theories of sexual nature as noted above, that man is defined in relationship to fellow man, as a Thou in relationship to a Thou devoid of biological differentiation. What does it mean that man is made "in the image of God, male and female"? Does it mean that man must be united with woman to be in relationship to God? Certainly not! In this I am in agreement with Thielicke: On the other hand, the theological ontology of human existence must not go so far as to imagine that it can express the idea of imago Dei by means of this differentiation . It is true that this differentiation is very important as a medium of our relationship to God and our fellow man and thus is one of the media in which, through which and despite which that relationship is realized. The imago Dei, however, both in its implications for our creaturehood and its Christological implication, expresses our unmediated relationship to God.32 Page 29: When we speak of man's essential nature and his essential relationship to God in the eschatological dimension (that is, in the ultimate intention of God) sex differentiation is of little importance. In support of this unqualified aloneness before God, this "unmediated relationship" as the meaning of man being made in God's image, we recall Jesus' statement that "They neither marry nor are given in marriage" in the Kingdom of God (Mark 12:25); that Paul, thinking in terms of the eschatological end of time, completely separated sexuality from life (I Corinthians 7:lff); and "there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3 : 28). It is important to point out here that there is no implied distinction of importance or rank between man and woman. In the first creation story, the verse quoted above, there are no distinctions of value or relationship to God. Both man and woman are created in God's image, hence both are equally in relationship to Him, and both "receive the blessing as well as the command to subdue the earth." (Genesis 1:28ff)33 2. On The Fall and Homosexuality As a Result of Original Sin The second account of creation (Genesis 2:4-3:24) contains the story of Adam and Eve and the act of disobedience which eventuated in what theologians call the Fall of Man. By this myth is explained a fundamental fact of human experience--the tragic contradiction between man's essence and his existence, between what man senses he was meant to be and what he is. The myth affirms the Creator's good intent, and the creature's perversion of that intent; it recognizes the essential estrangement of a man from his Creator, hence from other men and even from self. Such a myth is a necessity to capture and personify the existential longings for Page 30: purpose and meaning and relationship in life, and the pervasive quality of paradox in man's existence: for example, his capacity for goodness is equalled by his capacity for evil, his freedom is limited by his willingness to be bound . This is not the place to discuss the merits of the concept of the Fall except to say that it is not to be interpreted biologically in that we inherit from one man and woman our sinful natures, nor is it necessarily to be assumed that any such ideal state existed in history from which men have fallen. 34 Rather, it is every man's story-the Creator's intent and every man's distortion of that intent. From the perspective of the Fall and the concept of original sin-that is, estrangement and assumed independence of creature from Creator-one can view homosexuality as a perversion of the original or intended order of nature, insofar as homosexuality is a condition caused by human sin. This would be true of the socio-cultural determinants, which are the result of generations of ignorance, of outdated taboos, of a t00- narrow view of life, and of a cumulative social fabric of sins against the deviant. It is also true of the social-psychological conditioning (also cumulative) which occurs in the family, which can distort human personality unknowingly. But original sin cannot serve to explain the possible genetic factor in homosexuality any more than in mongolism or some other congenital defect, unless the theologian were to say that mutations are the result of original sin, which would be patently ridiculous. When we posit the question of the existence of evil we can account for moral evil (sin) as being due to man's free choice and deliberate acts (which may have cumulative social-psychological effects), but we must also face the presence of natural evil--the congenital deformity, to name one. Page 31: These must be seen as (1) works of the devil, or some other personification of evil at war with God; (2) as deliberate acts of God, hence not ultimately evil ; (3) as evidence of the existence of an as yet "uncreated chaos" over which the Creator has not yet assumed control; or (4) as part of the statistical chance the Creator must take in his working to bring his Creation to perfection. Assuming the reality of the possible genetic factor in the genesis, of homosexuality, the Fall does not explain all the possibilities of causality. Even if we assume , for the moment; that homosexuality is a manifestation of creation put out of order by original sin, Thielicke is certainly correct when he says (T)here is not the sl!ghtest excuse for maligning the constitutional homosexual morally or theologically. We are all under the same condemnation (original sin, the guilt of which and fact of which we all participate in) and each of us has received his "share" of it. In any case, from this point of view the homosexual's share of that condemnation has no greater gravity which would justify any Pharasaic feeling of self-righteousness and integrity on the part of "normal" persons. 35 3. The Thou-Thou Relationship It was argued in a previous section that the current ontological doctrine which affirms that man's existence as man, in fact that which makes him human, is "his being as a Thou in relationship to a Thou," that is, . another human being . We took issue with the claim that sex differentiation, even as a symbolic value, is seen as fundamental to the structure of this relationship. Now in Genesis 2 : 25 this question comes sharply before us once more: Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. (Genesis 2:25) Page 32: There is no intention to deny the validity of this, but simply to ask whether it fits all the facts? Certainly, in this verse more is implied by "one flesh" than sexual union, though that is an important constituent. Rather, the sexual union must be seen as the expression of a relationship of mutual love, of empathy, of confidentiality, and of trust. There is little evidence that heterosexual union can produce these qualities of relationship, but much evidence that such union does serve to symbolize, enact, express and even enhance such qualities already existent. Cannot the same qualities be a possibility for a homosexual union? This writer thinks so. He has known a number of homosexual couples who have developed highly successful relationships over relatively long periods of time, one of 25 years and several of more than 10 years. Admittedly, these are rare, from all that is known. Indications are that the socia-cultural and psychological pressures on the homosexual account for his comparative inability to establish permanent relationships comparable to marriage of heterosexuals. Recall Marmor's conclusion that in all ways, save one, homosexuals exhibit as wide a range of personality variation as heterosexuals, and that the tendency "to feel less adequate and to show evidence of less adequate ego formation" is inevitable in a society which proscribes their every manifestation of the sexual nature with which they have been endowed. 36 Thielicke recognizes the grave hazards facing the homosexual which make permanent relationships more difficult to achieve but not therefore less desirable than for heterosexuals . I quote this long passage for its magnificent description of the problem: Page 33: 1. The homosexual does not have the benefit of living with a supportive order than is informed by a traditional ethos such as that of the institution of marriage. Instead of having at his disposal a set of prefabricated decisions which are made for him by the tradition and make it easier for him to find his way about, he is to an unimaginably greater degree thrmm back upon himself. Since he generally begins only gradually to recognize his disposition, he goes through phases of terrible loneliness and stages of groping and uncertain improvisations. 2. Otherwise than in the "normal sphere", the non-ingrained normative attitude easi ly produces a propensity toward the excessive, toward rapidly changing partnerships (promiscuity) and thus a sabotage of even that relative "order" which the homosexual could achieve on his basis. 3. The ostracism the homosexual suffers through the criminal law and the defensive instinct of society leads him to frequent very dubious circles. He cannot risk any public attempt to make advances . Whereas the "normal" person is permitted to regard a representative of the other sex as a potential partner and is exposed only to the possibility of being refused (without thereby being socially or morally compromised), the homosexual runs the danger of encountering a "normal" person, with a l l the consequences that this may involve . This search for a partner of his own kind in the shady areas of society means an extraordinarily heavy spiritual burden and, what is more, a dangerous temptation especially for the person who really ,vants to live an ethically responsible life. 4. The same burden and temptation result from the fact that the homosexual must wear a mask and act like a hypocrite before friends and acquaintances, and as a rule even in his mm family, but nevertheless live in constant fear of discovery and its consequent compromise of character. Thus he is thrmvn into a situation of permanent conflict.37 Under these conditions, it would seem that logically and theologically there is no reason to deny the possibility of marriage to the homosexual couple, subject to the same privileges and restrictions that inhere in heterosexual marriage. Creativity, certainly in the context of man as being considered cocreator with God, is not limited to pro-creation . There are many ways in Page 34: which man is called upon to share creativity with God: to bring order and meaning out of personal and social chaos, to bring to fulfillment that which is only potential, to mention only two . Reuel Howe speaks in his writings of what this writer feels is the highest type of human creativity in this context . Howe, affirming that a person is a person only in meaningful relationship to another (the Thou-Thou relationship discussed above), says that we can "call one another into being. " By responsible, responsive, personal, caring relationships one person can call another into being--that is, can help him become truly a person by the act of affirming his being . 38 Man's deepest longings are not for sexual relationship, per se, but for significant self-affirming and other-affirming relationships. Sexual promiscuity, both hetero- and homo-, has, among other drives, this universal desire to escape loneliness and personal extinction by non-affirmation of personhood. Perhaps this is the reason Jesus was much more lenient with the sensual sinner (the adultress and the prostitute) than he was with the pious hypocrite and those who were not in responsive, affirming relationships with persons. The Gospel proclaims that we are accepted by God, that to be "in the Kingdom" is to be both accepted and therefore accepting persons. Christ was concerned about the quality of the relationships between persons, and pointed out that relationship to God is only possible through responsible relationships with other persons . He taught us that love of God and neighbor liberates man into fullness of life-- liberates us from the bondage of estrangement, of anxiety, of hostility. It is part of the mission of the Church to enable these kinds of person Page 35: affirming relationships to occur. There is no indication in Christ's teachings that the quality of life he lived and which he envisioned for all men, and which the Church is called to manifest in the world, was limited to heterosexually-oriented persons. If the homosexual is accepted by God, a belief which is implicit in this paper, then he can be an accepting person, and this includes self-acceptance. Thielicke is provocative at this point: What then does "acceptance" mean here? It can mean to accept the burden of this predisposition to homosexuality only as a divine dispensation and see it as a task to be wrestled with, indeed--paradoxical as it may sound--as a talent to be invested. (Luke 19 : l3f)39 And when the "master of the servants" comes and s ettles accounts with us (Matthew 25 : 19, Luke 19 :15) he will not ask what talent we have had (none of us asked for what we got) for he knows t hat already, but he will ask to see what we have done with that which has been given us. The question of ethics, of responsible, responsive relationships, comes naturally' to the fore at this point, but that cannot be taken up here. Thielicke points out We may assume that the homosexual has t o realize his optimal ethical potentialities on the basis of his irreversible situation.40 The homosexual, no less than the heterosexual, needs understanding and sympathetic pastoral guidance in his struggles for ethical fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional support of a church which enables redemptive relationships to occur . These are largely non-existent at the present time, and remain one of our tasks for the immediate future, while we hammer out a theology which will include him as a part of creation about which the Creator is concerned. Page 36: Footnotes 1. The Wolfenden Report . (Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitut i on, New York : Lancer Books , 1964) 2. Bailey, Derrick Sherwin , Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. (New York : Longmans , Green and Company , 1955) . p . Vlll. Bailey says "the tradition (regarding homosexuality) has not undergone any significant, alterations since the end of the Middle Ages." 3 . Bailey , Ibid , p . ix . 4 . The remark attributed to someone in the San Francisco Police Department on the occasion when ministers from CRH were informing the police of the forthcoming ball (January 1, 1965) that "If you aren't going to enforce God's law , we are," is a good example of the assumed righteousness of society ' s attitude . (See "The Council on Religion and the Homosexual" by Del Martin in Essays on Religion and the Homosexual, Vol . I , p . 20 . n . d . ) 5 . Bailey, op . cit . pp . 49-53 . 6. Ibid , p . 3. 7. Ibid , p . 9. 8 . Ibid, p. 10. 9 . Ibid . pp . 10-26 . 10 . Ibid, p . 155. 11 . Ibid, pp . 59- 60 . 12 . Thielicke, Helmut , The Ethics of Sex . Translated by John W. Doberstein . (New York : Harper and Row, Publishers , 1964) 13 . Ibid , p . 279. 14 . Ibid, p. 282 . 15 . Bailey, op . cit. pp . 38f . 16 . Marmor, Judd, Editor , Social Inversion (The Multiple Roots of Homosexuality). (New York : Basic Books, Inc ., 1965) 17 . See Reiss , Albert J . , Jr . , "The Social Integration of Queers and Peers," in Ruitenbeek , Hendrick M. , Editor , The Problem of Homosexuality in Modern Society . (New York : E. P . Dutton & Co ., Inc . , 1963) , pp . 249ff. Page 37: 18. Marmor, op. cit., p. 4. 19. Ibid, p. 19. 20. Ibid. 21. Ibid, p. 5. 22. Pare, C.M.B., "Etiology of Homosexuality : Genetic and Chromosomal Aspects," in Marmor, Ibid, pp . 77-79 . 23. Marmor, Ibid, p . 11 . 24. A quotation from the Hampson's report of their studies of the acquiring of the gender role by humans, reported by Marmor, Ibid, p. 9. 25. Ibid, p . 10 . 26 . Ibid, p . 16 . 27 . Ibid. 28 . Ibid, p. 13 . 29 . Ibid. 30. Thielicke, op . cit. , pp. 3f. 31. Ibid, p . 4. 32 . Ibid, p . 6 . 33 . Ibid, p . 7. 34 . E.g. If Thielicke's statement (Ibid, p . 283) "the status of existence which we all share as men in the disordered creation that exists since the Fall," is a historical statement, then it does not make sense, though theologians have been talking in these terms for centuries. If, on the other hand , he is speaking metaphorically of existential reality--the persistent distortion and disordering of the Creator's intent by the would-be-autonomous creature--"since the Fall" refers to every man's history and to a culmulative social fabric of sin and the results of sin into which every man is born, hence the " disordered creation which we all share as men," then the Fall can be a meaningful concept . 35 . Ibid, p. 283. 36 . See above, pp . l8f . Page 38: 37. Thielicke, op. cit ., p. 286 . 38. See Howe, Reuel, Man ' s Need and God's Action. (Greenwich, Conn .: The Seabury Press, 1957) and Herein Is Love . (Valley Forge, Pa .: The Judson Press, 1961) 39. Thielicke , op . cit ., p . 284 . 40. Ibid, p. 285 . Page 39: Available from Glide Urban Center Room 100 330 Ellis Street San Francisco, California 94102 SOc per copy; 7 or more copies 40c each Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource <i>Homosexuality: A Contemporary View of the Biblical Perspective</i> by The Rev. Dr. Robert Treese (39 pages) Description An account of the resource Prepared for the Consultation on Theology and the Homosexual, sponsored by Glide Urban Center and The Council on Religion and the Homosexual in San Francisco, August 22-24, 1966. https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/7576c5a91bb5316d55a04c1c90047b7f.pdf a422df4d3661a8af338696f04f78e1e8 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Page 1: Essays on Homosexuality Essay Number 2 The Challenge and Progress of Homosexual Law Reform Prepared and Published by: Council On Religion and the Homosexual 330 Ellis Street SanFrancisco, 94102 Daughters of Bilitis 1005 Market Street Room 208 San Francisco 94103 Society for Individual Rights 83 Sixth Street San Francisco 94103 Tavern Guild of San Francisco 83 Sixth Street San Francisco 94103 Page 2: Many books and articles have been written on the subject of homosexuality. Some of them are very good, but many of them are of little value. Not much of a serious nature has yet been written from the point of view of the homosexual; and little of that has received wide circulation. The homophile organizations of San Francisco have undertaken to publish and distribute a series of "Essays on Homosexuality" which will discuss subjects of interest and importance to the general public as well as the homophile community in a serious, informative, and constructive manner. Prepared by COUNCIL ON RELIGION AND THE HOMOSEXUAL 330 Ellis Street-San Francisco, California 94102 DAUGHTERS OF BILITIS 1005 Market Street-Room 208-San Francisco, California 94103 SOCIETY FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS 83 Sixth Street-San Francisco, California 94103 TAVERN GUILD OF SAN FRANCISCO 83 Sixth Street-San Francisco, California 94103 one dollar per copy (organizational rates upon request) The Challenge And Progress of Homosexual LAW REFORM Prepared and Published by: COUNCIL ON RELIGION AND THE HOMOSEXUAL DAUGHTERS OF BILITIS SOCIETY FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TAVERN GUILD OF SAN FRANCISCO 1968 Page 3: Table of Contents Page Introduction 5 Four Schools of Thought 7 Historical Survey 10 The English Experience 12 Situation in the United States 15 Present American Laws 16 Police Practices 20 Harassment and Exploitation of Homosexuals 24 Solicitation 30 Arguments For and Against Change 31 Conclusion 36 Notes 41 Homophile Organizations in the United States and Canada 70 Page 4: Introduction The discrepancy between "the law" on the one hand and human practices and scientific knowledge on the other has always been considerable. Nowhere is this discrepancy so noticeable as in matters of sex. Efforts to bridge the gap have not yet proved successful. Anything pertaining to sex-even the "normal" and "approved" kind-arouses intense emotional reactions. As a result, our sex laws are confused, irrational, and ineffective. Their inappropriateness and failure present us with an urgent challenge to which we ought to respond with reason, moderation and practicality. Justice to the individual and society requires no less. The time for change is at hand. Significant efforts toward constructive reform arc under way. Special law reform commissions and the legislatures of a number of states are at present studying the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code. If legal and religious leaders, politicians, editors and newspaper reporters, commentators on radio and television, and ordinary citizens will speak, write and act with restraint, great progress can be made. Already Illinois ( I 961) and New York (1965) have adopted new penal codes based on the lnstitute's model. In Pennsylvania, Delaware and Michigan, revision commissions have completed similar codes for legislative consideration. In fifteen other jurisdictions (California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Washington) reform commissions are at work. Hopefully, within the next three to five years over one-third of our states, containing over half the country's population, will live under more rational, humane, and workable criminal laws. If proposed revisions are accepted, it will mean the first comprehensive re-evaluation and recodification of our sex laws in a century. Attention here is limited to homosexuality even though birth control, abortion, sterilization, and artificial insemination arc also controversial subjects involved in any discussion of law reform. Many people feel that some change in existing laws relating to homosexual acts is both necessary and desirable. But they do not wholly agree on what changes should be made. No one is suggesting the repeal of laws prohibiting homosexual acts with minors or acts involving force or misrepresentation or overt acts committed in public. Page 5: What is being proposed is that the written law be brought into agreement with present legal practice by removing homosexual acts committed in private between consenting adults from the criminal statutes. If private acts are to be dealt with at all, it is suggested that non-criminal means be employed. 2 In discussing law reform, this essay will (I) take a look at the legal changes which have been proposed, (2) compare American and European statutes and attitudes on homosexual acts and the law, (3) examine the interpretation and the methods of enforcement of existing laws in this country, ( 4) allude to the problem of the harassment and exploitation of homosexuals, and (5) discuss the arguments for and against change. Four Schools of Thought There are four major schools of thought on homosexuality and the law. Each of them has its own views on what the criminal law should or should not do about homosexual acts. The traditional "condemn and punish" school, still supported by 19% of all Americans according to a poll taken for the Columbia Broadcasting Company in December 1966, regards homosexual acts as sins or crimes to be penalized by the state. 3 (Surprisingly, the same poll found that one-half of the 71 % of the population which considers homosexuality an illness also favors punishment.) This group believes homosexual acts are the lowest form of human degeneracy, considers homosexuality the greatest menace any society faces, denounces homosexual acts as "unfit to be mentioned among Christians," and holds homosexuals personally responsible for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, for "famines, earthquakes and pestilences" (as the Code of Justinian puts it), and for the decline of civilization as "proved" by the fate of ancient Rome, Nazi Germany and modern Britain. This view, though emotionally satisfying to many people, is no longer expressed with the vigor, vehemence, and certitude of former times largely because it does not agree with scientific findings and is out of harmony with the general enlightenment of our times.4 The most discussed and an increasingly influential school of thought today is the one popularized by the American Law Institute in this country, by the Wolfenden Report in Britain, and by the International Congress on Criminal Law in all nations. 5 This school holds that homosexual acts committed by consenting adults in private should be none of the law's concern and bases its recommendations on three major assumptions: first, that legal prohibition of any sex act should occur only where there is an element of force or threat, misuse of a superior position, the absence of consent, involvement with minors, or a violation of public decency; second, that such laws as now exist, being literally unenforceable, can only lead to the arbitrary and capricious prosecution of a small number of unfortunate persons, to the use of unsavory vice squad tactics, and to disrespect not only for such laws but for other laws as well; and third, that there exists a distinction between morality and crime, with every sin not necessarily being criminal and with at least some sins being reserved to the jurisdiction of the individual and the church rather than the state. Basic to all three assumptions are the ideas of privacy and choice as human rights not to be lightly interfered with by the state. At this time, Page 6: according to the CBS survey, only 19% of the American public favors legalizing private consensual adult homosexual behavior, but 27% expressed no opinion.6 As happened in England, open and frank discussion is apt to convince a majority of our citizens to favor change. Already we see candidates for political office publicly announcing their support of the Model Penal Code. A third group, assuming a position between the conservative "condemn and punish" and the liberal "legalize consensual acts" schools, argues for retention of laws against any and all homosexual acts on the grounds that the law (I) can, should, and must express society's disapproval of such conduct and (2) is a deterrent which at least limits or restrains the commission of specific acts. This group believes that the law, in a not too religious age, rep"resents the only meaningful standard of right and wrong and that any change would not only further weaken present moral standards but would also be taken to mean approval of previously disapproved conduct. Many supporters of this school seem willing to accept reduction of consensual adult acts from felonies to misdemeanors, and some of them would even accept the removal of all penalties.7 There is yet another school of thought-one with frightening implications- which unites the retributive and rehabilitative theories of punishment. This is the "sick," "special care," or "sex psychopath" school. In the name of science, humanitarianism, treatment, prevention and the security and wellbeing of the community, at least thirty-one jurisdictions now have laws on their books authorizing the incarceration or hospitalization of "sex psychopaths" or "sexually dangerous persons" for an indeterminate period ranging from one day to life. 8 The issue here is not whether there are such persons from whom society needs protection but whether these laws are applied to the right persons. Information on the application of these laws is hard to come by. In some states, like California, Michigan and Wisconsin, these laws are extensively used; in other states they are rarely, if ever, invoked.9 The experts 10 tell us the homosexual "bears the brunt" of these laws. The experience in California has been that although some officials want to deal with all homosexuals as sex psychopaths, medical, psychiatric and judicial authorities in recent years have refused to go along. Hence, in California, the laws are used only against those homosexuals who become involved with minors or resort to the use of force." But in some states. a person found or believed to be a homosexual, or to have committed a homosexual act, may be proceeded against as a sex psychopath under conditions which could not lead to his conviction for a criminal offense. In other words, a homosexual may be (and sometimes has been) deprived or his freedom simply because of his condition rather than because of overt acts proceeding from his condition. 12 Recently in one of its less enlightened decisions, 13 the Supreme Court, despite the presentation of extensive medical evidence that all homosexuals can by no means be classified as psychopaths, ruled that the term "psychopathic personaility," as used by Congress, was meant to include homosexuals. Too often, the policeman, the prosecutor, the doctor, and the judge impose their own views under the guise of law. The need for immediate and serious re-thinking of the sex psychopath issue as it pertains to homosexuality is urgent. Page 7: Historical Survey European and American attitudes and laws on homosexuality can be traced back to Jewish, Roman, and early Christian antecedents.1 4 For many centuries, especially during the Middle Ages, homosexual acts fell under ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Though the punishment was theoretically harsh and though death by burning, hanging and burial alive was sometimes imposed, the usual penalties seem to have been far less severe. Very likely they included exile, castration, corporal punishment (usually flogging), and most commonly penance-e.g., exclusion from the sacrament of communion from one to fifteen years or for life. In 1533 King Henry VIII of England, himself somewhat deficient in virtuous qualities, transferred jurisdiction over sodomy from ecclesiastical to royal courts because "there is not yet sufficient and condign punishment" for this "detestable and abominable vice." Henceforth, sodomy was to be a felony punishable in secular courts by death Over three centuries later, in 1861, the penalty was reduced to imprisonment from ten years to life. In 1823 assault with intent to commit an unnatural offense was proscribed; and in 1885, in the days of Queen Victoria, the Labouchiere Amendment-the law under which Oscar Wilde was convicted and imprisoned-created the wholly new crime of "gross indecency with males in public or private" punishable by imprisonment up to two years. Committing, procuring or attempting to procure such acts were all equally prohibited and penalized. All these laws remained in effect until July 27, 1967. On the continent15 the penal sections of the Code Napoleon (1810), which contain no reference to private homosexual acts between consenting adults, were accepted as law in such countries as France, Spain and Italy. In the last century, criminal statutes prohibiting private consensual homosexual acts between adults have been repealed in Belgium (1867), Holland (1886), Denmark (1933), Switzerland (1937), Sweden (1944), and Czechoslovakia (1962). In Greece, Poland and Turkey no such laws exist. In Norway, though all homosexual acts are technically illegal, they may be prosecuted, in the case of consenting adults, "only if this is considered necessary in the public interest," and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for one year. In 1953 the Norwegian Penal Code Commission recommended the removal of adult acts from the law, but no action has yet been taken. Only in such major countries as Russia and Germany (both West and East), and in such minor states as Austria, Finland, Bulgaria, Rumania and Yugoslavia do such Jaws exist. In Russia, homosexual acts between consenting adults are punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. The same maximum applies in both Germanies and Austria where such acts are prosecuted as "indecency with another male." This offense, dating back to the Imperial Criminal Code of 1871, was retained by the Nazis in their 1935 code and by the present German and Austrian governments in their 1953 revisions. In all three countries, however, the repeal of this law is now under serious consideration. Page 8: The English Experience On July 27, 1967 the Wolfenden recommendations became law in England. 16 A brief summary of how this came about should be of special interest to Americans at this time. In the early 1950s England was shocked by allegations, repeated by the British Medical Association, (1) that "practicing homosexuals" are found "in the Church, Parliament, the Civil Service, the Forces, the Press, the Radio, the Stage and other institutions," (2) that homosexuals tend "to place loyalty to one another above loyalty to the institution or government they serve," and (3) that they give "preferential treatment" to other homosexuals and "require homosexual seduction as expedient for promotion." 17 In 19 54 came the sensational arrest and trials of Lord Montagu. Acquitted of charges of indecent acts with young boys, Montagu (along with two other men) was tried for committing homosexual acts in private with consenting adult males and was convicted on the testimony of two airmen granted immunity from prosecution in return for turning queen's evidence. The three men were sentenced to twelve to eighteen months in prison.18 The Montagu case was but the most dramatic incident in what appeared to be a stepped-up official campaign to ferret out homosexuals. It has been alleged that pressure from American authorities who were concerned with security matters was at least in part responsible for the campaign. 19 Where there had been 1,666 arrests for homosexual offenses ( excluding importuning for which no figures are available) in 1950, there were 2,504 such arrests (a two-thirds increase) in 1955, with a conviction rate in excess of 90% and imprisonment imposed in about one-third of the cases. To the 1955 figure must be added 494 convictions for importuning, almost all of them disposed of by fines. From a given group of 489 males convicted of homosexual acts, the arrests in 304 cases (62%) resulted from information obtained by the police in their investigations of other (usually homosexual) offenses. Government spokesmen, in reply to parliamentary inquiry, said that the police learn of about 2,000 homosexual offenses annually, of which approximately 1,300 are prosecuted, with about I 00 of the men being convicted of private consensual acts with other adult males.20 Public response to the trials soon shifted from an initial expression of revulsion at such behavior to outrage not only at the methods used by the police lo obtain evidence but also to a course of action which seemed to constitute a witch-hunt. 21 After prominent churchmen and public figures spoke out against the prosecutions, a reluctant Home Secretary agreed to appoint a special committee, to be headed by Sir John Wolfenden of Reading University, to investigate "the law and practice relating to homosexual offenses" and to make recommendations thereon. The committee began its work in the summer of 1954, interviewed witnesses over a two year period, and submitted its report in September, 1957. It was profoundly influenced by the conclusions of the Church of England's Moral Welfare Council and the Archbishop of Westminster's Catholic Advisory Committee. 22 Both groups strongly urged that homosexual acts between consenting adults in private be removed from the criminal statutes. The Wolfenden Committee adopted this recommendation as its own and added a number of lesser ones as well. Reaction to the Wolfenden Report was mixed. 23 The metropolitan press tended to favor its recommendations, but the provincial press opposed them. The yellow press painted a sensational and lurid picture of things to come. Prominent persons in public and private life were found on both sides of the issue. Government spokesmen chose to say as little as possible. In December 1957, the House of Lords, and in November 1958, the House of Commons took up the subject.2 4 Quiet words of moderation were drowned out by a strident crescendo of indignation, anger, and disgust. A public opinion poll showed 47% of the public opposed to the recommendations, 38% in favor and 15% undecided_25 A year and a half later, in June 1960, the Commons voted (213 to 99) against any implementation of the recommendations. The words of opposition were still harsh and often emotional. As the Home Secretary put the case, the time for change had not arrived, further study of the subject was needed, progress was being made, sympathy for persons suffering injustice under the rigors of the present law was proper, but ameliorative legislation would be misunderstood as approval of immoral conduct. 26 For five years no further official consideration was given to the matter. However, there was a lively debate in the press and the Director of Public Prosecutions tried to discourage local authorities from prosecuting "stale" cases and cases involving private adult consensual acts. 27 Then, 111 1965, a shift of opinion became apparent. The half-way mark had been reached. In February the Liberals made it a matter of party policy to support the implementation of the Wolfenden recommendations; and in May the Lords, not usually regarded as radical or progressive, voted (99 to 49) for the proposed changes. But the Commons voted (I 78 to 159) against it. However, even in the Commons a significant change had occurred-in five years the margin of opposition had declined from two to one to a bare majority. Reformers saw victory just around the corner. Soon (in October) another favorable vote by the Lords (96 to 31) was followed by the introduction of a homosexual law reform bill in the Commons where it was given its first reading in November, and a favorable vote (I 64 to 107) on its second reading in February 1966. In May and June there followed two more favorable votes in the House of Lords Page 9: (70 to 29 and 78 to 60). At this point, lacking only its third reading in the Commons, the bill died because Parliament was dissolved for national elections. But in the newly elected Parliament, the Commons on July 5, 1966 voted overwhelmingly (244 to 100) to reintroduce the bill and on December 19th gave it a favorable second reading (194 to 84). By this time public opinion polls showed 63% of the population in favor of change. 28 Finally on July 4, 1967 the measure received final approval by the Commons (99 to 14), despite last minute attempts to filibuster the bill to death, and on July 21st the bill was approved by the Lords without a formal vote. Where the Conservative government had actively opposed the change, the Labor government, though technically neutral, favored it. The battle of the decade was over. What had seemed radical and visionary in 1957 had become reasonable and proper by 1967. Humanitarians had chalked up another victory. Situation in the United States In this country, which Kinsey found more vehemently anti-homosexual than any other nation in the world,29 it may take quite some time, except in the more enlightened states, to effect the proposed reforms so recently translated into law in England. Apart from Illinois (1961 ), no state has yet accepted the Model Penal Code's recommendations on homosexuality. There are those doubting Thomases who say the legislators of Illinois did not realize what they had voted for. The same cannot be said of the New York legislators who in May of 1965 adopted a new penal code. In its original form, the code removed consensual sodomy and adultery from the list of criminal offenses. The code commissioners and legislative leaders, on the basis of their meetings with churchmen and other professional groups over a three year period, were confident of success. But as the time to vote drew near, the strong and open opposition of spokesmen for the Roman Catholic Church, expressed in an eighteen-page memorandum sent to each legislator and in oral testimony at public hearings, caused the legislators to get cold feet. By a vote of 115 to 16, the two contested acts were retained as criminal offenses. 30 In I 963 Minnesota refused to accept a proposal to reduce its maximum penalty for consensual adult sodomy from twenty to ten years in prison.31 Two years earlier, New Mexico dropped a proposal to remove consensual adult sodomy from the criminal code after a measure had passed the lower house (37 to 28) and was expected to pass the upper chamber. Allegedly the intervention of a high Catholic cleric caused the reform effort to collapse. 32 In October 1966, a subcommittee of a North Carolina commission studying laws on public morality recommended that no change be made in the state's existing sodomy law.3 3 In Pennsylvania the proposed new penal code recently submitted to the legislature reduces consensual sodomy from a felony to a misdemeanor and exempts husbands and wives from prosecution for unnatural acts.34 Georgia reportedly will not only retain its sodomy laws, but its proposed new code will extend them to include lesbian acts. 35 In California, Michigan, Washington and Connecticut, 36 revision commissions are proposing to follow the lead of Illinois. In some states, like Florida, where a relentless legislative campaign against homosexuals has been going on since the creation of the Johns Committee in 1955, the trend is toward increasing the severity of present laws. As the Minority Leader of the Florida House recently put it: "The homosexual deserves no better treatment than any other criminal," and new laws to combat homosexuality will be proposed to the legislature because _"homosexuality must be eliminated. "3 Recently a number of chiefs of police from such cities as Los Angeles and Denver38 have publicly spoken out against any modification of present anti-homosexual laws. Page 10: Present American Laws Our laws prohibiting homosexual acts, though numerous, are characterized by a vagueness and imprecision not tolerated by legislators and judges in the case of any other criminal offenses.39 Almost all homosexual acts except in Illinois, New York, New Jersey and possibly the District of Columbia-are felonies, though in law California and North Dakota offer a misdemeanor option; and in practice, all states permit consensual adult sodomy to be prosecuted as a misdemeanor through the use of alternate sections of the penal codes. 40 (Technically, felony usually refers to an offense punishable by death or imprisonment in a penitentiary for one year or more; and misdemeanor, to an offense punishable by a fine or a jail sentence not exceeding one year or both.) The usual terms used to describe homosexual acts are "crime against nature" (in the statutes of 31 states) and "sodomy" (in 27 states). In addition, the terms "buggery," "perversion," "fellation," "unnatural intercourse," "unnatural and lascivious acts," "unnatural or perverted practices," "indecent or immoral practices," "perverse acts," and "deviate sexual conduct" are occasionally used. 41 To "crime against nature" -a very curious term-are added the pejorative "abominable and detestable" in 13, and "infamous" in 7 states. 42 No other offense, not even murder, is prefixed with such judgmental adjectives. The penalties imposed for consensual crimes against nature sometimes reach rather astronomical proportions as far as the lifetime of an individual is concerned. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment in 5 states, 30 years in 1 state, 21 years in 1, 20 in 10, 15 in 4, 14 in 2, 10 in 18, 5 in 6, 3 in 2, and 3 months in 1.43 (By contrast the maximum penalty in European countries is five years.) The minimum penalty runs from I day in 1 state, to 4 months in 1, to 1 year in 37 states, to 2 years in 6, to 3 years in 1, to 5 years in 3, to 7 years in 1. In 13 states a fine may be substituted for imprisonment; in 2 states a fine is levied in addition to imprisonment; and in 11 states both a fine and imprisonment may be imposed.44 For private consenting adult acts, which are increasingly coming to be regarded as harmless and inconsequential, such penalties are unquestionably severe and perhaps self-righteously savage. It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that the felony statutes are seldom invoked in such cases. To retain the laws, but not to enforce them, appears to be the desire of both legislators and citizens-and of many prosecutors and judges as well. Indeed, one of the factors which convinced many churchmen in New York to favor retention of present laws was an assurance that they are not used against consenting adults.4 5 However, some police officials and prosecuting attorneys, having a rather literal concept of the law and its enforcement, especially when guarding the community from the sexual nonconformist, still passionately argue "there is no legal sexual release for the homosexual" and "every homosexual act is a felony." It is the search and seizure rules currently imposed by the courts and practical considerations of a limited budget and a manpower shortage rather than any feeling that society does not want such laws enforced that deter these officers from proceeding against adult males who commit homosexual acts in private with consenting partners. From time to time, the press carries stories of adult homosexuals convicted of private consenting acts. In January, 1962, Max Doyle Perkins of North Carolina (according to TIME, a magazine which can hardly be called soft on homosexuals) was convicted of such an act; and he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years-in short, to imprisonment for the rest of his natural life_46 In 1955, in Boise, Idaho, in a TIME-inflamed witch-hunt, 5 of the 16 men arrested were charged with committing homosexual acts with consenting males aged 18 or over. 4 7 Three of these men were given prison sentencesone for 7 years and the other two for 5 years each. In Canada, two years ago, Everett Klippert, after being convicted of performing consensual homosexual acts in private with four other adult males over a nine-month period, was sentenced to "an indefinite period of detention." His sentence was recently upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada .48 There are no doubt many other cases which have not been brought to public attention because sentences have not been excessive. As an alternative or a supplement to criminal prosecution, 31 jurisdictions permit the civil commitment of an individual charged with private consensual sodomy or of a person believed to be a homosexual for an indeterminate period between one day and life.49 Unfortunately, no satisfactory statistics on the implementation of the sex psychopath laws are available; but the above actualities and possibilities argue for revision of present felony statutes. Most consensual homosexual offenses are prosecuted as misdemeanors, partly because judges and juries are reluctant to convict on felony charges carrying such excessive penalties, partly because prosecutors find it difficult to obtain the evidence and corroboration necessary for conviction even under the relaxed standards permitted in sex trials, partly because the number of cases is so great that effective prosecution of them as felonies is beyond the temporal and financial capacities of the prosecutor's office, but primarily because most prosecutors and judges have concluded that these offenses are mere nuisances. As the system now operates, only a few defendants charged with consensual homosexual acts ever plead not guilty and thus compel the prosecution to present its case before judge or jury. Rather, most such de- Page 11: fondants either confess from the start or, being threatened with prosecution for a felony, agree to "cop out" -i.e., plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge. 5 0 (As the President's Crime Commission reported, confession and pleading guilty to a lesser offense account for as many as 90% of all convictions in some jurisdictions of the United States today. 51 ) The specific charges for which homosexuals are usually arrested are these: solicitation, loitering, disorderly conduct, lewd or indecent acts, indecent exposure, disturbing the peace, lewd vagrancy, assault, public nuisance, or being a lewd and wanton person. Many of these offenses are as ill-defined as they are a matter of personal judgment. But very simply put, the acts behind these charges consist of actual or attempted anal or oral contact, exposure of the sex organ, physical touching, an individual's presence in the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong purpose from the arresting officer's point of view, 52 the exchange of money, or a conversation which may or may not have sexual overtones. The penalties for these nuisance offenses, almost all of which occur in public, involve fines ranging from $10 to $1,000, jail sentences, when imposed, varying from 3 to 12 months, or some combination of the two. 53 Sinte it is so universally agreed that prison is the wrong place for a homosexual, jail sentences, at least for first offenders, are frequently suspended; and probation is substituted. What the arrested homosexual has to fear is not the severity of his sentence, but the consequences of revelation. Personal humiliation, alienation from family and friends, and loss of jobs-these are the real penalties; and they become operative at the moment of arrest rather than after conviction. Precise statistical data on homosexual offenses are not readily available. Police and court record-keeping has long been unsystematic, imprecise, and confusing; and the police, for a variety of reasons, often refuse or are reluctant to release such information. 54 Figures supplied in the UCLA study 55 show that in Los Angeles County there were 439 felony cases referred to the Superior Court during the three year period 1962-64 (or an average of 146 per year) and that 2,994 persons were involved in misdemeanor cases brought before the Municipal Court during the year starting May 1, 1964. Using a random sample of 64% of the felony and 16% of the misdemeanor cases and excluding any cases involving minors or the use of force or fraud, the study found that the conviction rate was 23% for sodomy (anal penetration) and 54% for foliation (oral copulation), was 95% for the misdemeanor cases, and, when felony charges were reduced to misdemeanors as they were for 40% of the defendants originally so charged, was 89% overall. Because no comparable studies have been made for any other area, only a few additional figures can be given. During the 1950s, felony arrests in Philadelphia averaged about 10 per month and misdemeanor arrests, about 100. 56 Back in the McCarthy days, approximately 1,200 homosexual arrests were made each year in the District of Columbia. 57 For the years 1960-63, the number of arrests made annually in New York City is estimated at between 1,000 and 1,200. Of these, only 250 are for felony offenses; the remainder involve misdemeanor charges of solicitation of decoy officers, except for 125 arrests for sexual acts in public. 58 In Chicago, about 150 homosexuals are arrested each month 59 In Columbus, Ohio, there are approximately 300 arrests a year.60 In San Francisco arrests are down from 911 in 1961 to 354 in 1964. 61 Because of increasing public awareness of homosexual activity and because of markedly stepped-up police activity in this field, today's arrest figures are very probably considerably higher than most of those just cited. Conviction rates for the above arrests, though not available, presumably exceed 90%. Page 12: Police Practices It is a truism that our laws proscribing homosexual acts cannot possibly be enforced as they stand. To suggest they can is preposterous. The number of homosexual acts committed is too great; the facilities needed to prosecute, imprison, or treat homosexuals on a mass basis do not exist; the cost of creating them would be prohibitive; and the general feeling of the populace is against it. A modest estimate of the predominantly homosexual population of the United States today is ten million. It is sobering to learn that during the whole of 1965 there were 2,780,015 offenses of all kinds ( excluding traffic violations) known to the police,6 2 that the country's detention capacity is approximately 425,00o,63 and that the number of psychiatrists is around 20,000. 64 People who speak in the simplistic terms of literal enforcement of the law or incarceration and treatment of homosexuals, not knowing or unable to accept the actual situation, naively believe homosexuals are few and far between and fail to appreciate the implications of their views. But police and prosecutors must be more realistic. Of necessity, they limit themselves to "selective" enforcement. Normally, of the many homosexual cases coming to their attention, only those which involve minors, public display, and force or fraud are prosecuted. 65 Although there is some disagreement about what should be the age of consent and what constitutes force or fraud, the impropriety of public sex acts is widely acknowledged, as is the desirability of doing something about them. However, the shock which public sex acts committed by homosexuals arouses in the delicate sensibilities of hardened vice officers is to be contrasted with the indifference which public heterosexual acts bring and with the tacit encouragement given to such acts when lovers' lanes are ignored or given police protection. If the idea of arresting homosexuals for being homosexual has an appeal, as it does to some people, then the problem of enforcement becomes simply a matter of catching or identifying homosexuals, preferably at twenty paces. Though there are those who would argue to the contrary, it appears that build, manner of walking, tone of voice, or even color of the hair are not sufficiently reliable stigmata to warrant the risk of false arrest. Hence, the practical matter of uncertainty, strengthened by the philosophical principle that "dislike of the unlike" is not sufficient grounds for arrest, supports the proposition that the commission of homosexual acts rather than the existence of the homosexual condition should be the basis for arrest. Though there is no denying that solicitation and homosexual acts occur in public, police claims that such activity is blatantly offensive and is a special danger to minors are not supported by complaints from aggrieved parties, by police testimony, or by such research as has been done on the subject. Rather, researchers have found that solicitation tends to be discreet and unnoticeable to a disinterested party and that homosexual acts are abruptly discontinued at the approach of an unknown or unsympathetic person. 66 In order to catch persons engaged in homosexual acts, the police have chosen to rely on two major techniques-both very expensive in time and money: "clandestine observation" which means spying through peepholes (as in the case of former White House Aide Walter Jenkins) or special mirrors,67 using hidden TV cameras, 68 or secretly taking photographs;69 and trapping or "decoy operation" which means sending out plainclothesmen who dress, walk, talk and act as they think homosexuals do for the sole purpose of enticing a homosexual solicitation. (In addition, police occasionally are able to make arrests as a result of personal confessions, investigation of specific complaints, utilization of information obtained incidentally in the investigation of other matters, or stumbling accidentally upon persons engaged in a homosexual act.) In Los Angeles, according to the UCLA study, the police relied on clandestine observation in 93% of the felony arrests and 39% of the misdemeanors. Because such a procedure has raised questions of search and seizure and invasion of privacy, the courts have restricted this practice to some degree. Spying on people using public toilet facilities in the hope of ultimately discovering someone who commits an illegal act can be criticized on practical and ethical as well as legal grounds. 70 The use of decoys is widespread. In Chicago last summer (1966) three bars were closed after decoys testified they had been "solicited" in them. 71 In Tallahassee, in December, 1965, the governor of the state and the president of Florida State University publicly protested police use of college boys as decoys to trap homosexuals at ten dollars a head.72 And in New York City, the mayor and chief of police, in April, 1966, after the police had denied over and over again that any such thing happened, ordered plainsclothesmen to cease enticing and entrapping homosexuals. 73 The Los Angeles police used decoy operations to effect 51 % of their misdemeanor arrests. 74 Here the problems of enticement and entrapment abound. Police policy may forbid vice officers to engage in such conduct; but the idiosyncracies of individual plainclothesmen, the testimony of arrested homosexuals, and the indefiniteness of the whole situation raise serious doubts. Masters, in his book, holds that police practices "amount to entrapment," and the UCLA study flatly asserts that "enticement is widely practiced." 7 5 And Paul Welch, in his article in LI FE, clearly showed how the decoy may take the initiative. 76 The same issue is at stake in the activities of state liquor agents who frequent bars catering to homosexuals for the explicit purpose of soliciting invitations Page 13: which can be used to justify complaints and arrests which may lead to revocation of a bar's liquor license. In court, judges and juries almost without exception believe the decoy's version of what happened. (In Los Angeles only 7 out of 434 misdemeanor (1.6%) and 12 out of 493 felony arrests (2.4%) made by decoys were dismissed.) 77 Because verbal and visual exchange without the commission of any overt act is sufficient for arrest, because corroboration of the decoy's testimony is not required, because so little evidence of citizen complaint or public outrage has been presented, and because the opportunity for error and injustice is so great, serious doubts about the whole decoy system have been raised. Judicial definitions of entrapment also leave much to be desired. Judges say the test for entrapment involves finding answers to two questions: First did the intent to commit the crime originate in the mind of the defendant or the decoy. Only if it originated in the mind of the officer has entrapment occurred. And second-a relaxation of the preceding test-did the defendant have a "pre-existing" intent? If he did, then the officer's intent is irrelevant; and entrapment has not occurred. Since judges ASSUME a pre-existing intent in the defendant's mind in homosexual cases, it would appear that entrapment has been defined out of existence as a defense in homosexual cases. 78 Learned judges may divine what is in the minds of the decoy and his prey, but ordinary mortals are less talented. In recent years a number of church groups and legal specialists have criticized present court definitions of entrapment, especially as they pertain to homosexuals, for being unrealistic, impractical, evasive, emotionally inspired, and concerned with a false issue.79 They have proposed that the test should be concerned with the decoy's behavior rather than his intent-a matter which can be empirically determined. Specifically, they argue that if the decoy dresses, talks, or acts in a manner suggestive of a homosexual rather than heterosexual orientation he should be guilty of entrapment. The more economical, and apparently equally effective, way to control public homosexual behavior is to rely on uniformed patrol of suspected areas at irregular intervals. When, for example, upon the suggestion of the WASHINGTON POST and the request of the Mattachine Society of Washington, the District of Columbia police agreed to substitute uniformed officers for decoys in such places as Lafayette Park, the number of arrests (and presumably the amount of homosexual solicitation) declined by one-half. 80 But police preference for the use of decoys rather than patrol by officers in uniform suggests a greater interest in encouraging violations of the law in order to make arrests than in preventing the commission of offenses. 81 Though over-zealous decoy activity has been repeatedly denounced by the courts, 82 the criticism has made little or no impression on police and prosecutors. Furthermore, as the courts have restricted clandestine observation, the police, at least in Los Angeles, have increased their use of the decoy system. 83 Until the courts revise their present definition of entrapment or an outraged public demands a change, the decoy system will be more and more widely used. Another police practice extensively used consists of compiling lists of names of known or suspected homosexuals. Once an arrest is made, intensive interrogation leads to additional names. The named persons are in turn interrogated, often under conditions which can only be described as extralegal if not illegal. The scandal in Boise, Idaho, a decade ago illustrates the technique. 84 Starting with the interrogation of a dozen or so males, a specially hired investigator, employing questionable tactics for which he was never held to account, accumulated a file of 500 names. The fear and suspicion that ran rampant through that small city are graphically described by John Gerassi in his BOYS OF BOISE. The propriety and purpose of drawing up such rosters needs explanation. Also needing thoughtful reconsideration are the laws requiring life-long registration of certain types of sex offenders with the law enforcement officials of any community in which they may live. Allegedly the purpose of registration is to protect society from persons who commercialize sex, resort to crimes of violence, or commit offenses against children. In California, in the case of homosexuals, sodomy, fellation, indecent exposure, and soliciting for, loitering for, or engaging in lewd acts are all registerable offenses.85 The UCLA study found that the police are "adamant" in their determination to have all homosexual offenders registered, arrest for an offense requiring registration whenever possible, and are "annoyed" when judges allow homosexual defendants to plead to a "non-registerable lesser included offense."86 But since research studies show so conclusively that homosexuals are rarely involved in crimes against children or in crimes of violence, 87 the justification for registration of adult consensual homosexual offenders, with the stigma attached to it, is without foundation. Specifically, of the 968 defendants studied by the UCLA group, only 6 (.6%) had ever been convicted of a crime involving a child, and only 21 (2%) had ever been convicted of a crime involving violence. Hence, keeping a list of persons convicted of consensual homosexual acts with adults seems of dubious practical value for law enforcement purposes. In addition, registration may violate the constitutional guarantee against sefl-incrimination, and keeping such lists unfortunately lends itself to the possibilities of abuse and harassment through disclosure of information to unauthorized persons. 88 Although they deny it, the police often feel a special obligation, which they do not assume for other and more serious offenses, to report the arrest of homosexuals to their employers and landlords.89 It seems unclear why, if most homosexual offenses are regarded as nuisances, the police should take such action when they know full well it is likely to result in the individual being fired from his job and evicted from his home. What are the moral, psychological, and legal implications of such a course of action? Page 14: Harassment and Exploitation of Homosexuals Homosexuals claim that they are not only harassed by public officials through the agencies of the police, the liquor authorities, and the post office, but that they are also victimized, often with near impunity, by a few policemen, by young thugs, and by organized extortionists. (In addition, they point out that they are discriminated against in employment and military service.90) "Gay bars,"91 probably the most popular social institution in homosexual society, arouse the hackles of some people. For years, efforts have been made to close them down as menaces to the "public welfare and morals." Individual homosexuals and owners of such bars allege that vice and liquor officers practice enticement and entrapment in order to make arrests, hold homosexuals to a much higher standard of conduct than heterosexuals and harass both patrons and owners by repeated and extended surveillance and by raids which result in mass arrests. 92 Such harassment not only deprives the homosexual of his personal right of patronizing places of his own choice but also threatens the economic livelihood of the bar owner. Challenging the policy and decisions of the police and the state liquor authorities93 is a slow and expensive proposition; and until recently, the likelihood of success-even on appeal-has been small. Slowly but decisively the courts are assuming the position (a) that homosexuals have a constitutional right to congregate in public places of their choice so long as they commit no illegal or immoral acts and (b) that bar owners may not have their licenses suspended or revoked simply because they cater to a homosexual clientele. In California the issue was fought out between the legislature, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Department, and the courts in the 1950s .94 On the east coast, the issue is only now being resolved. Last year three members of the New York Mattachine Society threatened to file a formal complaint with the State Commission on Human Rights and to sue the owner of the bar where they had been refused service because they were homosexuals. At this point the Chairman of the State Liquor Authority denied the commission has ever indicated that homosexuals should not be served.95 Yet, in recent years bars which attracted homosexuals were closed one after another until very few remained.96 During the past year the licenses of three bars in New Jersey were suspended or revoked by the State Alcoholic Beverage Commission specifically for "permitting apparent homosexuals to congregate" in them. 97 But the New Jersey Supreme Court has recently overruled this policy and has decreed that homosexuals "have the undoubted right to congregate in public' so long as their behavior "conforms with currently acceptable standards of decency and morality."98 (Exactly ten years ago, however, the same court had with equal certainty upheld the legality of such suspensions or revocations: "Assuredly," it had said, "it is inimical to the preservation of our social and moral welfare to permit public taverns to be converted into recreational fraternities for homosexuals .... "99) In Florida, the situation is quite different. In Miami an ordinance prohibits homosexuals from working, being served, or congregating in places selling alcoholic beverages. In a test suit filed by the former president of the Mattachine Society of Florida, the ordinance was found constitutional. Inasmuch as the Florida Supreme Court has refused to review the lower court's decision, the ordinance stands.100 And since that refusal, Coral Gables has passed a similar ordinance. Such a prohibition cannot possibly be enforced, but it is tailor-made for harassment and corruption.101 Outright police harassment of homosexuals is now becoming a matter of public knowledge. Newspapers all over the country are reporting police raids on bars, or other places, "known or alleged to be homosexual hangouts." What happened in Chicago in April, 1964, is not unusual. Front page stories listed the names and addresses and places of employment of many of the I 03 persons taken into custody at the Fun Lounge, a bar near O'Hare Field. Ultimately all charges were dismissed. But in the meantime, 30 men had lost their jobs and all concerned had been publicly branded as persons frequenting "a rendezvous for deviates." 102 Two years later, in the summer of 1966, the Chicago police were still making arrests on a mass basis. As one attorney pointed out, "There's never the slightest hope of conviction in cases like these." 103 Indeed, the police do not even bother to show up at court, but they build up the department's arrest statistics; and they saddle alleged or actual homosexuals with the handicap of a police record for the rest of their lives. Civil libertarians consider these mass arrests vicious police harassment and prima facie evidence of discriminatory enforcement of the law. Moreover, American Civil Liberties Union chapters in New York, Chicago, and Atlanta have recently denounced this sort of activity and "this growing practice by police to treat sexual deviancy as a criminal offense." 104 Another clear-cut example of police harassment occurred in San Francisco on the evening of New Year's Day, 1965, at a benefit ball sponsored by a number of homophile organizations as a means of raising funds for the Council on Religion and the Homosexual.10 5 In order to avoid trouble, a delegation of ministers and representatives of the homophile community first cleared their plans with the police department. Going back on their word, the police showed up in force-squad cars, patrol wagons, uniformed officers, plainclothesmen, and photographers. They took pictures, both still and Page 15: movie, of persons entering and leaving the hall. When they demanded the right to enter, they were told by three lawyers that the dance was a private affair and that, unless they had information that a crime was being committed inside, they could not legally enter without a search warrant. Thereafter the three lawyers and a married woman taking tickets at the door were arrested for interfering with police officers in the performance of their duty. Having entered the hall without any difficulty, the police, an hour later, arrested two men for committing lewd acts. Subsequently six ministers publicly accused the police of "intimidation, broken promises, and obvious hostility." At their trials the three lawyers and the ticket taker were acquitted by order of the judge, but a jury found the two men guilty of disorderly conduct. Last New Year's Eve a dramatic incident, involving elements of police brutally as well as probable harassment, occurred in Los Angeles.106 It is still too close in time and emotion, however, for the matter to be seen in proper perspective. Officials maintain no violence was intended. But when police officers see a man in female attire (as several of the defendants were), they sometimes, even though being so dressed does not per se constitute an offense, find it hard to control their emotions. At the stroke of midnight, plainclothes vice officers, who had been in the bar as "customers" for quite some time, with guns and fists as their "identification," began their raid. Joined almost immediately by a number of uniformed officers, who had been waiting nearby in squad cars, they arrested 16 persons in the Black Cat and 12 in the New Faces bars. Grounds for arrest was lewd conduct (kissing), except for two charges of drunkenness and one for assault. During the altercation, according to a witness who wrote to PLAYBOY, 107 one of the officers kept yelling, "Save a queer for me." At the Black Cat trial, testimony that two bartenders and a number of customers had been beaten by the police was excluded as irrelevant but testimony that the police had been attacked was allowed; and contradictions between the testimony of the officers and their official arrest reports were revealed. Though the story of the raids was partially covered by local radio and television stations and by the underground LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS-not one word on the subject appeared in the daily newspapers-most of the information was held back for about two weeks. All of the men arrested at the Black Cat have been tried. Two of them were fined after pleading NOLO CONTENDERE. Seven were tried together-six were found guilty by the jury and were fined ($50 to $300). Their convictions are being appealed. The other man, who had been seen in court with a girl friend during the tnal, had charges against him dropped when the jury could not agree on a verdict. The remaining seven defendants were tried separately and acquitted. Complete details on the New Faces case are not yet available. But one of the arrested men, a waiter, who had been so seriously beaten by the police that he had to have an emergency operation to remove a ruptured spleen, has been found not guilty of assaulting the police. Another man, a bartender, and the woman who owned the bar were also beaten by the police-but they were not arrested. Neither bar exists any longer. Within three weeks, after nightly visits by uniformed officers checking rest rooms, licenses, and the conduct of patrons, business fell off so drastically that the owner of the New Faces had to close the bar. The Black Cat, its liquor license suspended, closed its doors May 21st. Other types of harassment 108 include: checking identification cards of bar patrons for age, arrests for jay-walking or minor traffic violations of persons seen leaving a homosexual bar, repeated inspection of premises for possible violations of fire and health ordinances, parking police cars (with or without flashing lights) in front of or near gay bars, and stopping persons on the street for identification and interrogation. Again, as the UCLA study pointed out, such harassment directed only at known or suspected homosexuals is quite possibly a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.109 Many homosexuals have refused to subscribe to homophile publications for fear that their names would appear on some official list and that the consequences would be serious 110-a fear that seems to have some basis in fact. Two years ago, in Pennsylvania, a state employee was forced to resign after postal inspectors informed his superior that he had received materials published by the Janus Society and other groups interested in homosexuality. In similar fashion, postal authorities went to the supervisor of a federal employee and, in the case of a professor, to the president of his college. I I I Last year congressional investigators looking into governmental invasions of privacy discovered that the Post Office has been placing "mail covers" (i.e., drawing up lists of names and addresses) on persons receiving books and magazines aimed at homosexuals and that, on request it has been passing along the names to employers in government and private industry. Under congressional prodding, the Postmaster General has said he will order his department to stop these mail covers.112 Homosexuals face occasional violence at the hands of police, "queerbaiters," and offended persons approached by them or sexually involved with them. A few policemen realize that they can get away with using unnecessary force against homosexuals and justify beating up queers on the grounds that judges let them off too leniently;l 13 and some policemen also treat homosexuals with contempt or "psychical brutality." 114 "Queer-baiting" (i.e., tracking down homosexuals in order to beat them up and rob them) has become an acceptable pastime among some teenagers. For example, one night in April, 1961, four San Francisco boys beat up and robbed a young man completely unknown to them, but whom they suspected might be a homosexual, and left him lying on the street where he was run Page 16: over by a street car. After his death, the boys were arrested, prosecuted, and convicted. A police inspector said the boys considered beating up queers a civic duty, and one of them boasted, "I know one fellow who has 28 or 29 queers to his credit." 115 In Denver, in the spring of 1962, eleven teenage youths who had been picked up for queer-baiting justified their action with such somments as, "A guy's gotta do something for kicks" and "I just can't stand them" 116 Newspapers frequently carry brief stories about men beaten up or killed by parties claiming to have been offended by indecent proposals or homosexual acts perpetrated upon them. To what degree the assailant was a willing or reluctant partner is difficult to determine. Among the many examples to be found are the following: 117 a 57 year old Massachusetts doctor stabbed to death by a 27 year old man, a 21 year old soldier found not guilty of murdering a 38 year old man, a San Francisco father acquitted after shooting his son's homosexual friend, a 20 year old ex-Marine from Georgia admitting he shot a 21 year old Pennsylvania man, a 22 year old man convicted of murdering a 42 year old minister in Minnesota, a Miami business man stabbed to death by a young man, a 41 year old Canadian scholar found stabbed to death in a motel room in New Orleans, a young Englishman and his girlfriend convicted of murdering a 17 year old homosexual who refused to give them money, three sailors accused of beating a Philadelphia man to death in Martinique, and three former paratroopers in their twenties acquitted of murdering a 56 year old mortician in Indiana. Blackmail and extortion have long been familiar byproducts of homosexuality. In March 1966, the nation's press headlined the news that the district attorney and police of New York City, in cooperation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had uncovered a nation-wide racket operated by a ring of some seventy or more men who had extorted over a million dollars from several thousand homosexuals during the last decade. 118 Leader of the ring was John J. Pyne, a former Chicago policeman, who provided his workers with genuine police badges, arrest warrants, and extradition papers. The ring's mode of operation was simple and effective: a "chicken" (a young man serving as the decoy) would approach a known or suspected homosexual, usually in a bar, and suggest going to a hotel; there the "chicken" would either overpower his victim, steal his money and identification papers, or be "discovered" in a compromising position by partners posing as detectives who would suggest maybe a deal could be worked out to avoid arrest; later, members of the ring would visit the victim at his home or place of employment to demand payment on threat of exposure. Among the victims were a Congressman who paid $40,000, an admiral ($5,000), a general ($2,000), a British producer ($3,000), a minister ($2,000), two well known singers, a TV personality, a movie actor, a musician, a west coast surgeon, a California nuclear scientist, two university deans, a number of college professors, many businessmen (including a Utah contractor who paid $10,000), and a wealthy midwestern school teacher who is said to have paid out $120,000 over a four year period. Another of their victims was a military officer who committed suicide the night before he was scheduled to testify before a grand jury. Some of the victims who refused or were reluctant to pay were beaten up; others lost their jobs and suffered broken marriages and homes when the blackmailers notified their employers or families by letter or telephone. So far, 45 members of the ring have either pleaded guilty or have been convicted. All of them have received prison sentences, a few as high as ten years. Extortion schemes of this sort are not new. Back in 1940, the district attorney of New York City broke up a similar ring which had been operating in and around that area for twenty years. 119 In that instance, 23 blackmailers went to prison. Still another gang was broken up in New York City around 1960. 120 Recent exposures have aroused considerable concern as frank and full news coverage indicates. Police officers and F.B.l. officials have contacted leaders of homophile organizations to request their cooperation in bringing criminals who prey on homosexuals to trial. 121 Writers in religious journals, as well as in the popular press, have called for an end to this sort of activity .122 Many police departments have begun to do something about curtailing exploitation of homosexuals, whether in the form of violence and robbery perpetrated by fellow police officers, teenage gangs, or individual thugs or in the form of extortion by organized rings or individual blackmailers. But for them to be successful, homosexuals must be willing to register complaints and to testify against their assailants~something which homosexuals arc still reluctant to do. To encourage victims to come forward, a number of district attorneys arc willing to grant immunity from prosecution, expressed in writing, for any homosexual offenses which may be in volved and to do all in their power to handle the matter as quietly as possible. In the recent extortion trials, for example, no homosexual involved was identified by name in the press. Page 17: Solicitation One of the "touchiest" problems facing homosexuals is solicitation. A large percentage of homosexuals who run afoul of the law are arrested for solicitation. Under present laws it is understandable that solicitation to commit a forbidden act is itself an offense. Under the proposed reforms of the Wolfenden Committee and the American Law Institute, public solicitation to commit sexual acts which are themselves no longer illegal would continue to be unlawful. This logical anomaly is justified as a practical necessity designed to "control" the public conduct of homosexuals and to limit behavior which many people find offensive and immoral. English law permits arrest when importuning is "persistent."123 and the Model Penal Code makes "loitering in or near any public place for the purpose of soliciting or being solicited to engage in deviate sexual relations" a petty misdemeanor punishable by a fine as high as $500 or a jail term up to thirty days. 124 Presumably, as research st udics have shown, 125 homosexual solicitation is carried on in a discreet and unobvious fasl1ion and usually consists of an indirect sexual proposition -e.g., How would you like to go for a ride'/ Would you care to come over to my place for a drink? etc. But even assuming the law may properly proceed against solicitation which is too blunt and open, the ALI proposal is dangerously vague. Since courts automatically assume in decoy cases that a homosexual has a "pre-existing" intent to commit a homosexual act, 126 it is quite possible that any homosexual outside the four walls of his home could be arrested under the proposed loitering statute. Entrusting police officers with carte blanchc authority to proceed against so nebulous an offense would both permit and encourage the sort of decoy activity, enticement and entrapment which have been so severely criticized under existing statutes and practices. It would be more realistic and equitable (I) to pcrmi t homosexual solicitation in bars, etc. which have a reputation for being meeting places for homosexuals, (2) to require the element of "persistence" so that a single instance would not be grounds for arrest, and (3) to prosecute only bonafidc complaints made by aggrieved parties and not those made by decoy officers.127 Otherwise, the change in the law would be all form and no substance. and homosexuals would be no better off than before. Having examined the laws pertaining to homosexual acts and their enforcement and having discussed the consequences of legal and social attitudes, we now turn to a summary of the arguments which have been put forward by proponents and opponents of change. Arguments for and Against Change Why an individual believes what he docs is a complex matter which no one, including the individual himself, can fully explain. But it is possible to give reasons for one's beliefs regardless of their accuracy or relevance. On the matter of changing or not changing existing laws prohibiting homosexual acts between consenting adults in private, the number of arguments given have been both numerous and varied. What is considered a thoroughly proper, pertinent, logical and convincing argument by one person may be deemed quite the opposite by another. The arguments themselves tend to fall into four overlapping categories: the philosophical, the medical-psychological, the religious-moral-emotional. and the rational-practical-humanitarian. In the philosophical category fall the arguments of the Wolfenden Committee, the American Law Institute, and Lord Patrick Devlin, an English judge. The purposes of the criminal law, according to the Wolfenden Report, 128 arc five in number, three affirmative and two negative- namely, to preserve public order and decency, to protect citizens from what is offensive and injurious, to safeguard the exploitation and corruption of others (especially the young and immature), to avoid enforcing any particular pattern of behavior, and to abstain from interfering in the private lives of citizens. The lnstitite's concept, 129 basically the same, plays up the all-importance of privacy and of freedom for the individual to choose his own course of action so long as it docs not infringe on the liberty of others. In the view of the Wolfenden group and the ALI, private homosexual acts between consenting adults cannot be shown to have a sufficiently adverse effect upon society to warrant limiting an individual's freedom of choice or invading his privacy. Lord Devlin proposes a philosophical position which comes to the opposite conclusion. 130 Assuming that morality is basic to any system of society and law, he argues that society itself decides what forms of immorality are acceptable (e.g., fornication and adultery) or unacceptable (e.g., homosexual acts) and has the right to punish what it considers wrong even if it is itself in error about what is wrong. When society (as represented by the opinion of twelve men in a jury box) reacts to some form of conduct with "indignation, disgust, and intolerance" or feels itself injured, it has the right and power to take such action as will punish, deter or reform the offender. (Interestingly enough, though initially opposed to homosexual law reform, Lord Devlin ended up supporting it. 131 The medical-psychological arguments reveal how divided arc the experts on the subject of homosexuality. 132 Not only do competent persons differ Page 18: on the most basic assumptions and issues, but they at times confuse what is with what should be and argue with more dogma than science. Most doctors call the homosexual sick; and some of them say homosexuality is a disease. But many others, realizing "homosexuality as a clinical entity does not exist," speak of the condition as a "symptom" of some basic psychological illness or disorder. Still other experts hold that homosexuality is just one of several forms of human sexual behavior having no moral or medical significance apart from that which society assigns it. On the legal issue, one group of doctors argues that the present law should be repealed because homosexuals, being sick people, are not responsible for their condition and because the law prevents them from seeking medical help133 while another group argues for retaining the present law because it encourages homosexuals to seek medical help, because its repeal will hinder the police in their preventive work in the community, and because in prison homosexuals can be given psychiatric treatment enabling them to return to society cured and rehabilitated.134 The religious-moral-emotional arguments also permit an individual to support either side of the question. People who favor change, besides tending to agree with the practical and humanitarian points to be mentioned below, make the following three points: First-sin and crime are not always identical; homosexuality is a sin but not a crime; the individual should be permitted to pursue his chosen form of sexual expression so long as no one else is harmed; guilt and penalties are matters between the homosexual and his conscience or the homosexual and his spiritual advisers.1 3 5 Second-the present law does more harm than good since it leads to consequences ( e.g., inequitable enforcement; blackmail; such undesirable practices as enticement, entrapment, harassment, and mass arrests; and the creation of an aggrieved minority) which are more serious and evil than the condition or act it forbids. 136 Third-the biblical passages used to condemn homosexuality are no longer very convincing and are to be criticized on the grounds that they represent the personal and fallible views of such men as St. Paul; that they refer to an attitude and situation unique to the Jews at a given time and place in ancient history; that they do not single out homosexuality, homosexual acts, or homosexuals as any more sinful than any of a number of other conditions, acts, or persons; that they cannot be given credence in the light of modern medical and psychological knowledge; and that they are sometimes, as in the Sodom story, based on an incorrect reading and interpretation of the original Hebrew text.137 Those who oppose change of present laws on religious grounds assert that God considers homosexuality the most abominable of all offenses, destroyed the Cities of the Plain because of the homosexual acts of their inhabitants, and excludes homosexuals from heaven. 138 This argument tends to be based on a literal reading of certain carefully selected texts ( or portions thereof) and a studied dismissal of other passages or of other information contained in the selected passages. More impressive is the argument that since law has replaced religion as our moral guide, we must turn to it to learn what is condemned and condoned. 139 In an extension of this point, it is argued that any further relaxation of the law would not only greatly undermine standards already too much weakened but would also indicate approval of such conduct. The line must be drawn somewhere, and homosexuality is that line. 140 The vacuity and all-inclusiveness of the emotional arguments, representing little more than personal value judgments, are matched by the belligerence with which they are delivered. For the most part they are presented as dogmas or axioms not open to question and in no need of proof or clarification. Indeed, most of them are in the nature of propositions which do not lend themselves to proof or disproof. Illustrative of the moral and emotional pronouncements are the following: 141 Homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, contrary to the laws of God, nature and man. All people are born with an "instinctive revulsion" to homosexuality. Unnatural vice is indescribably worse than natural vice. Homosexuality is an infectious disease which unless eradicated once and for all will spread like cancer until it destroys society. Homosexuality so weakens the individual that he becomes a degenerate and debauched monster preying on small boys. Homosexuality destroys family life and causes the decline of civilization. Changing laws will only increase the number of traitors and spies in our midst. The experience of other countries, which do not have anti-homosexual laws or have repealed old laws, is not relevant. Since homosexuals are by nature proselytizers and exhibitionists, any change can only result in a tremendous increase in the number of homosexuals, especially among young, immature and marginal persons. On the reverse side, it is argued in equally irrational and doctrinaire fashion that homosexuality is a way of life superior to heterosexuality, that homosexuals are uniquely creative, talented people, and that everyone who opposes or criticizes homosexuality is himself a repressed or latent homosexual. 142 Sometimes, it seems, emotion is a soul-satisfying escape from fact and reason. For many men of reason and good will, the rational-practical-humanitarian arguments are the ones that seem to make the deepest impression. In favor of change the following set of arguments has been put forward: First, the present law, being ineffective and unenforceable as it stands, (a) leads to discriminatory, arbitrary, and capricious enforcement, with the result that only a tiny but unfortunate fraction of those who violate it are caught and punished, (b) requires the police to employ objectionable methods which involve enticement and entrapment of the unwary, insult the dignity of the individual, and degrade the police officers who engage in such distasteful work, ( c) brings law enforcement officials into disrepute and arouses hostility, if not hatred, among the general populace by compelling policemen to act as armed preachers and moral guardians, ( d) prevents the police from Page 19: directing their time and resources to the prevention and solution of serious crime, ( e) causes fear, misery, and frustration in general and blackmail, extortion and suicide in particular, (f) makes possible the launching of a moral crusade or witch-hunt which can impersonally and irrevocably destroy any homosexual (including the well adjusted and socially productive deviant) at the whim of an aroused and barbarous community spirit in search of a scapegoat, and (g) leads to disrespect for the anti-homosexual laws in particular and for other laws as well.143 Second, a civil rights issue, which thoughtful people have only recently come to see, is involved. 144 The rights and interests of homosexuals, who form one of the largest minority groups ( estimated at 10%) in society, have long been ignored or violated with impunity. Present laws forbidding private homosexual acts between consenting adults not only invade the privacy of the individual and deny him freedom to lead his private life in responsible and constructive manner but also threaten to prevent him from pursuing a career for which he has prepared and is qualified; and present arrest and trial procedures often make a mockery of justice. Because current laws discriminate against an entire class of people, are based on ignorance and prejudice, and perpetuate· laws based on the religious concept of sin rather than the secular concept of crime, they should be changed. And furthermore, in matters of this nature, the government should take the lead in educating the public, in redressing valid grievances, and in integrating minority groups into the fabric of society rather than succumb to prejudice or fall back on the defense that it cannot and should not act because society does not understand homosexuality and does not yet approve a change in the law. Third, it is time to see things in perspective, to realize (a) that homosexuality is not the free choice of an individual and is not easily cured, (b) that it is the preferred sexual orientation of a very small but fairly constant percentage of any given society, (c) that homosexual activity is more likely to decline than increase if the law is changed because the danger and glamour associated with its illegal status will have been removed, ( d) that homosexual offenses are no more serious than comparable heterosexual offenses, ( e) that it is inconsistent to prosecute consensual homosexual acts when fornication, adultery, and lesbian acts are not, and (f) that the dire consequences predicted if homosexual acts are not proscribed is supported by neither the experiences of other countries nor empirical research. 145 Members of the rational-practical-humanitarian school who prefer retention of the status quo argue that the time for change is not yet at hand; that public opinion still opposes the change; that further study and research arc necessary; that current laws are a deterrent; that laws exist to reform the individual; that one must be reluctant to change laws which have been sanctioned by centuries of tradition; that although we would not pass such laws today, we should not change them because doing so would be misconstrued as giving approval; and that later the time will come to revise downward the severity of present penalties, to take corrective action on the matter of blackmail, to provide a more equitable scheme of enforcement and prosecution, and to restrict the type of cases which should be tried. 146 Page 20: Conclusion Homosexual law reform will come, but it will take time. In Britain, it came after a decade of debate as a special relief measure designed to remedy what had come to be regarded as an outdated, unfair, and unmanageable legal anachronism. In the United States, it will come instead as one small part of a thorough and comprehensive recodification of penal statutes designed to bring the whole of the criminal law up to date and into accord with professional principles and practices. Even with the support of professional groups and of enlightened citizens and public officials, that part of proposed code revisions pertaining to sex offenses can be expected to face strong opposition. Though lip-service may be given to the principle that consenting adults should be permitted to perform in private such sex acts as satisfy them so long as no harm is done, there are many people (including some legislators) who will quibble over the matter and will see harm where others do not. In some states, the proposed homosexual law reform will be made without difficulty; in others, it will require two steps. In the latter case, reduction of adult consensual homosexual acts from felonies to misdemeanors may have to precede their complete removal from the statutes. For quite some time, laws prohibiting private consensual adult homosexual acts have been dead letters in most jurisdictions. Except for bringing an end to the prosecution of those few cases which have aroused considerable public resentment in recent years, the proposed reform will simply harmonize the letter of the law with actual practice. Public homosexual acts, acts with minors, and acts involving force or fraud will continue to be illegal, but penalties will be made more realistic and uniform. And homosexual solicitation, a matter which has not yet received adequate consideration, will very probably be retained as an offense in order to facilitate acceptance of the principle of the non-criminality of private consensual adult sex acts and in order to regulate an activity considered a minor nuisance or affront to the community at large. At first glance, the proposed changes would appear to be so inconsequential and so long overdue that one wonders what all the excitement is about and whether the new situation will be enough of a change to merit the physical and emotional effort required to bring it about. If one believes that a number of little changes can add up to significant improvement, the answer is yes; but if one insists upon achieving the millennium in one great leap, the answer is no. Among the changes which, when added together, constitute significant improvement are the following: (1) The debate over law reform is compelling us to reconsider the purpose and function of criminal law and to formulate a philosophy which gives due regard to the rights and interests of both the individual and the community and which takes into consideration scientific facts and insights as well as traditional moral and religious values. As a consequence, we are better off for having learned something about ourselves about our emotions, our motives, and our thinking processes. (2) The heterosexual majority is discovering that its reaction to homosexuality and to homosexuals has been too much based on ignorance, fear, and prejudice; that it has been unknowingly harsh and unfair in its treatment of homosexuals; and that it has been too often misled on the nature and range of homosexual activity. Public debate is leading to greater understanding, tolerance, and acceptance of a heretofore taboo subject. (3) The homosexual minority will reap concrete benefits from changed laws and changing attitudes: (a) The removal of the criminal label from private consensual adult acts will for the first time offer homosexuals a "legal" sexual release, may help some of them more easily accept themselves and overcome feelings of guilt or shame, will encourage others to admit rather than hide or deny their sexual orientation and to lead more responsible lives, should foster greater cooperation between homosexuals and health authorities in the campaign to eradicate venereal diseases, should reduce police harassment, should restrict the practice of "copping out" for a lesser offense when threatened with prosecution, and should end the necessity of registering as a sex offender in many cases. (b) No longer will homosexuality be so automatically and arbitrarily cited as justification for exclusion from employment, dismissal from jobs, and social ostracism. And ( c) some of the legitimate grievances of the homosexual community- e.g., police harassment, job discrimination, and violation of civil rights-will be alleviated to some degree. However, in the crucial matter of finding sexual partners, homosexuals will continue to be subject to possible harassment, arrest and prosecution. The legal change will come because homosexuality and law reform are profiting from open discussion, because certain wrongs need to be corrected, because today's sexual revolution has brought greater freedom and light to this area of human activity, because in an increasingly pluralistic society the moral views of one particular group cannot be imposed upon all groups, because the advantages of change so greatly outweigh the disadvantages, and perhaps, as one English editor put it, 147 most of all because homosexuality "has ceased to shock" the general public. Reform of our sex laws will mean that society is learning to live with homosexuality as an acceptable though not necessarily approved form of sexual behavior, that the same basic standards of conduct and responsibility will be applied to the homosexual minority as already apply to the heterosexual majority, and that all citizens will be Page 21: permitted to seek their own brand of personal fulfillment so long as no harm is involved and to make their individual contributions to society without regard to their sexual orientation. Society should profit handsomely from the change. Notes Page 22: 1 The American Law Institute, 1967 ANNUAL REPORT (Philadelphia, 1967), p.20.; Letter to the Editor, PLAYBOY, 13:58, May 1966 and 14:83, Dec. 1967; Webster Schott, "Civil Rights and the Homosexual," N.Y. TIMES MAGAZINE, Nov. 12, 1967, pp. 44-72 at 54. 2 Herbert Sturtz of the Vera Foundation and others ("Summer '60: Cops on the Spot," NEWSWEEK, 67:22-26, 31, Jun. 27, 1966) have questioned whether the police should handle the problem of homosexuality and have suggested their role should be limited to "referring" homosexual offenders to medical personnel. The President' Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in its TASK FORCE REPORT: THE COURTS (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, I 967) skirts the issue. It suggests (p. I 04) that the social interest in the prosecution of adult consensual homosexual acts is unclear, that the deterrent effect of present attempts to prosecute such behavior is limited, that the penal system is not suited to deal with homosexuals, and that the existence of these anti-homosexual laws creates opportunities for extortion and discriminatory enforcement. It concludes by saying only that "the inappropriateness and the scope of criminal sanctions in respect to these sexual activities deserves discussion and analysis by those concerned with the improvement of criminal administration." 3 CBS Survey, "Homosexuality: Public Attitudes," DRUM, no. 25, pp. 10-13, 29-31, at p. 29, Aug. 1967. 4 The "condemn and punish" school often distinguishes between the condition of homosexuality (for which the individual is not responsible) and the commission of homosexual acts (for which he is accountable). The recommended solution is for the homosexual either to adapt to a heterosexual life or to lead a non-sexual life. People who support this position are usually less specific in their written than in their spoken words. A summary of the traditional Christian position of condemnation can be found in Derrick S. Bailey, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE WESTERN CHRISTIAN TRADITION (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1955), chaps. 1-5. Supporting condemnation and punishment arc the following: Lord Kilmuir, HANSARD, Lords, 206:773, 776, Dec. 4, 1957; Dr. C. G. Learoyd, Letter to the Editor, LANCET, 273:542-43, 1957; "The Unspeakable Crime" (the Beaverbrook Press), TIME, 62:35-36, Nov. 16, 1953; S. Oley Cutler, "Sexual Offenses-Legal and Moral Considerations," CATHOLIC LAWYER, 9:94-105, 1963; Michael J. Buckley, MORALITY AND THE HOMOSEXUAL: A CATHOLIC APPROACH TO A MORAL PROBLEM (Westminster: Newman Press, 1959); "How Should Homosexuality Be Viewed?" AWAKE, Jan. 8, 1964, pp. 14-16; "Don't Call Me Queer, Call Me Gay," MATTACHINE REVIEW, 12:22-26, Jul. 1966-reprint of a pamphlet entitled "Gay" published by Teen Challenge; Arthur G. Matthews, IS HOMOSEXUALITY A MENACE? (N.Y.: McBride Co., 1957), p. 196; "Crime and Sin," LAW TIMES, 224: 283-84, 1957. 5 American Law Institute, MODEL PENAL CODE (Philadelphia, 1962), sections 213.2, 3, and 6 and 251.1, 2, and 3 at pp. 145-46 and 236-37. Sec also the Institutc's "Commentary," MODEL PENAL CODE TENTATIVE DRAFT NO. 4 (Philadelphia, America! Law Institute, 1955), pp. 276-91. THE WOLFENDEN REPORT: REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMOSEXUAL OFFENSES AND PROSTITUTION (American Edition, N.Y.: Stien and Day, 1963), with introduction by Karl Menninger, paragraphs 13, 14, 48, 49, and 61. (Paperback edition: Lancer 74-849.) For the report on the proceedings and recommendations of the 9th International Congress on Criminal Law, sec Morris Ploscowe, "Report to the Hague," CORNELL LAW QUARTERLY, 50:425-45, 1965. Page 23: 6 OP. CIT., p. 30 7 For examples of this school of thought, sec especially the speeches of Lord Kilmuir, speaking for the government (HANSARD, House of Lords, 206: 776 and 274:611 ), and Horne Secretary R. A. Butler (HANSARD, House of Commons, 596:370). Cf. also Justice Samuel H. Hofstadter, Letter to the Editor, NATION, 201 :428, 1965; editorial, LIFE, 58:4, Jun. 11, 1965; J. P. Eddy, "The Law and Homosexuality," CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW, 1956:22-25: Dorothy Hopkinson, "Sex Speaks Out," TWENTIETH CENTURY, 156:54-66, Jul. 1954: "The Wolfenden Report in Parliament," CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW, 1959:38; "The Wolfenden Report," LAW TIMES, 224:182, 1957; "The Wolfenden Report," JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT RI-:VIEW, 121:623-25, 1957. Albert J. Hutchinson, a former California prosecuting attorney, said on National Education TV: "I am not concerned with the kind of punishment, but I am interested in seeing that there be on the statute books a declaration against this kind of conduct"--"Thc Rejected," KQED Sep. 11, 1961 (printed in booklet form, San Francisco: Pan-Graphic Press, 1961, p. 19 ). 8 The most useful introduction to this subject is Karl Bowman and Bernice Engle, "Sexual Psychopath Laws," in SEXUAL BEHAVIOR AND THE LAW, edited by Ralph Slovcnko (Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, l 965), pp. 757-78. Sex Psychopath Laws (n. 2, p. 774) exist in: Ala., Cal., Colo., Conn., !·Ida., Ill., Ind., Ia., Kans., Md., Mass., Mich., Minn., Mo., Nebr., N. Hamp., N. J., N. Y., 0., Ore., Pa., S. Dak., Tenn., U., Vt., Va., Wash., W. Va., Wis., Wyo., and D.C. Thomas Szasz (LAW, LIBERTY, AND PSYCHIATRY [N.Y.: Macmillan, 1963], p. 249) suggests that today we do in the name of mental health what in the Middle Ages the Inquisition did in the name of faith. 9 Between I 958 and 1962 California averaged about 400 commitments a year: Michigan (1954-63) committed l ,051 sex psychopaths; and Wisconsin (1951-60), 783--Bowman and Engle, OP.CIT., pp. 761-62. 10 Karl Bowman and Bernice Engle, "A Psychiatric Evaluation of the Laws of Homosexuality," TEMPLE LAW QUARTERLY REVIEW, 29:273-326, 1956; Bernard C. Glueck, Jr., "An Evaluation of lhc Homosexual Offender," MINNFSOTA LAW REVll•: W, 41: 187-210 at 208, 1957; Edwin H. Sutherland, "The Sexual Psychopath Laws," JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY 40:543-54 at 553, 1940; Ralph Slovcnko and Cyril Phillips, "Psychosexuality and the Criminal Law," VANDERBILT LAW REV] EW, 15: 797-828 al 822, l 962; Alan H. Swanson, "Sexual Psychopath Statutes," JOURNAL 01· CRIMINAL LAW, CRIMINOLOGY, AND POLICE SCIENCE, 51 :215-35 at 221, 1960; Phillip I·:. Stebbins, "Sexual Deviation and the Laws of Ohio," OI-11O STATE LA \V JOURNAL, 20: 346-60 at 357. 1959: Samuel M. Fahr, "Iowa's New Sexual Psychopath Law - An Experiment Noble in Purpose?" 1O\VA LAW REVIEW. 41:523-57 at 545,549: 1956: and Paul W. Tappan, "Treatment of the Sex Offender in Denmark," AMERICAN JOURNAL 01· PSYCHIATRY 108:241-49 at 241, 1951. 11 Reginald S. Rood, "Forensic Psychiatry and the State Hospital System," JOURNAL OF SOCIAL THERAPY 4:257-62, 1956 and "The Nonpsychotic Offender and the State Hospital," AMERICAN JOURNAL 01' PSYCHIATRY 115:512-13, 1958: Walter Rapaport and Daniel Lieberman, "The Sexual Psychopath in California," CALIFORNIA MEDICINE 85: 232-34, 1956. Similarly in Wisconsin, homosexuals per se arc not considered dangerous sex deviates Anton Motz, "Criminal Law Wisconsin's Sexual Deviate Act," WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW, 1954: 324-25. The California Supreme Court (People v. Giani, 302 P. 2d 813 at 816-17; 1956) concluded that neither the state legislature nor expert medical testimony equates "homosexual" with "sexual psychopath." 12 According to Bowman and Engle in the Slovenko volume (OP. CIT., nn. 4-6, pp. 774-75), sex psychopath proceedings may be initiated without a charge or conviction of a sexual offense in 5 jurisdictions (la., Minn., Nebr., N. Hamp., D.C.), upon the charge of a sexual offense in 6 states (Fida., Ill., la., Mich., Mo., Wash.), and only after conviction of a sexual offense in the remaining 20 states. Falu (OP. CIT., pp. 545, 549) says that of 33 persons committed in Iowa, one was committed for "homosexuality, no overt acts." Commitment as a sexual psychopath is a civil procedure. Though details vary, the usual pattern is as follows: In cases involving conviction of a sex offender, a superior court judge, on the motion of a trial judge, a prosecuting attorney, or the defendant, may, or in some cases must, order the accused to undergo a medical examination and to appear at a civil hearing. On the basis of the medical report and the testimony of two or three psychiatrists, the judge may order the defendant to a state hospital for observation for a three month period. If the superintendent of the hospital declares him a sexual psychopath, the defendant is ordered hospitalized until "cured" or "no longer a menace to society." (If not declared a psychopath, the individual is sentenced under the criminal statutes.) When released from the state hospital, the offender returns to the court where he may be granted probation, sentenced, or ordered recommitted. The sexual psychopath laws, the exact provisions of which vary, have been severely criticized for the following reasons: ( I) the definition of the term "sexual psychopath" (e.g., a person suffering or alleged to suffer from a mental disorder, a person having "criminal propensities toward the commission of sex offenses," or a person dangerous to himself and others) is vague and unscientific; (2) the commitment procedure sometimes violates due process (e.g., denial of the rights of counsel, trial by jury, subpoena of witnesses, cross-examination, appeal, and the possibility of self-incrimination and double jeopardy); (3) the ineffectiveness of treatment or the absence of treatment facilities defeats the very purpose of hospitalization; and (4) the failure to distinguish between serious and non-serious or dangerous and non-dangerous offenders and offenses, between transgressions which were in public or private, or between consenting or non-consenting adults permits the removal of "social undesirables" and hospitalization or incarceration for indeterminate periods. 13 BOUTILIER V. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, 87 S. Ct. 1563 (1967). Boutilier was an immigrant from Canada who applied for U.S. citizenship. Because he indicated on his application form that he had once been arrested (though not convicted) for sodomy and because he admitted he had engaged in homosexual acts, he was ordered deported. The Supreme Court upheld his deportation. Mr. Justice Douglas wrote a strong dissent and used some of the arguments that Judge Moore of another court had used in a similar case (LAVOIE V. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, 360 F. 2d 27, 1966.) Sec also a letter in PLAYBOY (14:86, Dec. 1967): a former immigrant from Norway was deported after it was learned that he was a homosexual. 14 The most comprehensive and satisfactory treatment of this subject is to be found in Bailey, OP. CIT., chaps. 1-5. Briefer treatment is found in H. Kimball Jones, TOWARD A CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDING OF THE HOMOSEXUAL. (N.Y.: Association Press, 1966), chap. 2 and Norman St. John-Stevas, LIFE, DEATH AND THE LAW (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1961), pp. 201-07. Page 24: 15 Incomplete surveys of the laws of European countries can be found in St. John-Stcvas, OP.CIT., pp. 328-32 (Appendix VII); H.A. Hammclmann, "Homosexuality and the Law in Other Countries," in THEY STAND APART, edited by J. Tudor Recs and Harley V. Usill (London: Heineman, 1955), pp. 143-83; Rudolf Klimmer, "Homosexuality in East Germany," MAN AND SOCIETY, no. 10, pp. 30-33, Winter 1966; "Homosexual Laws in History," LONDON TIMES, Jan. 14, 1958-reprinted in MATTACHINE REVIEW, 4:16-18, Mar. 1958; Johs Andcnaes, "Recent Trends in the Criminal Law and Penal System in Norway," BRITISH JOURNAL OF DELINQUENCY, 5:21-26, 1954; and George Sturup, "Sex Offenses: the Scandanavian Experience," LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS, 25: 361-75, 1960. For the proposed changes in Germany, sec: M. Grunhut, book review, BRITISH JOURNAL OF DELINQUENCY, 7:322-23, 1957; "Committee in Germany Seeks Law Revision, MA TT A CHINE REV! EW 5:5, Dec. 195 8; and "Britain Secs Passage of Homosexual Bill," WASHINGTON POST, Dec. 21, 1966, p. A3, which says the Minister of Justice in the new Bonn government will press for a bill for West Germany similar to the one just passed in England. In Austria, the situation is unclear. Three members of Parliament (Kenneth Robinson, Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, and Leo Absc in HANSARD, Commons, 625: 1457, 724:849, and 731 :261) said during the 1966 debates that Austria had changed its law in 1960. John Dizazga, "Homosexuality," in SEX CRIMES (Springfield, Ill.: Thomas I 960), pp. 205-16, says Austria is considering making a change and the San Francisco Chapter NEWSLETTER of the Daughters of Bilitis for July, I 967 refers to a UPI news release from London reporting that the Roman Catholic Church in Austria has put pressure on the government to retain present laws. 16 Chap. 60, SEXUAL OFFENSES ACT OF 1967, amending the SEXUAL OFFENSES ACT OF 1956. A survey of the homosexual law reform effort can be pieced together by reading the lengthy debates in Parliament found in HANSARD (sec n. 24 below) and the hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles, editorials, and letters to editors reflecting public and private opinion on the subject. Parts of the story arc told by Peter Wildcblood (AGAINST THE LAW I London: Weidenfcld and Nicolson, 1955 or Penguin Paperback 1188]) and Rupert Croft-Cooke (THE VERDICT OF YOU ALL I London: Secker and Warburg, 1952] ). Both men were imprisoned for homosexual offenses with consenting adults in private in the anti-homosexual campaign of the early 1950s. In the American press, the subject has been covered by(]) the NEW YORK TIMES: Apr. 29, p. 35 and May 20, p. 8, 1954; Nov. 27, p. 4, 1959; Jun. 30, p. 6, 1961; May 13, p. 4, 16, p. 13 part IV, 25, p. I, and 27, p. 3, 1965; Feb. 12, p. I, Mar. 18, p. 11, Apr. 1, p. 14, May 11, p. 14, Jun. 17, p. 35, Jul. 6, p. 7, and Dec. 20, p. I, 1966: and Jul. 5, p. I, 1967; (2) NEWSWEEK: 50:50-55, Sept. 16, 1957; 50:60, Oct. 7, 1957; 50:58-59, Dec. 16, 1957; 56:78, Jul. 11, 1960; 61:77, Mar. 4, 1963; 65:38, Jun. 7, 1965; 67:54, Feb. 21, 1966; 69:28, 30 Jan. 2, 1967; and (3) TIME: 62:35-36, Nov. 16, 1953; 67:33, Jun. 4, 1956; 70:39-40, Sep. 16, 1957; 70:74, Oct. 7, 1957; 70:22, 25, Dec. 16, 1957; 80:60-62,Oct.12, 1962;84:86Nov.13, 1964;and90:30,Jul. 14, 1967. The background of the English law is discussed in Nancy Wilkins, "How It Happened: A History of Homosexual Legislation in England," MAN AND SOCIETY, no. 6, pp. 8-13, Autumn 1963. 17 "Homosexuality and Prostitution: British Medical Association Memorandum of Evidence for the Departmental Committee," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL SUPPLEMENT, 2: 165-70, 1955. Cf "Men Only," TIME, 66: 19, Dec. 26, 1955. 18 Details of the Montagu case can be found in Wildeblood, OP. CIT., chap. 2. Sec also, "Lord in the Dock," NEWSWEEK 42: 33, Dec. 28, 1953. 19 Wiideblood, OP. CIT., p. 46 quotes an article from its London correspondent in the SYDNEY MORNING DISPATCH for Oct. 25, 1953 strongly supporting this contention. 20 The statistics given here come from Appendix I to the WOLFENDEN REPORT and from debates in Parliament, especially the debate of May 12, 1965 (HANSARD, Lords, 266:95-96). After the publication of the Wolfenden Report, the number of homosexual offenses known to the police and the number of prosecutions declined as did the number of prison sentences given-J. E. Hall Williams, "Sex Offenses: the British Experience," LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS, 25:334-60 at 359, 1960. By 1960, two-thirds of all homosexual offenders were being fined. 21 "The Homosexuality Issue," NEWSWEEK, 42:44-47, Nov. 16, 1953; "The Unspeakable Crime," TIME, 62:35-36, Nov. 16, 1953. Cf. Wildeblood's remarks (OP. CIT., pp. 94-95 and 110-13) on public response to his trial and conviction. ENCOUNTER (3:20-21, 1954) published a letter of George Bernard Shaw, written in 1889, calling on all "champions of individual rights" to join in protesting a law which can send two adult men to prison for twenty years. For some years the NEW STATESMAN AND NATION had been urging a change in the laws and the appointment of a special commission to make recommendations to Parliament on the subject of homosexuality (e.g., 42:284, 1951; 46:562, 1953) and the SPECTATOR now both criticized present policies oftrial and imprisonment and urged law reform (e.g., 191:470, 1953; 192:460, 1954; 193:576, 1954). In LANCET (266:541-46, 1954), Dr. Kenneth Soddy strongly criticized the way the police, courts, Parliament, and public were dealing with homosexuality. In Parliament, Desmond Donnelly, Sir Robert Boothby, and others (HANSARD, 526: 1745-49, Apr. 28, 1954) raised similar criticisms and called on the Home Secretary to appoint a royal commission to look into the law relating to homosexuality. With the appointment of the Wolfenden Committee, public clamor subsided to break out anew upon publication of its Report in 1957. 22 The Moral Welfare Council's Report, SEXUAL OFFENDERS AND SOCIAL PUNISHMENT (Westminster: Church Information Board, 1956), was compiled and edited by Derrick S. Bailey. The "Report of the Roman Catholic Advisory Committee on Prostitution and Homosexual Offenses and the Existing Law" was published in the DUBLIN REVIEW, 230: 57-65, 1956. 23 For an indication of the varied reactions, sec: Mollie Panter-Downs, "Letter from London," NEW YORKER, 33: 136-40, Sep. 28, 1957; J.E. Hall Williams, OP. CIT.; "The Wolfenden Committee and the Press," LANCET, 273:549, 1957; "The Wolfenden Report," TIME, 70:39-40, Sep. 16, 1957; and Gregory Trout, "Readers' Reactions to the Wolfenden Report," MATTACHINE REVIEW, 4: 12-15, Jan. 1958. Some journals (e.g., ECONOMIST, 184-85:735-36, 1957; LANCET, 273:527-29, 1957; NEW STATESMAN AND NATION, 54:261, 1957; and SPECTATOR, 199:291, 1957) came out in support of the recommendations. Others (e.g., LAW TIMES, 224: 182, 1957 and JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW, 121 ;623-25, 1957) declared their opposition. Letters to the editor, pro and con, were numerous, as well as expressed in strong language. Cf. "Facing the Facts," NEWSWEEK, 50:30, Sep. 16, 1957. 24 The whole debate and voting record of Parliament can be traced by reading HANSARD: Lords, v. 182, cols. 737-67 (May 19, 1954); 206:753-832 (Dec. 4, 1957); 266:71-172 (May 12, 1965); 266:631-712 (May 24, 1965); 267:287-448 (Jun. 21, Page 25: 1965); 268:403-43 (Jul. 16, 1965); 269:677-730 (Oct. 28, 1965); 270:28 (Nov. IO, 1965); 274:605-51 (May 10, 1966); 275:146-78 (Jun. 16, 1966); HANSARD: Commons, 526:1745-56 (Apr. 28, 1954); 589:647 (Jun. 13, 1958); 596:365-508 (Nov. 26, 1958); 625:1454-1514 (Jun. 29, 1960); 713:611-20 (May 26, 1965); 724:782-874 (Feb. 11, 1966); 731:259-68 (Jul. 5, 1966); 738:1068-1148 (Dec. 19, 1966).The debates of July 4 and 21, 196 7 and the voting records of both houses are not yet available in published form in this country. 25 Panter-Downs, OP. CIT.; Williams, OP. CIT.; and N. A. Jepson, "Homosexuality Capital Punishment, and the Law," BRITISH JOURNAL OF DELINQUENCY: 9:246-57, 1958. Jepson also took a poll of adult students at the University of Leeds. The results were practically identical to the Gallup Poll figures. 26 HANSARD, Commons, 625:367-71. 27 Statement of Lord Stonham to Parliament, HANSARD, Lords, 266: 100. 28"Change to Wolfenden Say Liberals," NEWS OF THE WORLD, Feb. 28, 1965, p. 5; "Cheers for Democracy," ECONOMIST, 218:712, 1966; C. H. Rolph, "Homosexuality: Reform at Last?" NEW STATESMAN, 71: 152, 1966; speech of Norman St. John-Stevas, HANSARD, Commons, 738: 1119. 29 Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, and Paul H. Gebhard, SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN FEMALE (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1953), pp. 477 and 483 in paperback edition (Pocket Book 99700). Wainright Churchill, HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR AMONG MALES (N.Y.: Hawthorn Books, 1967) says (p. 215): "In the United States homoerotophobia has reached proportions unmatched elsewhere in the world today .... " Sec also remarks of Albert J. Reiss, "Sex Offenses: the Marginal Status of the Adolescent," LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS, 25:309-33 at 318, 1960. 30 Hugh Heffner, "Playboy Philosophy," PLAYBOY, 12: 83-87, 220-25 at 222-24, Dec. 1965; N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 25, p. 43, 1964, Mar. 17, p. 35, May 28, p. 36, Jun. 10, p. 43, and Jul. 23, p. 1, 1965. Cf. "The 'Crime' of Deviation," NEWSWEEK, 64:90, Dec. 7, 1964; "Crimes for the Times," TIME, 83;36, Mar. 27, 1964; and "New Pressure to Ease Moral Laws," U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, 57;12, Dec. 7, 1964. 31 Jon J. Gallo, Stefan M. Mason, Louis M. Meisinger, Kenneth D. Robin, Gary D. Stabile, and Robert J. Wynne, "The Consenting Adult Homosexual and the Law: An Empirical Study of Enforcement and Administration in Los Angeles County," UCLA LAW REVIEW, 13:643-832 at pp. 669-71 and nn. 75-77, 1966. 32 Editor's Note, MATTACHINE REVIEW, 7:26, Mar. 1961 and "What To Do About Homosexuals? MATTACHINE REVIEW, 7:4, May 1961. 33 TANGENTS, 1: 13-14, Sep. 1966--quoting from the NEWS AND OBSERVER (Raleigh, North Carolina), Oct. 19, 1966. Cf. DRUM, no. 23, p. 7, 1967. 34 DRUM, 5:22, Oct. 1965; personal letter from editor of DRUM, dated May 19, 1967. 35 TANGENTS, 1;14, Sep. 1966. 36 Charles Raudebaugh, "Liberalized State Sex Law Drafted," SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, Jul. 13, 1967, pp. 1, 9; William Borders, "Hartford Urged to Ease Sex Laws," N.Y. TIMES, May 28, 1967, p. 49; Schott, OP. CIT., p. 54; DRUM, no. 28, p. 5, Jan. 1968. 37 PHOENIX, 1: 13, Sep.-Oct. 1966-quoting from the SUN-SENTINAL. The state legislative committee originally set up to investigate subversive activities turned its attention instead to homosexuality. After ten years of probing, it published its findings in an official report entitled "Homosexuality and Citizenship in Florida." Popularly known as "the purple pamphlet" because of its sensationalism as well as the color of its cover, the report consists of 48 pages-a skimpy text of 13 pages written in the tradition of yellow journalism, 4 pages of sensational photographs (two men kissing, a young man loosely bound with ropes, shots of pre-teen boys, and two adult males apparently engaged in fellation), and miscellaneous pages of homosexual slang, state sex laws, a bibliography only a fraction of which pertains to homosexuality. Public reaction was one of disbelief: the governor refused to read the report; editors recoiled in horror; a district attorney called the pamphlet obscene; responsible and enlightened citizens were stunned; and the ligislature did its best to disassociate itself from the document. State funds were used to print thousands of copies of what the committee had felt sure would be a best seller. But as a result of the public uproar, the pamphlet was suppressed. However, facsimile copies are available; but none of the profit is going into the state treasury. The essay devotes one page to the committee's purpose and mode of operation; two pages to medical and scientific data on the subject; seven pages to certain bizarre and sensational aspects of homosexuality, to an attack on homophilc organizations, and to alleged recruitment and corruption of minors; and three pages to the detection and "control" of homosexuals, to registration of homosexual offenders, to the removal and exclusion of homosexuals from teaching positions and other state and local jobs, and to the treatment of sex psychopaths. "Rather than review the multitudinous theories, conclusions, and contentions" about homosexuality, the committee suggests "that the biblical description of homosexuality as an abomination has stood well the test of time." A state representative has suggested that the Committee refrain from issuing any further statements on the subject without first conferring with experts and the Psychiatric Society of Greater Miami passed a resolution urging the Committee to refrain from staging any public forum on the topic--DRUM, 4:23, Nov. 1964. 38 Editorial, TANGENTS, 2:2, Jan. 1967 39 James R. Spence (N. CAR. LAW REVIEW, 32:312-24 at 318, 1954) says of the state's crime against nature statute that "it is virtually impossible for a man of common intelligence, or even a lawyer, to ascertain the acts which are now prohibited under the statute," Ralph Slovenko and Cyril Phillips (VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW, l5 :797-828 2, a 812, 1962) say the crime against nature statutes represent legal definition "at its vaguest." The UCLA study (pp. 658-62, 676-77, and nn. 21, 22, 26, 27, 31, 33) points out that despite a trend toward uniformity in recent revisions of sodomy statutes in a number of states, "there is no quick method of ascertaining exactly what acts arc included or excluded under present-day sodomy laws." The same study (p. 677) suggests that "the man of ordinary intelligence cannot know in sufficient clarity what the courts have yet to decide." For other similar observations, sec: TEMPLE LAW QUARTERLY REVIEW, 29:273-326 at 275, 1956; ARK. LAW REVIEW, 8:497-500, 1954; LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS, 25:244-57 at 246, 1960; U. OF FLDA. LAW REVIEW, 12:83-92 at 85, 1959; OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL, 20:346-60 at 349, 353-54, 1959; U. OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW, 35:211-41 at 227, 1961; BOSTON U. LAW Page 26: REVIEW, 45:391- 415 at 402, 1965; and Morris Ploscowe, SEX AND THE LAW, revised ed. (N.Y.: Ace Books, 1962) pp. 184-85. 40 In Illinois, private adult consensual sodomy is no offense; in New York it is a misdemeanor; in New Jersey it is a high misdemeanor; and in the District of Columbia, according to court interpretation (RITTENOUR V. D.C., 116 A. 2d 558; 1960) it is no offense. Technically under California law, a sodomy (anal intercourse) conviction may not be reduced to a misdemeanor. The sections of state penal codes under which consenting adult homosexuals arc prosecuted are as follows, with the felony references preceding the misdemeanor references and separated from each other by a semicolon: ALA. 14.106; 14.42, 14.326(1), 14.437, 14.438, 15.327. ALAS. 11.40.120; 11.40. 080. ARIZ. 13.651, 13.652; 13.371, 13.992, 13.993, 13.1271, 13.1274, 13.1645. ARK. 41.813; 41.106, 41.2701, 41.3202. CALIF. 286, 288a; 16, 19,290,314,415, 647(a), 647(b), 647(d), 647a, 647b, 650 1/2. COLO. 40.2.31(1); 40.2.31(2), 40.8.19, 40.9.15, 40.2.31(2)[the last reference may be imposed as either a felony or misdemeanor]. CONN. 53.216; 53.175, 53.177, 53.216, 53.220, 53.226, 53.235. DEL. 11.831; 11.731, 11.732. D.C. 22.3502; 22.1112, 22.1121, 22.3302, 22.3303, 22.3304, 22.3502. FLDA. 800.01; 796.07, 800.02, 800.03, 856.02, 856.03. GA. 26.5901, 26.5902; 26.5301, 26.5501, 26.5905, 26.6101, 26.7001, 27.2506. HAW. 309.34; 267.1, 267.10, 314.1, 314.2(g). IDA. 18.6605; 18.113, 18.4101. ILL, no felony; 38.11.2, 38.11.9. IND. 10.4221; 10.2801. IA. 705.1, 705.2; 725.1. KANS. 21.907; 21.908. KY. 435.102(2), 436.050; 436.075, 436.520. LA. 14.89; 14.106, 14.107. ME. 17.1001; 17.1901, 17.3758. MD. 27.553, 27.554; 27.122. MASS. 272.16, 272.34, 272.35; 272.53. MICH. 28.355, 28.570, 28.570(1); 28.364, 28.365, 28.567, 28.567(1), 28.772. MINN. 617.4; 617.23. MISS. 2413; 2290. MO. 563.230; 563.150, 556.270. MONT. 94.4118; 94.116, 94.3603. NEBR. 28.919; 28.920, 28.920.01. NEV. 201.190, 201.210; 193.130, 193.140, 193.150, 201.210, 201.220, 207.151-57. N. HAMP. 579.9; 570.1, 570.6, 570.22, 570.25, 579.3. N.J. 2A:85.7, 2A:115.l, 2A:143.l, 2A:170.l, 2A:170.5 [Allactsarclabellcdhighmisdcmcanors.] N. MEX. 40A.9.6, 40A.29.3; 40A.9.8, 40A.29.4. N.Y. no felony; 130.00.2, 130.38, 240.35.3, 245.00, 60.004(d), 70.15.2, 70.15.4, 80.05.2, 80.05.14. N. CAR. 14.2, 14.3, 14.177; 14.190. N. DAK. 12.22.07; 12.06.10, 12.21.10, 12.22.01, 12.42.04. OHIO 2905.44; 2905.30, 2909.09,2950.01-08. OKLA. 21.886; 21.22, 21.1029-31. ORE. 167.040; 166.060, 167.145. PA. 18.4501, 18.4502; 18.4519. R.I. II.JO.I; 11.45.1. S. CAR. 16.412; 16.409, 16.411, 16.413. S. DAK. 13.1716; 13.0607, 13.1701, 13.1722. TENN. 39.707; no misdemeanor. TEX. 524; 474, 607, 608. UTAH 76.53.22; 76.39.5, 76.39.13, 76.61.1. VT. 13.2601, 13.2603; no misdemeanor. VA. 18.1.212; 18.1.9, 18.1.236. WASH. 9.79.080, 9.79.100; 9.79.120, 9.87.010, 9.92.020. W. VA. 6068; 6082(1), 6289. WIS. 944.17: 944.20. WYO. 6.98; 6.102. U.S. CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 80, 125, 134; 134. 41 Crime against nature: Ala., Alas., Ariz., Calif., Colo., Del., Fida., Haw., Ida., Ind., Kans., La., Mc., Mass., Mich., Miss., Mo., Mont., Nebr., Nev., N.J., N. Car., Okla., Ore., R.I., S. Dak., Tenn., Utah, Va, W. Va., Wyo. Sodomy: Alas., Ark., Calif., Conn., Del., D.C., Ga., Haw., Ind., la., Ky., Md., Mass., Mich., Minn., Nebr., N.J., N. Mex., N.Y., N. Oak., Ohio, Ore., Pa., Tex., Utah, Wash., Wyo., UCMJ. Buggery: Ark., Ky., Mass., S. Car. Perversion: Calif., Wis. Fcllation: Vt. Unnatural copulation: Colo. Unnatural intercourse: Miss. Unnatural and lascivious acts: Mass., N.H. Unnatural or perverted practices: Md. Indecent or immoral practices. 42 The following adjectives pertain only to felony offenses: "abominable and detestable:" Flda., Ind., Kans., Mass., Mich., Miss., Mo., N. Car., Okla., R.1., S. Car., S. Dak., Utah, Wyo.; "infamous:" Ariz., Calif., Colo., Ida., Mont., Nev., N.J. In addition, "unnatural" is used in Alas., Colo., Md., Mass., Miss., N. Hamp., Utah; "indecent" in Ky. and N.J.; "perverted" in Md. and Ore.; "lascivious" in Mass. and N. Hamp.; "lewd" in N. Hamp. and N.J.; "immoral" in Ky.; and "abnormal" in Wis. 43 Life: Calif., Ida., Mo., Mont., Nev.; 30 years: Conn.; 21 years: Ark.; 20 years: Ariz., Fida., Haw., Mass., Minn., Nebr., N.J., Ohio, R.I., Utah; 15 years: Mich., Ore., Tenn., Tex.; 14 years: Colo., Ind.; 10 years: Ala., Alas., D.C., Ga., la., Kans., Me., Md., Miss., N. Mex., N. Car., N. Dak., Okla., Pa., S. Dak., Wash., W. Va., Wyo.; 5 years: Ky., La., N. Hamp., S. Car., Vt., Wis.; 3 years: Del., Va.; 3 months: N.Y. 44 Minimum penalties: 1 day: N.Y.; 4 months: N. Car.; 1 year: Alas., Ark., Calif., Colo., Conn., Del., D.C., Fida., Ga., Haw., Ida., Ia., Kans., La., Me., Md., Mass., Mich., Minn., Miss., Nebr., Nev., N. Hamp., N.J., N. Dak., Ohio, Okla., Ore., Pa., S. Car., S. Dak., Vt., Va, Wash., W. Va., Wis., Wyo.; 2 years: Ala., Ind., Ky., Mo., Tex.; 3 years: Utah; 5 years: Ariz., Mont., Tenn.; 7 years: R.I. In Ill. there is no penalty. The U.S. Armed Forces impose a sentence of up to 5 years for sodomy. Substitution of a fine: D.C., Ind., La., Md., Mich., N. Hamp., N.J., N. Mex., N.Y., N. Car., Pa., S. Car., Wis. Addition of a fine: Del. and Haw. Both imprisonment and a fine: Ind., La., Md., N. Hamp., N.J., N. Mex., N.Y., N. Car., Pa., S. Car., Wis. 45 Heffner, OP. CIT., p. 224. 46 "Out of the Briar Patch," TIME, 84:54-55, Dec. 25, 1964; Alexander Bickel, "Homosexuality as Crime in North Carolina," NEW REPUBLIC, 151:5-6, Dec. 12, 1964; PERKINS V. N. CAR., 234 F. Supp. 333 (1964). The adverse publicity from the Perkins case and the harsh criticisms of Judge Craven in his decision helped convice the North Carolina legislature to revise its sodomy statute. Where the old law prescribed imprisonment between 5 and 60 years, the new law calls for a fine or imprisonment at the discretion of the judge, with the imprisonment limited to between 4 months and 10 years. 47 For the full account, see John Gerassi, BOYS OF BOISE (N.Y.: Macmillan, 1966). 48 N.Y.TIMES, Nov. 9, 1967, p. 34; VECTOR, 4:4, Dec. 1967; PLAYBOY, 15:41, Feb. 1968. The majority decision held that though the defendant was not a sexually dangerous person, he was likely to repeat the prohibited act. The Chief Justice in a minority opinion warned that under the court's ruling every practicing homosexual in Canada was made liable to penal detention for life. This decision led not only to demands for a change in the law, editorial support for such change, and an assurance by the Prime Minister that he would be happy to consider a proposal to appoint a national committee to study homosexuality and the law but also to the introduction of an amendment to the criminal code which would legalize homosexual acts between consenting adults and to the initial approval of the amendment by the Canadian Parliament-" Canadian Homosexual Bill gets OK," SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, Dec. 22, 1967, p. 14. Justice Stanley Mosk of the California Supreme Court tells (UCLA study, p. 645) of two men convicted of private voluntary acts in his court some years ago when he was a superior court judge. Because judges are still reluctant to describe "the loathsome and disgusting details" of sodomy cases (e.g., LA. V. BONANO, 163 So. 2d 72; 1964), it is often impossible to know the exact nature of the offense, the age of the participants, and whether the acts Page 27: were committed in public or private. However, from an examination of _approximately one hundred American appellate cases, only one (STATE V. MICHALIS, 122 A. 538; N.J., 1923) indicated clearly that private adult acts were involved. Most American cases fall into two catcgorics--cither minors or vice officers arc involved. 49 See nn. 8 and 12 above. 50 The UCLA study (p. 763) found that over 90% of the homosexual cases were disposed of by submitting the case to the judge on the basis of the transcript of the preliminary hearing. This procedure means that the defendant has in essence admitted his guilt, minimises the time spent in court, and avoids the publicity of a public trial. But as Superior Court Judge Francis McCarty says (SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, Nov. 2, 1967, p. 12) such a procedure "actually involves no trial at all." The "inevitable result" is conviction. For a variety of reasons most lawyers recommend to their clients that they accept this method of handling their cases. On the matter of less exacting trial standards for homosexual than for other criminal cases, see James M. H. Gregg, "Other Acts of Sexual Misbehavior and Perversion as Evidence in Prosecution for Sexual Offenses," ARIZONA LAW REVIEW, 6:212-36, 1965. 51 President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, THE CHALLENGE OF CRIME IN A FREE SOCIETY (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 134. 52 Most convictions for homosexual offenses arc obtained on the basis of the uncorroborated oral testimony of the police officer which judges and juries almost without exception believe rather than that of the homosexual defendant. The UCLA study (n. 17, p. 767) found that 93% of the felonious homosexual offenses were decided on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the arresting officer. In this way the corroboration required of an accomplice's testimony is circumvented. The UCLA study (pp. 695, 757) seriously questions the propriety of such a procedure. In KELLY V. U.S. (194 F. 2d 150; D.C., I 952) the court warned of the possibility of injustice in a swearing contest between two persons, one of them a police officer and the other an accused citizen, and laid down several rules it hoped would help improve the situation. 53 Maximum fines run $1,000 in 7 states(Ga., Haw., Mass., Mo., Nev., N.J., Wash.), $500 in 18 (Ala., Alas., Calif., Fida., Ill., Kans., La., Mich., Mont., Nebr., N.Y., N. Dak., Ohio, Ore., Pa., S. Dak., Va., Wis.), $300 in 5 (Ariz., D.C., Ida., Utah, Vt.), $250 in I (Ark.), $200 in 6 (Colo., Conn., Ia., Ky., N. Hamp., Tex.), $100 in 5 (Ind., N. Mex., S. Car., W. Va., Wyo.), and $50 in 2 (Md., Miss.). Minimum fines arc set at $500 in Nev.; $50 in Alas., Ark., and Conn.; $25 in Colo.; $20 in W. Va.; $10 in Haw., Ky., and Wash.; $5 in Ind., Md., and Minn. No maximum or minimum is set in 5 states (Del., N. Car., Okla., R.I., Tenn.). Maximum jail sentences run as high as 5 years in Pa. and Vt.; 3 years in Mass., N .J ., and R.1.; 2 years in Ariz. and Colo.; 1 year in 19 states (Ala., Alas., Ark., Calif., Ga., Haw., Ky., La., Mich., Mo., Nev., N. Dak., Ohio, Okla., Ore., S. Dak., Va., Wash., Wis.); 6 months in 13 states (Conn., Fida., Ida., Ill., Ind., la., Kans., Me., Mont., Nebr., N. Hamp., N. Mex., Utah); 3 months in D.C., N.Y., and Wyo.; 2 months in Md.; 1 month in S. Car. and W. Va.; and 20 days in Miss. Minimum jail sentences run 7 days in Md.; 10 days in Minn.; one month in Ark., Colo., and Okla.; 3 months in Alas.; and 6 months in Nev. In 38 jurisdictions both a fine and jail sentence are authorized--Ala., Ariz., Calif., Colo., Conn., D.C., Fida., Ga., Haw., Ida., IJI., Ind., Kans., Ky., La., Mc., Mich., Miss., Mo., Mont., Nebr., Nev .. N. Hamp., N.J., N. Mex., N.Y., N. Dak., Ohio, Ore., Pa., S. Car., S. Dak., Utah, Va., Wash., W. Va., Wis., and Wyo. In Texas only a fine (up to $200) is levied. And in Del. and N. Car. either a fine or jail or both are authorized, with the sentence left to the discretion of the judge. 54 The President of the Florida League for Good Government (in a personal Jetter dated Sep. 30, 1967) says he has been attempting to obtain information on the number of homosexual arrests in Dade County (Miami) for three years without success. Last April, however, the sheriffs department released figures on the number of "incidents" of "child molestation." 55 Pp. 799, 767-70, 805-06, 829. For the year 1948, the conviction rate in Los Angeles for sex perversion was 89% for misdemeanors and 46% for felony arrests-R. W. Bowling, "The Sex Offender and Law Enforcement," FEDERAL PROBATION, 14:11-16 at 15, Sep. 1950. 56 "Philadelphia's New Criminal Procedure for the Abnormal Sex Offender," LEGAL INTELLIGENCER, Dec. 11, 1950. TIME ("Philadelphia's Magisterial Mess," 86:59, Oct. 1, 1965) says morals charges were dropped after payments ranging from $300 to $2,500. In 1961 Richard H. Elliott, in a study of homosexual arrests in Philadelphia, cites 60 arrests in 7 months - which would suggest about 100 arrests a year. His study has recently been printed in DRUM ("The Morals Squad," no. 26, pp. 10-13, 26-28, Sep. 1967). 57 until the McCarthy period and the Senate's severe criticism of District officials for their Jax and inconsequential manner of handling homosexual offenses, District police arrested about 400 persons a year, usually on disorderly conduct charges which were processed by simple forfeiture of collateral ($25) or outright release. After April, 1950, the number of arrests increased markedly, department officials were notified in the case of all government employees, more serious charges were invoked, and penalties (fines and/or jail sentences) were greatly increased. See, "Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government," Interim Report submitted to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments by its Subcommittee on Investigations. 81st Congress, 2nd session. Senate Document No. 241. Dec. 15, 1960. 58 Robert C. Doty, "Growth of Overt Homosexuality in City Provokes Wide Concern." N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 17, 1963, pp. 1, 33; Henry H. Foster, Book Review, JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW, CRIMINOLOGY, AND POLICE SCIENCE, 55:393-96 at 395, 1964. Dr. Edmund Berglcr (ONE THOUSAND HOMOSEXUALS [Patterson, N.J.: Pageant Books, 1957], p. 248) quotes a New York City public health doctor as estimating 6,500 homosexual arrests annually. Former Judge Morris Ploscowe (OP.CIT., p. 194) says that for the period 1950-57 there were about 330 sodomy arrests each year in New York City and that in 1949 there were 931 arrests for "degenerate acts" and 2,213 for loitering. How many of the latter were homosexual in nature is not indicated. Of the present 1,000 to 1,200 annual arrests, between 40 and 70 (4 to 7 percent) involve adults and boys, usually in their late teens. 59 Lois Wille, "Police Watch Homosexuals' Hangouts Herc," CHICAGO DAILY NEWS, Jun. 22, 1966, p. 3. 60 DRUM, no. 21, p. 22, 1966--citing an article by John Huddy in the COLUMBUS DISPATCH,Jul. 17, 1966. Page 28: 61 MikeCulbert, "90,000 San Francisco Perverts--Startling Police Report," SAN FRANCISCO NEWS CALL BULLETIN, Mar. 18, 1965, p. 3. 62 U.S. Dept. of Justice, UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS: 1965 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p. 3; THE CHALLENGE OF CRIME, p. 5. The number of arrests, as distinguished from the number of offenses known to the police, has been estimated at 5,000,000 of which about one-half are for crimes lacking "victims" (e.g., drunkenness and illegal consensual sex acts) or for breaches of the public peace-of. "Crime: American Style: the President's Commission," COMMONWEAL, 86: 141-42, 1967. For a recent discussion of the subject indicated in its title, see Edwin M. Schur, CRIMES WITHOUT VICTIMS (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965; Spectrum Paperback S 111), and especially pp. 67-119 on homosexuality. In parody of the public's misconception of the number of homosexuals, DRUM (5: 14-15, Mar. 1965) contains a story entitled "I Was a Homosexual for the FBI" in which the secret agent, after special training, was assigned the task of rounding up homosexuals. He was so successful that "instead of catching three or four of them as we had hoped, we caught every homosexual in the entire country, and now all twelve of them were on trial." No one knows how many homosexual acts arc performed in any one year, but the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, in its Report No. 9 ("Psychiatrically Deviated Sex Offenders," !Topeka, Kans.: GAP, Feb. 1950), p. 2) estimates that 6,000,000 homosexual• acts take place for every 20 convictions. The WOLFENDEN REPORT (n., par. 40) alludes to estimates in Britain running all the way from 2,500 to 1 to 30,000 to 1. 63 The President's Crime Commission could find no one who knew how many people are incarcerated in correctional institutions. Its own figures suggest 425,673 on an average daily basis--CHALLENGE OF CRIME, p. 1. Since the number of inmates in federal and state prisons for 1965 numbered 213,736 (WORLD ALMANAC: 1965, p. 692), the capacity of city and county jails would be 211,937. 64 Cf. THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION (Washington, D.C., i l 966 p. 8) infonnational pamphlet; FIFTEEN INDICES: AN AID IN REVIEWING STA TE AND LOCAL MENTAL HEAL.TH AND HOSPITAL PROGRAMS, 1966 EDITION of Joint Information Service of the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association for Mental Health (No place or date of publication), p. 18. 65 The First Deputy Police Commissioner of New York City (Doty, OP. CIT., p. 33) is quoted as saying: "No attempt is made to enforce the theoretical ban on private homosexual conduct between consenting adults." Wayne R. LaFave in his recent study (ARREST: THE DECISION TO TAKE A SUSPECT INTO CUSTODY !Boston: Little, Brown, 1965], p. 465) says: "Private homosexual conduct between consenting adults is not in practice a matter of major concern to Jaw enforcement agencies." Cf. Martin D. Adler, "The Application of Discretion in Enforcement of the Law in Mental Health Situations," POLICE, 9:48-53, Nov.-Dec. 1964. The UCLA study (p. 689) says: "The first concession to pragmatic considerations is to jetison any attempt to enforce against homosexual activity which occurs in private. Even if the police know that homosexuals arc cohabiting they generally will not initiate any action." A police lieutenant (Wille, OP. CIT., p. 3) says he knows homosexuals engage in sexual activity but he cannot do anything about it even though they "might be breaking the Ten Commandmc"nts." Cf. Manfred Guttmacher and Henry Wcihofcn, "Sex Offenses," JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW, CRIMINOLOGY, AND POLICE SCIENCE, 43: 153-75 at 156, 1952. In England, however, there have been a goodly number of prosecutions for private homosexual acts between consenting adults. As late as 1964-65, during a nine-month period, 30 men were convicted on such charges--John Grigg, "Is Homosexuality a Crime?" N.Y. TIMES MAGAZINE, Jun. 27, 1965, pp. 6-7. 66 The UCLA study (n. 17 on p. 688, n. 24 on pp. 689-90, n. 37 on p. 692, p. 698, n. 83 on p. 698, p. 699, n. 84 on p. 699, p. 796) concluded (1) that complaints to the police are rare, (2) that statements of complaint on arrest forms are "a matter of form," (3) that many bars are quasi-private clubs which keep out or ostracize nonhomosexuals or unknown patrons, (4) that "homosexuals are discreet as to whom they solicit," and (5) that "the majority of solicitations are made only if the other individual appears responsive and are accomplished by quiet conversation and the use of gestures and signals having significance only to other homosexuals." Harold Jacobs ("Decoy Enforcement of Homosexual Laws," U. OF PA. LAW REVIEW, 112:259-84 at 259, 1963) discovered that homosexual solicitations are so quiet and so barely noticeable that "a casual observer could hardly recognize them." Elliott in his Philadelphia study (OP. CIT., p. 11) found that homosexual solicitations are usually made "in ambiguous language" and require the decoy officer to seek further explanation. Cf. Paul Welch's article in LIFE ("Homosexuality in America: The 'Gay' World Takes to the Streets," 56:68-74 at 72-73, Jun. 26, 1964). R. A. Laud Humphreys (1967) in an unpublished study ("They Meet in Tearooms: A Preliminary Study of Participants in Homosexual Encounters") found (pp: 4, 9-10 and n. 17) that his subjects in public restrooms usually relied on a lookout to avoid unexpected interruption, discontinued their activity on the approach of a stranger, and completely avoided any sexual contact with teenage boys. C. H. Rolph ("The Problem for the Police," NEW STATESMAN AND NATION, 59:944-45, 1960) suggests that if homosexual solicitations cannot be detected without using AGENTS PROVOCATEURS, then they can hardly be considered a threat to public decency. Sherri Cavan ("Interaction in Home Territories," BERKELEY JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, 8:17-32 at pp. 25, 27, 1963) concluded from her study of a gay bar in San Francisco that "outsiders" may be treated in such fashion as will convince them either to leave or to be considered an active participant "in the ongoing behavior patterns" of the bar. Helen Branson (GAY BAR [San Francisco: Pan-Graphic Press, 1957], pp. 27, 42-43, 49-50, 54-56) tells how she, as the owner and operator of a bar catering to homosexuals, kept out or got rid of "outsiders." The Kinsey group (Paul H. Gebhard, John H. Gagnon, Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Cornelia V. Christensen, SEX OFFENDERS; AN ANALYSIS OF TYPES [N.Y.: Harper and Row, 1965], pp. 315 and 34 7) found a "mutuality" in the initiation of relationships between homosexual offenders against adults and their partners in most instances; in the case of homosexual offenders against minors, they found the initiative was taken by the child in about 15% of the cases and that a mutuality of initiative occurred in another 15%. Lauretta Bender and Abram Blau ("The Reaction of Children to Sexual Relations with Adults," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPSYCHIATRY, 7:500-18 at 513, 1937) found that the child "often" takes the initiative rather than the adult. 67 "The Senior Staff Man," TIME, 84: 19-23, Oct. 23, 1964. James Stephens in a letter to PLAYBOY (14: 174, Jun. 1967) refers to a story in the MIAMI HERALD stating that 26 men were arrested after a two-way mirror was installed in the city-owned bus terminal in Coral Gables, Fla. Cf UCLA study, p. 708. Page 29: 68 YMCAs sometimes use such devices--cf. Norman Fuller, "The Use of Closed Circuit TV for the Study and Elimination of Homosexual Activity in the YMCA" (Confidential Report by the Executive Secretary of the Central YMCA of Philadelphia, 1962)-cited by Gaeton J. Fonzi, "The Furtive Fraternity," GREATER PHILADELPHIA MAGAZINE, Dec. 1962 as reprinted in booklet form by Pan-Graphic Press of San Francisco, p. 11. Laguna Beach, Calif (TANGENTS, 2:9, Nov. 1966) is planning to install closed circuit TV in order to keep watch on "objectionable" activities along a two and one-half mile area. 69 For example, Miami Beach police say photography is of "deterrent value" in controlling homosexuals--DRUM, 5:20, Jun. 1965. In Mansfield, Ohio, the police have used films as the basis for arrest of homosexuals--DRUM, 5:5, May 1965. In Lake Milton, Ohio, the sheriff's office announced it would make arrests of 25 men on the basis of evidence provided by 500 feet of movie film, etc.--DRUM, 5:25, Dec 1965. See also n. 70 below for further use of photography by police in homosexual cases. In the case of a Marine Corps sergeant discharged back in 1958, it was revealed that the Defense Dept. has used secret photographs taken in men's rooms in the Pentagon. After initially admitting it, the department denied the practice--THE INSIDER (newsletter of the Mattachine Society of Washington), Dec. 1966, p. 3. 70 UCLA study, n. 133 on p. 707. In Long Beach, police spied on occupants of a public toilet by looking through a pipe installed in the ceiling. When they saw illegal acts occur, they made arrests. The California Supreme Court ruled (BIELICKI AND WELCH V. SUPERIOR COURT, 371 P. 2d 288; 1962) that such a technique is unconstitutional because it is a general exploratory search conducted without warrant and for the sole purpose of finding guilt. In BRITT V. SUPERIOR COURT (374 P. 2d 817;1962) the police arrested two men for homosexual acts after looking through ceiling vents over a toilet booth in a department store and after taking motion pictures of them. The California Supreme Court again held that since the officers observed "anyone who happened to come in" they had engaged in an unlawful search. But in the case of SMAYDA V. U.S. (352 F. 2d 251; 1965), we have a U.S. Court of Appeals coming to a different conclusion. Holes were cut in the ceiling above toilet booths in a restroom in Yosemite National Park and were disguised as ventilation screens. After observing 40 innocent persons, a park ranger and photographer, installed in the attic, arrested two men for unlawful acts. In this case an uneasy court found no violation of constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and no problem involving invasion of privacy. The public interest in privacy must "to that extent" be subordinated to the public interest in law enforcement, the court said. Cf. "The Peephole Problem," TIME, 86:59, 61, Nov. 12, 1965. 71 Wille, OP.CIT., p. 3. 72 "Students Used in Morals Cases," TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT, Dec. 27, 1965, p. 11; "College Boys Help Trap Homosexuals," SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, Dec. 29, 1965, p. 2. 73 N.Y.TIMES, Apr. 2, 1966, p. !;May 11, 1966, p. 39;May 30, 1966,p. !;Sep. 17, 1966, p. 3. 74 UCLA study, n. 132 on p. 707. Elliott (OP. CIT., p. 13) found that about half (46%) of all arrests for homosexual activity in Philadelphia resulted from solicitation of decoys. Elliott also concluded (p. 28) that the reasons the police give to justify their policies toward homosexuals arc not supported by the facts. 75 THE HOMOSEXUAL REVOLUTION (N.Y.: Julian Press, 1962), pp. 167-68; UCLA study, p. 691, n. 34 on p. 691, n. 37 on p. 692, n. 51 on p. 694, n. 111 on p. 703, n. 119 on pp. 704-05. For a condemnation of entrapment in the popular press, see Pete Hammill ("The Worst Job," N.Y. POST, Apr. 19, 1966) which ends with the observation that the next time a cop arrests a homosexual by "enticing" him in a steam bath, etc., "the cop should be arrested too, for loitering to commit a degenerate act. You can't call it anything else." TANGENTS (1: 16, Feb. 1966) cites Part IV of a series of articles on "Our Penal Law" by Joseph Kahn in the N.Y. POST, daily magazine section, which vigorously attacks police entrapment of homosexuals. For England, the Wolfenden Committee, after considering the matter of decoy activity and entrapment, concluded (par. 121) that the use of decoys is "necessary," that the police "do everything they can" to avoid acting in a "deliberately provocative" manner, and that in the detection of homosexual offenses "a police officer legitimately resorts to a degree of subterfuge." 76 OP. CIT., pp. 72-73. The official policy of the Los Angeles Police Department is for decoys to avoid suggestive dress, gestures, and language. But the LIFE article showed, both by words and pictures, as the UCLA study puts it (n. 3 7 on p. 692) that "policy is not consistent with practice." How far the police will go in initiating situations which may lead to arrest is especially well illustrated in RITTENOUR V. D.C. (163 A. 2d, 558; 1960). A vice officer, pretending to be "down and out" and in need of a place to stay until he "could catch a bus out of town," telephoned Rittenour and got himself invited to the latter's apartment where he was propositioned. Arrested and convicted, Rittenour appealed and had his conviction overturned. Fonzi (OP. CIT., pp. 15-16) questions "the propriety of the police luring someone into committing a crime" and says it is difficult to determine just how much entrapment occurs in homosexual arrests. 77 UCLA study, n. 58 on p. 695. Individual homosexuals have written letters to PLAYBOY (e.g., 13:63, May 1965 and 14:84, Dec. 1967) alleging enticement, entrapment, and perjury to which the editor responds that the court rarely believes the defendant "although there are numerous cases where evidence has subsequently come to light proving the testimony of the arresting officer was false." 78 An excellent discussion of entrapment is found in the UCLA study, pp. 701-07. 79 Episcopal Diocese of California, REPORT OF THE DIOCESAN COMMITTEE ON HOMOSEXUALITY (San Francisco, 1967), recommendation no. 2 on pp. 7 and 9; UCLA study, n. I 03 on p. 702; "Private Consensual Homosexual Behavior: the Crime and Its Enforcement," YALE LAW JOURNAL, 70:623-35 at 633-34, 1961. Cf. Council on Religion and the Homosexual, A BRIEF OF INJUSTICES (San Francisco, 1965), p.4. 80 UCLA study, pp. 699 and 712; editorial, WASHINGTON POST-reprinted in MATTACHINE REVIEW, 7:2, Jun. 1961; DRUM, 16:22, Apr. 1966. 81 Another significant issue is the point at which arrest is made. Some officers arrest as soon as an individual commits an offense; others wait until what might have been a misdemeanor has evolved into a felony. Cf. UCLA study, n. 197 on p. 717. 82 In BUTTS V. U.S. (273 F. 35 at 38; 1921) the court said: "The first duties of the officers of the law arc to prevent, not to punish crime. It is not their duty to incite and create crime for the sole purpose of prosecuting and punishing it." In SORRELS V. U.S. Page 30: (287 U.S. 435 at 444; 1932) the Supreme Court accepted the Butts statement, and in SHERMAN V. U.S. (356 U.S. 369 at 384; 1958) it further stated: "The power of Government is abused and directed to an end for which it was not constituted when employed to promote rather than detect crime and to bring about the downfall of those who, left to themselves, might well have obeyed the law." In U.S. V. BECKER (62 F. 2d 1007 at 1009; 193 3) the court expressed its "spontaneous moral revulsion against using the powers of government to beguile innocent, though ductile, persons into lapses which they might otherwise resist." Though the courts have practically defined entrapment out of existence as a defense in homosexual cases by their assumption of pre-existing intent, they occasionally conclude that entrapment has occurred. For example, in the Rittenour case (OP. CIT., p. 560) the court concluded that the vice officer had "led the appellant to believe he would consent" and had, in the privacy of the appellant's home, "trapped the suspect into making a homosexual proposal and then arrested him." In KELLY V. U.S. (194 F. 2d 150 at 154-55; 1952) the appellate court, choosing to believe the testimony of the defendant over that of the vice officer, laid down three guidelines which it hoped would in the future limit the possibility of false accusation and false conviction in homosexual cases. In MCDERMOTT V. U.S. (98 A. 2d 287 at 290; 1953) the court said: "An officer of the law, as we have said, has the duty of preventing, not encouraging crime" and should not be permitted to "torment and tease weak men beyond their power to resist.. .. " Exactly the same words were again used by the same court in GUARRO V. U.S. (237 F. 2d 578 at 581; 1956). And in PEOPLE V. HUMPHREY (111 N.Y.S. 2d 450; 1952) the court held the police had resorted to entrapment in their arrest of the defendant for disorderly conduct (loitering and soliciting) after the defendant had invited an acquaintance (who, unkown to him, was actually a vice officer) to his apartment for "beer, candy, and fun." Such an invitation, the court said, did not necessarily constitute a prior intent to commit lewd (i.e., homosexual) acts. 83 Cf. UCLA study, pp. 686,694,717. 84 The U.S. census for 1950 and 1960 gives the population of Boise as just under 35,000. (When outlying areas arc included, the figure would probably double.) Kinsey found that 4% of the adult male population is exclusively homosexual, and other specialists estimate the predominantly homosexual male population at 10%. Assuming that half of the population is male and that the percentage of males aged 15 and over is the national average of approximately 70%, the 4% and 10% figures for Boise proper would be 490 and 1,225. For details of the scandal, see Gerassi (OP. CIT., pp. 39-40, 126, and PASSIM). The private investigator is quoted as saying the authorities could probably have gotten convictions of all 500 men if they had tried. The Mattachine Society of N. Y. ("Long Island Homosexuals to Get Legal Aid," N.Y. TIMES, Jul. 24, 196 7, p. 19) advises homosexuals to leave their address books at home. In Florida the MIAMI NEWS announced that the metropolitan police have a list 3,000 local persons suspected of being practicing homosexuals-quoted in MATTACHINE REVIEW, 8:21, May 1962. The investigator for the Broward County school system, according to a letter from the President of the Florida League for Good Government dated Oct. 9, I 967, claims he has built up a list of 55,000 known or suspected homosexuals, a list which he is willing to make available to employment agencies and the police. Elliott in his study of the vice squad in Philadelphia (OP. CIT., p. 12) says the police automatically search homosexual offenders for the names and addresses of other possible homosexuals as well as ask them for the names of sexual partners. 85 CALIF. PENAL CODE, sec. 290. 86 p. 737. If an accused person is found guilty of disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, or outraging public decency, he does not have to register as a sex offender. (The courts have recently found the offense of outraging public decency unconstitutional.) 87 UCLA study, p. 738 and n. 315 on p. 738. The UCLA group also found (p. 787) that every psychiatrist interviewed, virtually all legal and medical authorities, and most of the judges sitting in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court of Los Angeles reject the argument that homosexuals are a menace to society in general and to children in particular. The Kinsey group (SEX OFFENDERS, pp. 285, 323, 345) found (1) that the homosexual offender against children is the least homosexually and the most heterosexually oriented of all homosexual offenders, (2) that the homosexual offender against minors (age 12 to 15) has retreated from competition with adult homosexuals or is a situational offender, and (3) that the homosexual offender against adults is notinterested in prepubescent boys, prefers (76%) partners over 18, and especially partners of his own age bracket (25-34). Michael Schofield in SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF HOMOSEXUALITY (London: Longmans, 1965) found that pedophilia (the preference for children as sex partners) and homosexuality are "two quite separate phenomena" (pp. 147, 149, 208, 212) and that only 18% of his subjects had had their first homosexual experience with an adult (pp. 31-32, 81-82, 109-111). The WOLFENDEN REPORT (par. 57) found that adults who have homosexual relations with other adults "seldom tum to boys." Moreover, since "sex deviates persist in the type of behavior in which they have discovered satisfaction," it is not likely that the adult homosexual offender will tum to children-Slovenko and Phillips, OP. CIT., n. 84 on pp. 823-24, quoting from the Report of the New Jersey Commission on the Habitual Sex Offender (1950). On the matter of crimes of violence and recidivism among male homosexual offenders against adults the Kinsey group (SEX OFFENDERS, pp. 350-51) found (1) that only 7.5% of them had had juvenile convictions (the smallest percentage among all sex offenders), (2) that 65% of them had no record of conviction for any other types of offenses (the largest percentage among all sex offenders), (3) that those who did have such records had been convicted of vagrancy-disorderly conduct (charges to which homosexuals arc "predisposed") and crimes against property, and (4) that their recidivism rate was "definitely low" (42% had had but one previous conviction). 88 Cf. remarks in UCLA study, pp. 738 and 794. 89 Robert K. Woetzel, "Do Our Homosexuality Laws Make Sense?" SATURDAY REVIEW OF LITERATURE, 48:23-25, Oct. 9, 1965. Elliott (OP. CIT., p. 12) found that the Philadelphia police routinely ask persons arrested for homosexual offenses where they arc employed, that they notify the employer if the individual works for the federal, state, or local government, that they supply the information to other employers on request, and that by holding the accused until he has been arraigned they make it "highly probable" the employer will learn of the arrest. Releasing the names of arrested homosexuals to the press also has the effect of notifying employers. The lawyers arrested at the San Francisco New Year's Day ball (sec n. 105 below and text pertinent thereto) discovered that the police department had sent a report to the San Francisco Bar Association to the effect that they had been arrested defending homosexuals-A BRIEF OF INJUSTICES, p. 6. 90 Since employment and military policy arc subjects which will be treated in some detail in other papers in this series, they will not be discussed here. Suffice it to say (I) Page 31: that the federal government (and some state governments and private employers as well) automatically dismisses or refuses to hire persons known or believed to be homosexual or to have engaged in homosexual acts, without evidence of rehabilitation, on the grounds that such persons engage in immoral and illegal conduct, undermine the morale and efficiency of other employees, and arc security risks, (2) that the armed services exclude homosexuals from military service and discharge them, usually with an undesirable discharge and loss of veterans' benefits, and (3) that these policies are criticized not only by homosexuals but by a variety of legal, medical and religious groups. 91 See Evelyn Hooker, "Male Homosexuals and Their 'Worlds,' " in SEXUAL INVERSION, edited by Judd Marmor (N.Y.: Basic Books, 1965), pp. 83-I07 (chap. 5); Cavan, OP. CIT.; Branson, OP. CIT.; Donald W. Cory, "Drop Another Nickel In," in THE HOMOSEXUAL IN AMERICA (N.Y.: Greenberg, 1951), pp. 120-28 (chap. 11); Donald W. Cory and John P. LeRoy, "The Gay Bar-an Emerging Institution" and "Are Gay Bars Harmful?" in THE HOMOSEXUAL AND HIS SOCIETY (N.Y.: Citadel, 1963), pp. I 05-27 (chaps. 9 and IO); Nancy B. Achilles, "The Homosexual Bar," MA Thesis, U. of Chicago, 1964; Nancy B. Achilles, "The Development of the Homosexual Bar as an Institution," in SEXUAL DEVIANCE, edited by John H. Gagnon and William Simon (N.Y.: Harper and Row, 1967), pp. 228-44; Clark P. Polak, "On Gay Bars," DRUM, 5: 12-15, Feb. 1966. Also, John Rechy in his novel, CITY OR NIGHT (N.Y.: Grove Press, 1963), offers intimate glances into gay bars. Paul rorbes ("The Astor Shuts Its Doors-Waits Wreckers," N.Y. TIMES, Jun. 30, 1966, p. 41-reprinted in DRUM, no. 20, pp. I 1-12, 1966) tells the story of the Astor Hotel Bar as a meeting place for homosexuals during and since World War II. 92 G. R. Schwartz, the owner of a gay bar in Los Angeles (Letter to the Editor, PLAYBOY, 14:55-56, Jan. 1967 and 14:52, Apr. 1967), tells of harassment by Los Angeles police against him and his customers and of his loss of his liquor license since his first letter to PLAYBOY. The Council on Religion and the Homosexual (A BRIEF OF INJUSTICES, pp. 6-10) indicts law enforcement officials for enticement, entrapment, and harassment of homosexuals in gay bars and criticizes in the strongest possible language the grounds on which licenses of gay bars arc revoked and the manner in which evidence to justify revocation is obtained. Ernest Lenn ("Special Cops for 'Gay' Bars," SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, Oct. 12, 1961, p. 3-reprinted in MATTACHINE REVIEW, 7 :4, Nov. 1961) writes that "specially trained young policemen in plain clothes are being sent into homosexual bars here to get evidence aimed at revoking their liquor licenses" and that police and liquor authorities are pleased with the results since last year's 30 gay bars have been reduced to 18, with revocation proceedings pending against 15 of them. Morris and Juliet Lowenthal in their Appellant's Opening Brief' in the case of Stoumen v. Riley (1 Civil No. 20,3 IO) in the first appellate division of the District Court of Appeal, dated Jun. 8, 1962, say (n. 2 on p. 111 and unnumbered note on p. 193, citing the transcript of the trial, pp. 369 and 381) that the procedure of using undercover agents "in wholesale fashion under instructions to 'make a case' against the bar, has never been applied against 'non gay' bars" and that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Department is determined to "close every gay bar in California." (The Stoumen case involves the famous Black Cat bar in San Francisco which had become a national tourist attraction and which was finally closed down after twelve years of litigation.) In the Vallerga case (sec n. 94 below) city and military police had the bar under "almost daily" surveillance for nine months during which time no arrests were made and "not once" were improper acts by patrons called to the attention of the management. The liquor authority revoked the bar's license on the grounds that the "premises were a hangout for homosexuals." Another form of police harassment has been to post "Raided Premises" signs and to station a uniformed police officer at the entrance of places that allegedly allow homosexual solicitation-N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 19, 1966, p. 31. After criticism of this practice on a TV news program, the police agreed to reconsider the policy. Thereafter, one bar in Greenwich Village, for the first time in ten months, found itself without sign or policeman. See also, DRUM, 6:6, Mar. 1966. However, police have recently (N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 30, 1967, pp. 1, 50) posted a "raided premises" sign at the entrance to a private club catering to homosexuals. Homophile publications are filled with examples of "harassment." The most notorious technique is that of mass arrest. In addition to the Chicago raid involving l03 persons (sec n. 102 below and text pertinent thereto), here are several other examples: In mid-June, 1956 (MATTACHINE REVIEW, 2:43, Aug. 1956 quoting from the N.Y. TIMES of Jun. 17) the New York City police arrested 387 "undesirables" during the past weekend; on Feb. 19, 1956 (MATTACHINE REVIEW, 2:3-4, 36, Mar. 1956) the sheriff of San Mateo, California, rounded up 200 men, charging 87 of them with lewd vagrancy and acts outraging public decency-charges which were later reduced to disorderly conduct with a guarantee of no fine, no jail sentence, and no probation in return for a pica of guilty; on Aug. 13, 1961 in San Francisco l03 persons (MA TT A CHINE REVIEW, 7: 12-14, Sep. 1961) were arrested in a bar and charged with frequenting a disorderly house; on a Sunday night (exact date not indicated) Atlanta police arrested 85 persons at a night club and charged them with disorderly conduct (TANGENTS, 1: 12, Dec. 1965); in New Orleans, at the Quorum Club (NATION, 199:272-75, Oct. 26, 1964) the police "recently" arrested 73 persons on the charge of disorderly conduct-four persons pleaded guilty and charges were later dropped against the other 69; and on May 2, 1964 (ONE, 12:13, Jul. 1964) Chicago police arrested 58 persons at a private party, 52 of whom were later released for lack of evidence. In many of the above cases, names and addresses were published in newspapers and many men lost their jobs. Police justify these raids as a means of keeping homosexuals "under control" -cf. the remarks of a police official at a symposium on law enforcement in New York ("A Psychological Deviation-the Homosexual," POLICE, 3:39, Jul.-Aug. 1959) to the effect that the police make "planned periodic raids" for this purpose at Cherry Grove on Fire Island. 93 Procedures used by state liquor authorities vary, but a general pattern is discernable from a reading of court cases. Bars are supervised by plainclothes liquor agents or police officers whose identity is unknown to the license holder or his customers. In addition, occasional visits by uniformed police are not uncommon. When violations of laws or moral standards occur, arrests may or may not follow. If made, they rarely occur in the bar or its immediate vicinity. Violations or arrests are reported to the state liquor authority. It is not until the bar owner is informed that suspension or revocation of his license is under consideration that he learns what immoral acts, solicitations, arrests, etc. arc on file against him. When the charge is that he has permitted his bar to become a meeting place for homosexuals, it is assumed he can tell the difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual. Agents' reports (as in the New Jersey case cited inn. 98 below) state: patrons were conversing "in a lisping tone of voice," moved their wrists in a "limp" fashion; extended "their pinkies in a very dainty manner," looked into each other's eyes, "swished and swayed" while walking, and "laughed, giggled, and were very chummy." 94 STOUMEN V. REILLY, 243 P. 2d 969 (1951); KERSHAW V. DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, 318 P. 2d 494 (1957); NICKOLA V. MUNRO, 328 P. 2d 271 (1958); and VALLERGA AND AZAR V. DEPARTMENT OF AL- Page 32: COHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, 347 P. 2d 909 (1959). The issue involved in these cases was twofold-may bars be closed for no other reason than the fact they cater to homosexuals or is the commission of illegal and immoral acts a necessity? The latter view prevailed. 95 "Three Homosexuals in Search of a Drink," DRUM, no. 18-19, pp. 18-19, Sep. 1966; "SLA Won't Act in Deviate Bars," N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 26, 1966, p. 54. 96 The Chairman of the State Liquor Authority says (in the newspaper article referred in the preceding note) that homosexual bars were closed only when they had become disorderly places. Yet the record shows, to cite only two examples, that the N.Y. Civil Liberties Union opposed the closing of Greenwich Village's Cafe Bohemia simply because homosexuals were "congregating" on its premises (ONE, 11: 17, Jun. 1963) and that in the case of Hanley's Grill testimony was presented by liquor investigators to the effect that homosexuals (females with short haircuts and dressed in mannish attire and men wearing tight-fitting clothes and talking in high-pitched voices) were permitted to congregate there (DRUM, 5:6, Jun. 1965). Cf. also, DRUM, 5:24, Oct. 1965. Doty (OP. CIT., p. 33), who used the closing of two gay bars in New York City as the basis for his feature article, says that "scores" of gay bars have been closed in the last few years, and over thirty in the last year alone. The editor of DR UM (no. 18-19, p. 5, Sep. 1966) says that in the entire borough of Manhattan only one or two gay bars remained open. The situation changed, however, when the N.Y. POST ran a hard-hitting series of articles on police entrapment, when the N.Y. TIMES indicated its intention to do a similar series, and when Mayor John Lindsay assumed office and appointed a new police commissioner. Late in 1967 (N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 30, 1967, pp. 1, 50) the number of homosexual bars, restaurants, or private clubs had risen to 73, and police officials say the Mafia is selling some of its gay bars to legitimate business men and is investing more heavily in private clubs for homosexuals. 97 DRUM, no. 22, p. 6, Dec. 1966, no. 24, p. 6, Mar. 1967, and no. 27, p. 26, Oct. 1967; TANGENTS, 1:17, Aug, 1966. 98 "High Court in New Jersey Overturns a Ban on Homosexuals in Bars," N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 7, 1967, p. 28. 99 PADDOCK BAR V. DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, 134 A. 2d 779 (1957). 100 DRUM, no. 27, p. 27, Oct. 1967; PHOENIX, 2:13, Jun. 1967. 101 Morris Ploscowc (Letter to the Editor, PLAYBOY, 14:52, Apr. 1967) suggests that laws against homosexuality and the like only encourage corruption in the form of payoffs-c.g., by proprietors of gay bars. "It is not the function of the law," he says, "to sec that policemen die rich." Just such a "gayola" scandal occurred in San Francisco in 1960 where a number of policemen and liquor agents were indicted for taking money from bar owners whose establishments catered to homosexuals. Among the persons convicted were liquor agent Lawrence Cardellini (SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, Sep. 24, 1960, p. 8) and police sergeant Waldo Rcesink (SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, Sep. 8, I 960, p. 2). In New York, where gay bars have often been operated by the crime syndicate, the Police Commissioner said (Doty, OP. CIT., p. 33) that some low-level police payoffs may occur. 102 Lois Wille ("Homosexual Clergyman Tells of His Bizarre Double Life," CHICAGO DAILY NEWS, Jun. 21, 1966, p. 4) tells of the raid on the Fun Lounge and 011 other places-including a raid on the Lincoln Baths where 15 men were arrested, of whom 12 lost their jobs. Cf. ONE, 12: 12-14, Jul. 1964. 103 Quoted by Wille, "Police Watch Homosexuals' Hangouts Here," CHICAGO DAILY NEWS, Jun. 22, 1966, p. 3. MATTACHINE MIDWEST (2:3, Aug. 1966) warns its members and readers that "enticement, entrapment, and harassment face the homosexual every time he steps into the street" in Chicago, that homosexuals are being picked up by the police, usually on a charge of loitering, without having done anything, that taking a walk in the park or along the beach is "asking for trouble," and that the police department has refused to reply to repeated Mattachinc requests for a meeting to discuss the situation. 104 N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 2, 1966, p. J; CHICAGO DAILY NEWS, Jun. 22, 1966, p. 3; ATLANTA JOURNAL AND CONSTITUTION-quoted in TANGENTS, 1:22-23, Mar. 1966 and DRUM, 6:21, Apr. 1966. Police "crackdowns" designed to "control" homosexuals, to drive them out of town, or to put an end to homosexual activities "once and for all" are a familiar occurrence. Limiting examples to the last several years only, we find such campaigns proclaimed in Cincinnati (DRUM, 5:5, Dec. 1964), Portland, Ore. (DRUM, 5:21, Apr. 1965), Boston (DRUM, 5:6, Oct. 1965), Providence (DRUM, 5:25, Jan. 1966), Seattle (TANGENTS, I: 15, Sep. 1966), Grand Rapids, Mich. (TANGENTS, 2: 20-21, Oct. 1966), and Cherry Grove, N .Y. (DRUM, no. 27, p. 27, Oct. 1967). Similar campaigns have netted 31 men in Chula Vista, Calif. (CHULA VISTA STAR-NEWS, Apr. 16, 1964, p. I); 40 men in San Bernardino, Calif. and 17 in Fort Worth, Tex. (DRUM, 4:5-6, Oct. 1964); 40 men in Santa Ana, Calif. and 19 in Chicago (DRUM, 5:5-6, Jul. 1965); 34 men in Harrisburg, Pa. (DRUM, 5:7, Oct. 1965); 12 men in LcHabre, Calif. (DRUM, 5:18, Nov. 1965); 14 men in Hollywood and 7 in Newport Beach, Calif. (DRUM, no. 18-19, p. 8, Sep. 1966); 18 men in Cherry Grove, N.Y. (DRUM, no. 21, p. 23, Nov. 1966); 9 men in Los Angeles (PRIDE, 2: 1, 4, Jul. 1967), 26 men in Xenia, 0. (DRUM, no. 25, p. 24, Aug. 1967); and 17 men in Dayton (DRUM, no. 27, p. 24, Oct. 1967). An especially unfortunate incident occurred in Massachusetts late in 1960. Two homosexual adult males from California, one white and one Negro, travelling crosscountry on a vacation (John Logan, "Puritan Terror," MATTACHINE REVIEW, 7:4-7, Apr. 1961), were stopped on Sep. 10th as they crossed the state line on Route 20 and taken to the state police barracks at Charlton. There their luggage was searched and a small metal box containing a copy of the Sep. 1960 issue of the MATTACHINE REVIEW, a copy of PHYSIQUE PICTORIAL, and a personal letter from the Boston Arca Council of the Mattachinc Society, was broken into. The two men were then taken to Southbridge where they were held for trial on the charge of "possession of pornographic literature [the copy of the MATTACHINE REVIEW[ for the purpose of display and exhibition." Finally, on Jan. 12, 1961, they were tried, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $ 250 each. All told, the two men had been detained 125 days. The unfortunate concomittants and consequences of police actions designed "to control" homosexuals in Philadelphia arc well shown by Fonzi (OP. CIT., pp. 15- I 6). Not only have psychiatrists, lawyers, and the local ACLU criticized the police for entrapment practices; but, far more serious, a corrupt racket involving policemen, bail bondsmen, lawyers, and perhaps even magistrates has thrived and "apparently still llourishes." After reports of a racket "involving the systematic mulcting" of homosexuals leaked out. the deputy police commissioner found ( 1961 ), after studying 337 cases, that (I) certain police officers grilled suspects about their business and financial situation before booking Page 33: them, (2) bail bondsmen were arriving at city hall with signed copies for a suspect's release before his arrival, (3) bondsmen were directing arrested men to certain lawyers from whom they were getting a 50% kickback and were charging $40 to $60 for copies of charges which could be obtained free from magistrates, ( 4) lawyers were charging outrageous fees (up to $7000), and (5) the 337 cases were handled by only nine lawyers. A subsequent investigation of 31 complaints by the district attorney led to the arrest of 10 bail bondsmen. Though four lawyers and six policemen were also involved, none of them were arrested. 105 SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, Jan. 3, 1965, p. IA; Jan. 6, 1965, p. 7; Feb. 12, 1965, p. 3; "Three Lawyers and Secretary Acquitted," (San Francisco) ACLU NEWS, Mar. 1965, pp. 1, 3; "Homosexual Harassment: San Francisco Police," ACLU, 1963-66 [Report of the ACLU of Northern California], p. 65. (A three-page mimeographed "Report to Concerned People," prepared by Rev. Lewis E. Durham of the Glide Urban Center of San Francisco, describes the events. Copies are available upon request from the Council on Religion and the Homosexual.) 106 The account given here is based upon excited and incomplete accounts found in the homophile press, about the only written material available: ONE CONFIDENTIAL, 12: 5-10, Apr. 1967; VECTOR, 3:1, 6, Feb. and 3:3, 22, Mar. 1967; PRIDE, 1:1, 6, Feb. and 2:1, 4, 9, Jul. 1967; PHOENIX, 2:9, 11, Feb. 1967; ARC NEWS, 2:1, 6, Feb. 1967; DRUM, no. 24, p. 6, Mar. and no. 27, pp. 26-28, Oct. 1967; TANGENTS, 2:4-7, Jan. 1967; THE HOMOSEXUAL CITIZEN (Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C.), 2:3-7, Mar. 1967. As an interesting sidelight, witnesses affirm that one of the officers who had testified at the trial with hand and arm in a sling and cast, experienced so miraculous and sudden a recovery that within twenty minutes after the jury had withdrawn, he was seen opening doors and drinking coffee with his injured arm, no longer burdened with sling or cast. 107Letter to the editor, 14:84, Dec. 1967. 108Cf. UCLA study, p. 719. 109Pp. 718-27, especially nn. 207,208,209,211, and 213 on pp. 719-21. 110"Take My Name Off Your Mailing List," MATTACHINE REVIEW, 1:33-35, Sep.-Oct. 1955. 111 "Mail Snooping," NEW REPUBLIC, 153:6-7, Aug. 21, 1965. 112 "The Watch on the Mails," NEWSWEEK, 67: 24, Jun. 13, 1966. 113 Cf. William A. Westley, "Violence and the Police," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, 59:34-41, 1953; Thomas R. Brooks, "Why Seven Out of Ten Cops Will Use the Third Degree," FACT, 2:3-9, Nov.-Dec. 1965. 114 Cf. LaFavc, OP. CIT., p. 469. 115 MATTACHINE REVIEW, 7:6-15, Jun. and 7: 24, Oct. 1965, quoting extensively from coverage of the story in the San Francisco newspapers. Walter B. Miller ("LowerClass Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency," JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ISSUES, 14:5-19, 1958) refers to street-corner youths who have institutionalized "queer baiting" as a means of proving their own masculinity and toughness. 116MATTACHINE REVIEW, 8:8-11, May 1962, quoting from the ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS. 117 ONE, 6:20, Oct. 1958; ONE, 6:18, Apr. 1958; MATTACHINE REVIEW, 7:24, Dec. 1961; DRUM, 5:22, Feb. 1966; ONE, 11:21, Oct. 1963; ONE, 8:20, Jan. 1960; VECTOR; 4: 13, Feb. 1968; N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 30, 1966, p. 10; ONE, 12: 18, Apr. 1965; ONE, 13:16, Feb.1965. 118 N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 3, 1966, pp. 1, 25; May 17, pp. 1, 35, Jul. 12, p. 31, Sep. 28, p. 39, 1967; CHICAGO TRIBUNE, May 18, 1967, p. 9. Sensationalized but informative accounts are given in I. M. Kamp, "Fake Cops Who Prey on VIPs (Very Important Perverts,)" CONFIDENTIAL, 14:20-21, 68, Jul. 1966; Ormen Elemen, "The Truth About That Homosexual Blackmail Ring," CONFIDENTIAL, 15: 14-15, 48, Oct. 1967; J.M. Kamp, "That Homosexual Blackmail Ring: How It Was Smashed," UNCENSORED, 16:32-33, 46-48, Oct. 1967. In addition, "Shakedown," the American Broadcasting Company's premiere episode in its new "N.Y.P.D." television series (Monday, Sep. 5, 196 7) dealt with a ring of blackmailers preying on homosexuals. 119 Ploscowe, SEX AND THE LAW, pp. 195-96. 120 Jess Stearn, THE SIXTH MAN (Garden City: Doubleday, 1961), p. 185. (Paperback: MacFadden MB 60-106.) Among other examples of extortion are the following: a Georgia business man who paid $10,000 (TANGENTS, 2: 17, Jan. 1967), an Alabama man who paid $1,700 (DRUM, no. 23, p. 5, 1967), two Pennsylvania men convicted of attempted extortion (DR UM, no. 22, p. 24, Mar. 1967), a Milwaukee man who paid $4,300 (DRUM, 4:5, Oct. 1964), ten fake cops arrested in New York for shaking down fifteen men for sums as high as $10,000 (MATTACHINE REVIEW, 6:2, Oct. 1960), and a Tucson man who paid $25,000 (ONE, 8: 9, Jan. 1960). For another type of extortion uncovered in Philadelphia in Oct. 1961, seen. 104 above. 121 SUBSCRIBERS' NEWSLETTER (Phoenix Society), Oct. 1967; John Hunter, "Phoenix-Police Hold Meeting," PHOENIX, 2:9-10, 14, Aug. 1967; Drew R. Schafer, "President's Corner," PHOENIX, 2: 3, Oct. 1967. The situation seems to have changed from what it was some years ago when Alfred C. Kinsey, in a speech before the National Probation and Parole Association (quoted by John Rocburt, SEX-LIFE AND THE CRIMINAL LAW [N.Y.: Belmont Books, 1963], p. 93) said: "There arc cities in the United States in which there is no greater blackmail racket than that operated by police against homosexuals." 122 Roger L. Shinn ("Persecution of the Homosexual," CHRISTIANITY AND CRISIS, 26: 84-87, May 2, 1966) argues for a change of social attitude and goes along with a change in the law. Howard R. Moody, writing in the same journal ("Homosexuality and Muckraking," 27:270-71, 1967) takes the same position as Shinn but goes on to call for a moratorium on the use of homosexuality as a political weapon. AMERICA ("Law and Homosexuality," 113:71, Jul. 17, 1965) agrees there is a case for legal change and ("The Wicked and the Weak," 116:802-03, Jun. 3, 1967), affirming that the consenting adult homosexual is not a criminal, calls for punishment of persons Page 34: who blackmail homosexuals. William F. Buckley, Jr. ("Homosexual Laws," SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, Mar. 3, 1960, p. 35) cites blackmail as one of the justifiable reasons for supporting a change in the law. In England, where the Labouchicrc Amendment (making gross indecency between males a crime) has been called "the Blackmailer's Charter," Earl Jowett told Parliament (HANSARD, Lords, 187:745, May 1954) that when he became Attorney-General twenty-five years ago "at least 95% of the cases of blackmail which came to my attention arose out of homosexuality." However, the WOLFENDEN REPORT (par. 110) found that only 45% of the blackmail cases reported to the police during the period 1950-53 were connected with homosexuality. William Simon and John Gagnon ("Homosexuality: Formulation of a Sociological Perspective," JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, 8: 177-85 at p. 181, 1967) report that from their studies at the Kinsey Institute, it appears that between 6 and 16% of the homosexuals on whom they have information have been blackmailed. The Mattachine Society of Washington is currently doing research on homosexual blackmail in the United States. 123 Sec. 32, SEXUAL OFFENSES ACT OF 1956-retained as an offense in the 1967 amendment to that act as recommended by the Wolfenden Report, par. 116, 121, 123, 124, and 355( xii). 124 Sec. 251.3, 6.03, and 6.08. 125 Sec n. 66 above and text pertinent thereto. 126 Sec n. 78 above and text pertinent thereto. 127 Gilbert Cantor, a Philadelphia attorney, suggests that "perhaps solicitation laws should not apply where policemen are the victims" according to an article in the Philadelphia Bar Association SHINGLE quoted in DRUM, no. 18-19, p. 31, Sep. 1966. 128 Par. 13-14. 129 Cf. "Commentary," TENTATIVE DRAFT NO. 4, pp. 277-78.See also n. 5 above and text pertinent thereto. 130 THE ENFORCEMENT OF MORALS (London: Oxford, 1959); "Law, Democracy, and Morality," U. OF PA. LAW REVIEW, 110:635-49, 1962; and "Mill on Liberty in Morals," U. OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW, 32: 215-35, 1965. For a critique of Devlin's views, sec H. L.A. Hart, LAW, LIBERTY, MORALITY (Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 1963) and "lmmorality and Treason," LISTENER, 62: 162-63, 1959; Richard Wollhcim, "Crime, Sin and Mr. Justice Devlin," ENCOUNTER, Nov. 1959, pp. 34-40; Eugene V. Rostow, "The Enforcement of Morals," CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL, 18: 174-98, 1960; and H. L. A. Hart, "The Use and Abuse of Criminal Law," OXFORD LAWYER, 4:7-12, 1961. 131 Letter to the Editor, (London) TIMES, May 11, 1965, p. 13. Cf. remarks of Lord James of Rusholme in HANSARD, 266: 107, May 12, 1965. 132 The "sickness" theory has monopolized public discussion of homosexuality in the United States. Hence, it is not surprising to find 71 % of the American public (sec n. 3 above) regard homosexuality as an illness. Psychoanalyst Edmund Bergler (HOMOSEXUALITY DlSEASE OR WAY OF LIFE? [N.Y.: Hill and Wang, 1956]) argues from the first to the last page that homosexuality is a "curable illness." Irving Beibcr and his associates (HOMOSEXUALITY: A PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDY OF MALE HOMOSEXUALS [N.Y.: Basic Books, 1962], p. 18) claim that "all psychoanalytic theories assume that homosexuality is psycho pathologic." Albert Ellis (HOMOSEXUALITY: ITS CAUSE AND CURE [N.Y.: Lyle Stuart, Inc., 1965], p. 82) maintains that rather than simply being neurotic, "most fixed homosexuals arc basically psychotic." and TIME ("The Homosexual in America," 87:40-41, Jan. 21, 1966) sought to foreclose consideration of any other view with its decree that there must be "no pretense that [homosexuality] is anything but a pernicious sickness." But there arc psychiatrists and psychoanalysts, starting with Sigmund Freud, who do not subscribe to the sickness theory. Freud, in "A Letter to an American Mother" (AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 107:787, 1951--rcprinted in Hendrik M. Ruitenbcck, THE PROBLEM OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN MODERN SOCIETY [N.Y.: Dutton, 1963], pp. 1-2) states that homosexuality "cannot be classified as an illness." Recent empirical research undertaken by scientists and social scientists have seriously undermined the sickness theory. The Kinsey group (Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin, "Homosexual Outlet," in SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN MALE [Philadelphia: Saunders, 1948], pp. 610-66 and passim at 660) concluded: "The opinion that homosexual activity in itself provides evidence of a psychopathologic personality is materially challenged by our incidence and frequency data." From their studies, the Kinsey group found that a "high proportion" of males with homosexual histories "would not be considered psychopathic personalities on the basis of anything else in their histories." In their volume on the female (Op. CIT., p. 448), they said: "The impression that infra-human mammals more or less confine themselves to heterosexual activities is a distortion of the fact which appears to have originated in a man-made philosophy." Clcllan Ford and Frank Beach ("Homosexual Behavior" in PATTERNS OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR [N.Y.: Harper, 1951], pp. 125-43 at 143) found that "human homosexuality is the product of the fundamental mammalian heritage." Evelyn Hooker ("The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual," JOURNAL OF PROJECT! VE TECHNIQUES, 21: 18-31 at 31, 1957-rcprinted in Ruitenbeek, OP. CIT., pp. 141-61 at 160) concluded, after a meticulous analysis and comparison of matched pairs of homosexuals and heterosexuals, that homosexuality "may be a deviation in sexual pattern which is within the normal range, psychologically." The Wolfenden Committee in its REPORT (par. 25-30 at 26) rejected the sickness theory because "homosexuality docs not satisfy any of [the three criteria for disease] unless the terms in which they arc defined arc expanded beyond what could reasonably be regarded as legitimate." An impressive critique of the sickness theory is found in Simon and Gagnon (OP. CIT., pp. 177-80). 133 Cf. Kenneth Younger, HANSARD, Commons, 526:497; J. L. Fluker, Letter to the Editor, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2:49, 1962; Norman St. John-Stevas, HANSARD, Commons, 73 8: 1122, Dec. 19, 1966. 134 WOLFENDEN REPORT, Reservations of James Adair, par. 8(i-ii); Maurice Labelle, "Laws Needed to Force 'Homos' to Seek Help," CORAL GABLE TIMES, Feb. 4, 1965, p. 6; Dr. Reginald Bennett and Dr. D. D. Broughton, HANSARD, Commons, 526:448, 497; MODEL PENAL CODE, n. 87, p. 278. 135 WOLFENDEN REPORT, par. 13, 14, and 61. This argument was expressed repeatedly in debates in Parliament, on radio and television shows, and in articles and letters in the press. Page 35: 136 See n. 7 5 above. This was one of the arguments used by the Catholic Advisory Committee. The matter of blackmail and police tactics received constant attention in the press and in speeches in Parliament-e.g., Norman St. John-Stevas (HANSARD, Commons, 738: 1122) said he hoped the Home Secretary "can assure the House that the detestable practice of policemen acting as AGENTS PROVOCATEURS in public lavatories and other places has been discontinued." Cf. also the speeches of the Earl of Huntingdon, the Earl of Arran, and Lady Gaitskill, in HANSARD, Lords, 206;805, 266: 128, and 274:607; and the comments of the ALI (p. 279) on TENTATIVE DRAFT NO. 4 of its Model Penal Code. 137 Helmut Thielicke, THE ETHICS OF SEX, translated by John W. Doberstein (N.Y.: Harper and Row, 1964), pp. 269-92 (chap. 4); Norman St. John-Stevas, "Homosexuality," in LIFE, DEATH, AND THE LAW (Bloomington: Indiana U. Press, 1961), pp. 198-231 at 202-04, 214-15, 223; Jones, OP. CIT., pp. 66-77; Bailey, OP. CIT., pp. 1-8; "The Sins of Sodom," TIME, 82:54, Sep. 6, 1963; William G. Cole, SEX AND LOVE IN THE BIBLE (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960), pp. 342-43, 351, 360-61. Robert W. Wood in CHRIST AND THE HOMOSEXUAL (N.Y.: Vantage Press, 1960), p. 174, cites three conditions under which homosexuality should be regarded as moral. 138 The pertinent Bible passages arc: GENESIS xiii: 13; xviii: 20-22, xix:4-8, xix: 13, xix:24-25; LEVITICUS xviii:22, xx:13; DEUTERONOMY xxiii:17-18; JUDGES xix:22-24; I KINGS xiv:24, xv:12, xxii:46; II KINGS xxiii:7; ROMANS i:24-32; I CORINTHIANS vi:9-10; GALATIANS v:19-21; I TIMOTHY i:9-10; II PETER ii:6: JUDE i:7: REVELATION xxi:8. 139 Sec n. 7 above. Cf. also Adair's reservations to the WOLFENDEN REPORT, 8(iii), and speeches in the House of Lords by Lord Denning, the Bishop of Carlisle, the Earl of Kilmuir, and Lord Saltoun (HANSARD, Lords, 206: 810, 814-15, 817; 274: 611, 624). 140 Cf. the Earl of Kilmuir, HANSARD, Lords, 274:615. 141 Each of the arguments mentioned here was expressed in debates in Parliament as well as in articles in the press. Sec especially the speeches of Lords Denning, Kilmuir, and Winterton and of the Bishops of Carlisle and Rochester in the House of Lords (HANSARD, 206:793, 796-98, 807-09, 816, 817, and 274:615) and of Sir Cyril Black, Sir Cyril Osborne, Mrs. Jean Mann, Mr. James Dance, Mr. F. J. Ballinger, Mr. William Shepherd, Dr. R.R. Broughton, Dr. Reginald Bennett, and Mr. David Renton in the House of Commons (HANSARD. 526:417, 427, 437, 443, 447, 454, 461,463,465, 482, 502-03, 554; 713: 615; and 724: 817, 834. Articles and letters in the popular press tended toward extreme statements-e.g., Mr. John Gordon in the SUNDAY EXPRESS of Sep. 8, 1957. Articles and letters in professional journals and in the liberal press sometimes expressed basically extreme views, with varying degrees of camouflage or moderation--e.g., the letter of Dr. C. G. Learoyd in LANCET (273: 542-43, 1956, plus nine others). The idea that homosexuality is a threat to the family was the major argument used by Catholic spokesmen against the law reform in New York-see references to articles in PLAYBOY and the NEW YORK TIMES in n. 30 above. This was also the decisive argument in the LIFE editorial (58:4, Jun. 11, 1965) supporting the New York legislature's refusal to repeal laws prohibiting homosexual acts between consenting adults in private. 142 Extreme views such as these seem to be more often spoken than written and are probably to be viewed as defensive reactions. Albert Ellis ("Homosexuality and Creativity," JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 15:376-79, 1959) attacks homosexual claims of special creative talents and the New York Academy of Medicine ("Homosexuality: A Report") in its mimeographed statement of May 11, 1964, denounces homosexuals for presenting homosexuality as a "desirable, noble, preferable way of life." 143 ALI Commentary to Tentative Draft No. 4 of the Model Penal Code, OP. CIT., pp. 276-91; the President's Crime Commission task force report on the courts, OP. CIT., p. 104; the UCLA study, pp. 695, n. 122 on p. 705, 712, 719-20, n. 223 on p. 724, 724-25, 738, 760, 793, 795; comments and speeches in Parliament, HANSARD, Commons, 526: 1749 (Sir Robert Boothby), 596: 388 (Mr. Greenwood), 738: 1119, 1122 (Mr. St. John-Stcvas) and Lords, 206: 805 (the Earls of Huntingdon and Arran), 266: 128 (Lady Gaitskill), 274:607 (the Earl of Arran), etc.; Howard S. Becker, review of BOYS OF BOISE, in BOOK WEEK, 4:20-21, Nov. 6, 1966. (Many of these arguments are also presented in countless books and articles in magazines and newspapers, some of which have been referred to in many of the above footnotes.) 144 For many people, including some law enforcement officials and judges, as well as the general public, homosexuals have been people who possess no civil rights. The legal profession and the courts have been, and still arc, reluctant to recognize that a civil rights issue is involved or to do anything to uphold the civil rights of homosexuals. However, the recent civil rights movement in this country has focused attention on all minorities and on the infringement upon and denial of their basic human rights. The demands of the homophile organizations, the legal challenges individual homosexuals are raising, the awakening consciences of religious and humanitarian groups, and current research in the social and biological sciences have specifically called attention to society's treatment of the homosexual. A civil rights issue underlies the ALI position and is explicit in the policy statement of the American Civil Liberties Union released by the national office in New York last August 31st. Rev. Robert Wood (OP. CIT., pp. 89-90), back in 1960, seems to have been the first minister to discuss homosexuality in terms of civil rights. He has expressed himself more fully on the subject in "Homosexuality and the Church," N.Y. MATTACHINE NEWSLETTER, 9: 11-20, Dec. 1964. The denial of their civil rights was the basis for the Council on Religion and the Homosexual's indictment, in its BRIEF OF INJUSTICES, of society's treatment of homosexuals in San Francisco. The Mattachinc Society of Washington ("Federal Employment of Homosexual American Citizens," a 17-pagc mimeographed statement, dated Nov. 15, 1965, presented by the society to the U.S. Civil Service Commission) has brought the civil rights issue to the official attention of the U.S. government. The most forthright treatment in the popular press is to be found in the recent article by Schott (OP. CIT.) in the N.Y. TIMES entitled "Civil Rights and the Homosexual: A 4-Million Minority Asks for Equal Rights." The UCLA study (p. 720) has raised the issue of harassment being a possible violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But to somc-e.g., an editorial in AMERICA (113: 71, Jul. 17, 1965) and the letter of the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission to the Washington Mattachinc Society, dated Feb. 25, 1966 (reproduced in MATTACHINE REVIEW, 12:27-30, Jul. 1966 and THE HOMOSEXUAL CITIZEN, May 1966)-thc idea that homosexuals arc a minority being deprived of their civil rights is anathema. In this country many individuals and groups have called for law reform: the American Law Institute (sec n. 5 above), the UCLA study (pp. 793-94), the Kinsey Page 36: group (cf. Paul Gebhard, LADIES' HOME JOURNAL, 82:66-67, May 1965), the Episcopal Diocese of California (OP. CIT., recommendation no. 1), a Philadelphia panel of the United Presbyterian Church of the U.S. (DRUM, 6:5, Mar. 1966), the National Federation of Temple Sisterhoods of Reformed Judaism (N .Y. TIMES, Nov. 19, 1965, p. 15), the U. of Wash. Young Republican Club (PLAYBOY, 13:63, Oct. 1966), the Young Democrats of the U. of Wis. at Milwaukee (N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 10, 1966, p. 80), PLAYBOY (14:36, Jan. 1967) in its "Playboy Philosophy" series, the U. of Texas Student League for Responsible Sexual Freedom (TIME, 87:66, Mar. 11, 1966), the Stanford Sexual Rights Forum (PLAYBOY, 14:36, Jan. 1967, the Second Annual Model Congress, a group of high school students from northeastern United States (PLAYBOY, 13:68, Nov. 1966), a group of six Michigan doctors (Stephen C. Mason ET AL.. JOURNAL OF THE MICHIGAN STATE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 60:635-38, 1961; the N.Y. TIMES (editorial, Mar. 18, 1965, p. 32), the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE (editorial, Jul. 6, 1967, p. 40), the MIAMI BEACH DAILY SUN (editorial, Dec. 27, 1964), the Univ. of Cal. DAILY CALIFORNIAN (editorial, Dec. 8, 1965, p. 8). In addition, various state and local bar associations, many individual lawyers, some judges, and numerous writers in legal journals have called for reform. In San Francisco, Mayor Joseph Alioto (Charles McCabe, "Alioto on Crime," SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, Dec. 20, 1967, p. 24) has appointed a crime commission which will do for the U.S. what the Wolfenden Report did for England. In the popular press, except for numerous references in PLAYBOY and occasional articles in such magazines as the SATURDAY REVIEW OF LITERATURE (48:23-25, Oct. 9, 1965) and NATION (186:57-58, Jan. 18, 1958 and 187:283, Oct. 25, 1958), there has been very little discussion of homosexual law reform. National columnist Sidney J. Harris (MIAMI HERALD, Dec. 23, 1964) and James J. Kilpatrick (WASH. STAR, Dec. 24, 1964) have spoken out for change.Churchmen and religious periodicals arc beginning to discuss homosexuality, but few of them have yet reached the point where they arc even discussing homosexual law reform. However, some churchmen, like Bishop James Pike (N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 11, 1966, p. 35), some church groups, like the Episcopal Dioceses of California (referred to earlier in this note) and of New York (PLAYBOY, 12: 222, Dec. 1965), and some periodicals, like CHRISTIAN CENTURY (82:659, May 26, 1965), have called for homosexual law reform. According to a poll taken by a Sociology professor at San Francisco State College in October of 1965 (TANGENTS, 1: 10-11, Dec. 1965), 56% of the 353 persons interviewed-Bay Arca adults of the middle class income group-favored legalizing private homosexual conduct among adults. It is not yet possible to know how extensive is the opposition to homosexual law reform since the subject has not received much of a public hearing. In addition to LIFE (editorial, 58:4, Jun. 11, 1965), the CATHOLIC LA WYER ("Sexual Offenses: Legal and Moral Considerations," 9:94-105, 1963) opposes change. In Wisconsin, the Republican governor reacted to the proposal of the Young Democrats for reform by calling them "Homocrats" (N.Y. TIMES' Apr. 10, 1966, p. 80). Republican Governor Ronald Reagan of California, in response to questions by Yale students (Bob Greenwald and Marc Kahn, Letter to the Editor, NEWSWEEK, 71:6, Jan. 8, 1968), said he opposes making homosexual acts between consenting adults legal. In a panel at Gonzaga Law School; consisting of a psychiatrist, a prosecuting attorney, and a journalist (DRUM, no. 18-19, p. 30, Sep. 1966), it was agreed the law should not be changed. In New York, New Mexico, and Minnesota (sec nn. 30, 31, 32 above), the legislatures have refused to alter present laws. In a Harris Poll (WASHINGTON POST, Sep. 27, 1965, p. 2; DRUM, 5:5, Dec. 1965), when asked what they considered most harmful to the nation, the people interviewed placed homosexuals in third place (behind Communists and atheists) by vote of 82% of the males and 58% of the females. But 3 out of 10 Americans thought homosexuals arc not a matter of serious concern. According to the CBS poll (OP. CIT., p. 30), 54% of those interviewed favor punishment of homosexuals, and presumably oppose law reform. Since 27% expressed no opinion, it appears that a large number of people have not yet made up their minds for or against reform. 145 All of the arguments mentioned here were presented in Parliament and have also appeared in various books and articles in magazines and newspapers. Cf. HANSARD, Lords, 206:754-55, 765, 812 (speeches by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Brabazon, and Lord Jessel), 274:606 (speech by the Earl of Arran), 275: 168 (speech by Lord Snow); Commons, 596: 392 (speech by Mr. Hyde), 625: 1457 (speech by Mr. Robinson), 724: 849, 867 (speeches by Roy Jenkins and Leo Abse); the WOLFENDEN REPORT, par. 58-59; Kinsey on the male (OP. CIT., p. 651). 146 These arguments were presented by Home Secretary R. A. Butler to the House of Commons and by the Earl of Kilmuir to the House of Lords as official spokesmen for the British government: HANSARD, Commons, 596:367-71 and 625:1490-92 and Lords, 206:773, 776 and 274:611. Cf. Lords, 206:810, 814-17, 828 (speeches by Lord Denning, the Bishop of Carlisle, and Lord Strabolgi) and Commons, 526:4 72-78 (speech by Mr. Rawlinson), 625: 1482 (speech by Mr. Shepherd), and 724: 803 (speech by Sir Cyril Black). See also, the reservations of James Adair (par. 2, 3, 8 (iii, v, vi) to the WOLFENDEN REPORT. 147 Percgrine Worsthorne, LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH, Feb. 13, 1966-cited in AMERICA, 114:316, Mar. 5, 1966. Page 37: HOMOPHILE ORGANIZATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA ASSOCIATION FOR RESPONSIBLE CITIZENSHIP P.O. Box 895, Sacramento, California 95814 CENTER FOR DIALOGUE 2175 Northwest 26th Street, Miami, Florida 33142 CINCINNATI HOMOPHILE ORGANIZATION P.O. Box 1493, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 CINCINNATI MATTACHINE SOCIETY P.O. Box 625, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 CIRCLE OF FRIENDS P.O. Box 9737, Dallas, Texas 75214 CIRCLE OF LOVING COMPANIONS 129 North Edgeware Road, Los Angeles, California 90026 COUNCIL ON EQUALITY FOR HOMOSEXUALS P.O. Box 179, New Hyde Park, New York, New York l 1040 COUNCIL ON RELIGION AND THE HOMOSEXUAL (CRH) 330 Ellis Street, San Francisco California 94102 (phone: 771-6300) DALLAS COUNCIL ON RELIGION AND THE HOMOSEXUAL 3133 Inwood Road, Dallas, Texas 75235 DAUGHTERS OF BILITIS (DOB) National Headquarters and San Francisco Chapter 1005 Market Street, Room 208, San Francisco, California 94103 (phone: 861-8889) Los Angeles Chapter - P.O. Box 727, Manhattan Beach, California 90266 New York Chapter - P.O. Box 3629 Grand Central Station, New York, New York 10017 Philadelphia Chapter - P.O. Box 14383 Bustlcton Station, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107 DORIAN SOCIETY OF SEATTLE P.O. Box 799, Seattle, Washington 98101 FLORIDA LEAGUE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT P.O. Box 301, Miami, Florida 33101 (phone: 374-4591) HOMOSEXUAL LAW RErORM SCOIETY (formerly Janus Society) 34 South 17th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (phone: 103-5100) HOMOSEXUAL VOTERS ADVISORY COUNCIL P.O. Box 5131 Terminal Annex, Denver, Colorado 80217 INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ETHICS 119 Ann Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06103 MATTACHINE MIDWEST P.O. Box 89, Chicago, Illinois 60690 MATTACHINE SOCIETY, INC. 348 Ellis Street, San Francisco, California 94102 (phone: 474-6995) MATTACHINE SOCIETY OF NEW YORK 1133 Broadway, New York, New York 10010 (phone: 924-7743) MATTACHINE SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON P.O. Box 1032, Washington, D.C. 20013 (phone: 737-4957) NATIONAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 330 Ellis Street, San Francisco, California 94102 NATIONAL LEAGUE FOR SOCIAL UNDERSTANDING 9201 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 94069 733 West Pacific Highway, Long Beach, California P.O. Box 14171, San Francisco, California 94114 ONE, INC. 2256 Venice Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90006 (phone: 735-5252) ONE OF CHICAGO Room 1015, 100 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602 ONE OF DETROIT P.O. Box 7926 Kercheval Station, Detroit, Michigan 48215 ONE OF NEW YORK c/o Erickson Foundation, 1045 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10028 PHOENIX SOCIETY FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM P.O. Box 1191, Kansas City, Missouri 64141 PRIDE (Personal Rights in Defense and Education) P.O. Box 2067, Hollywood, California 90028 PURSUIT AND SYMPOSIUM 2141 Baxter Street, Los Angeles, California 90039 SAN FRANCISCO HOMOPHILE LEAGUE P.O. Box 5794, San Francisco, California 94101 SOCIETY ADVOCATING MUTUAL EQUALITY (SAME) P.O. Box 77 5, Rock Island, Illinois 61202 SOCIETY FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS (SIR) 83 Sixth Street, San Francisco, California 94103 (phone: 781-1570) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COUNCIL ON RELIGION AND THE HOMOPHILE 3330 West Adams Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90018 STUDENT. HOMOPHILE LEAGUE OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY c/o Office of the University Chaplain 202 Earl Hall, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027 STUDENT HOMOPHILE LEAGUE OF HARTFORD UNIVERSITY Room 930, Asylum Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06105 STUDENT HOMOPHILE LEAGUE OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY P.O. Box 2354 Stanford, California 94305 TANGENTS 34 73½ Cahuenga Boulevard, Hollywood, California 90028 (phone: 464-1737) Page 38: TAVERN GUILD OF SAN FRANCISCO 83 Sixth Street, San Francisco, California 94103 TAVERN GUILD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 11012 Ventura Boulevard, Studio City, California 91604 TIDEWATER HOMOPHILE LEAGUE P.O. Box 623, Norfolk, Virginia 23501 WASHINGTON AREA COUNCIL ON RELIGION AND THE HOMOSEXUAL P.O. Box 5618, Washington, D.C. 20016 WESTSIDE DISCUSSION GROUP P.O. Box 592 Cathedral Station, New York, New York 10025 CANADIAN HOMOPHILE ORGANIZATIONS ASSOCIATION FOR SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE (ASK) P.O. Box 4277, Vancouver 9, British Columbia INTERNATIONAL SEX EQUALITY ANONYMOUS P.O. Box 145, Station G, Montreal, Quebec Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource <i>The Challenge and Progress of Homosexual Law Reform</i> (38 pages) Description An account of the resource Published by the Council on Religion and the Homosexual, Daughters of Bilitis, Society for Individual Rights, and Tavern Guild of San Francisco, 1968. From private papers of James Waller. https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/8ccf453636f3b64b15e2fe860009918f.pdf b8a5f4b7ad6f055d8348b9421e63bdc5 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Page 1: Essays on Homosexuality Essay Number 3 CRH: 1964/1968 Council on Religion and the Homosexual Prepared and Published by: Council on Religion and the Homosexual 330 Ellis Street - San Francisco, California 94102 Page 2: Many books and articles have been written on the subject of homosexuality. Some of them are very good, but many of them are of little value. Not much of a serious nature has yet been written from the point of view of the homosexual; and little of that has received wide circulation. The homophile organizations of San Francisco have undertaken to publish and distribute a series of "Essays on Homosexuality" which will discuss subjects of interest and importance to the general public as well as the homophile community in a serious, informative, and constructive manner. Prepared and Published by: COUNCIL ON RELIGION AND THE HOMOSEXUAL 330 Ellis Street-San Francisco, California 94102 fifty cents per copy (organizational rates upon request) CRH: 1964/1968 Council on Religion and the Homosexual TABLE OF CONTENTS SOCIAL ATTITUDES AND THE HOMOPHILE MOVEMENT .... 2 THE FORMATION OF CRH ......... 3 EARLY HISTORY OF CRH . . . . 4 THE PROGRAMS AND GOALS OF CRH .......... 6 THE WORK OF CRH ............. 7 REACHING THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY .......... 7 REACHING THE HOMOPHILE COMMUNITY .......... 9 REACHING THE PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITIES . . . . . . 10 REACHING PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS ....... 10 REACHING THE PUBLIC AT LARGE ........ 11 THE IMPACT OF CRH ........ 14 THE FUTURE OF CRH ........... 15 OTHER CRH PUBLICATIONS ....... 16 Page 3: SOCIAL ATTITUDES AND THE HOMOPHILE MOVEMENT The homosexual has always been with us, but for the most part he has been considered an outsider, a fit subject for ridicule, denunciation, ostracism, and punishment. Among Christians the Old Testament injunction of death to the offender no longer prevails, but the Pauline strictures against the "sin" of homosexuality still receive wide acceptance. In the last century, humanitarians and others have argued that homosexuality is a sickness-a questionable view-rather than a sin or crime, but without noticeable change in the social status or treatment of the homosexual. At best, both society and the religious community have preferred to treat homosexuality as an embarrassing problem to be passed over in silence or to be viewed with paternalistic concern. In the last two decades, however, a number of pastoral clergy, some theologians, and numerous workers in the fields of science, law, and mental health, as well as many of the younger and more educated members of the general public, have concluded that homosexual acts are but one of several forms of sexual expression, that such acts are in themselves neither sick nor immoral, and that the "problem" facing us is not the existence of the homosexual but an insecure sexual identity within our Judeo-Christian tradition. Voices are now being raised in protest against such established practices as (1) exclusion of known homosexuals from civil service work, the armed forces, teaching positions, corporate management, and a host of other jobs, (2) issuance of undesirable discharges to homosexuals in the military services followed by denial of veterans' benefits, (3) deportation of homosexual aliens, ( 4) harassment, enticement, entrapment, arrest, conviction, and punishment of homosexuals by law enforcement agencies, with consequent registration of consenting adults as sex offenders in many cases, (5) exploitation of homosexuals by those who resort to blackmail, robbery, physical attacks, and the like, and (6) the arbitrary classification of all homosexuals as sexual psychopaths. These same voices are calling for (I) acceptance of the homosexual as a person possessing the same dignity and human rights as others, (2) repeal of present laws forbidding private sexual acts between consenting adults when no harm is involved, (3) employment of homosexuals on the basis of job qualification and retention on the basis of job performance, and (4) criminal prosecution of persons who prey on homosexuals. In England, the homosexual has recently won legal acceptance and some degree of social tolerance. This change, which has resulted from the recommendations and efforts of the Church of England's Moral Welfare Council, Cardinal Griffin's Catholic Advisory Committee, the Wolfenden Commission, the Quaker Report, the Albany Trust, and the Homosexual Law Reform Society, is the end product of over a decade of public discussion. In the United States it has been homosexuals themselves more than religious, medical, or legal groups who have called the attention of the public to the need for change. In the early l 950s-though there were earlier groups—homosexuals began to organize into societies dedicated to programs of education, community action, and social activity. Today some forty homophile organizations are working for an alteration of social and legal attitudes and for an improvement of the status of the homosexual in his own eyes as well as those of the general public. In addition, a number of religious leaders and a few professional groups-most notably the American Law Institute, the Kinsey Institute, and the Playboy Foundation-have publicly urged changes of the type recently made in England. THE FORMATION OF CRH It was in San Francisco in the spring of 1964 that the religious community was directly confronted with the reality and variety of man's sexuality. Already existing in the city were four homophile organizations-the Mattachine Society, the Daughters of Bilitis, the League for Civil Education, and the Tavern Guild. Later that year a fifth organization, the Society for Individual Rights, was formed. Although essentially isolated from each other and the rest of the community as well, and somewhat competitive in their interpersonal relationships, they nevertheless were providing the only demonstrated form of acceptance, education, and stability in the lives of many homosexuals who were confused by their analysts, persecuted by society, and rejected by their churches. In his work at the Glide Urban Center, a private Methodist foundation, the Reverend Ted McIlvenna discovered how significant a role homosexuality played in the lives of many of San Francisco's young adults and how little attention homosexuals received from church groups. In order to improve the situation, he approached leaders of the homophile organizations mentioned above and a number of Methodist, Protestant Episcopal, United Church of Christ, and Lutheran ministers. The result was the Mill Valley Conference at the White Memorial Retreat Center, across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco. For three days (May 31 - June 2, 1964) sixteen ministers and thirteen homosexuals met in a face to face confrontation. Laying aside previously conceived notions of the religious community and stereotypes of the Page 4: homosexual, the participants discovered their common humanity in, with, and under their predisposed sexuality. To be sure, this action was not without pain, but it fostered the growth of the human personalities involved to the extent that they evolved as a community of concerned individuals given to the common purpose of continuing the dialogue which had begun. Thus it was that in December, 1964, the Council on Religion and the Homosexual was incorporated under the laws of the State of California. Today CRH includes clergy and laymen from all major Christian faiths. It is governed by a board of twenty-one directors elected by the membership at an annual meeting. Board members serve for three year terms, with one-third of them being elected each year, and choose CRH's officers who serve for one year. Present board members include clergymen from the United Church of Christ, Roman Catholic, Methodist, and Lutheran denominations, several leaders from the homophile movement, and a number of professional persons from such fields as psychiatry, education, and the law. EARLY HISTORY OF CRH An initial effort on the part of the San Francisco homophile organizations to provide funds for the newly incorporated Council resulted in a dramatic confrontation with the establishment, and more particularly with the San Francisco Police Department. On the evening of New Year's Day, 1965, a CRH Ministers' Press Conference after the New Year's Ball. private benefit ball was held at a downtown hall. Despite prior assurances that there would be no interference with the dance, severe harassment by the San Francisco Police Department did take place. In addition to paddy wagons parked directly across from the entrance to the hall and squad cars at each end of the block, every person entering or leaving the hall was photographed by plainclothes officers using both still and movie cameras. After being allowed several times to inspect the premises for possible violations of health, liquor, and fire regulations, the police were denied further entrance to the hall by CRH attorneys on the grounds that the dance was a private function and not open to the public. In the ensuing half hour, four arrests were made: three attorneys and a married woman who was responsible for checking identifications at the door. The charge was "interfering with an officer in the line of duty." What happened was this: three attorneys verbally challenged the right and authority of law enforcement officers to invade a private dance without a search warrant or without suspicion that a felony was being committed on the premises. After the arrests were made, many police officers entered the hall without further challenge. Later that evening two men were arrested for disorderly conduct when they held on to each other as they fell from a chair which collapsed under them as they were watching the floor show. The following day, shocked by such a naked display of force and antagonism, as well as by a violation of trust, the clergymen of the Board of CRH called a press conference at which they charged the police with having broken faith with the Council. in addition, they protested police intimidation, harassment, and interference with an unpopular minority group, a direct violation of the civil rights afforded to every citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment to the American Constitution. Having been witness to the action of the police, the ministers were able to assess the damage to human lives which uniformed, uninformed, prejudiced men with power can perpetrate. For the first time the homophile community and a segment of the religious community stood as one, formed out of the matrix of unjustified harassment and bound together by their common humanity. In the court trials which followed, the three attorneys and the married woman were acquitted by the jury upon instruction from the judge that the prosecution had made no case, but the two men were found guilty. In still another way, therefore, the newly elected Board of CRH was reminded of the power structure which is designed to prevent the kind of education, dialogue, and change so badly needed in our understanding of human sexuality. As a result, the Board entered the Council on Religion and the Homosexual as a plaintiff in a civil suit of more than a million dollars filed against the city of San Francisco, the police department, certain named officers, and a number of John Doe policemen. The matter is still in the courts. The effect of this event and the actions taken pertaining to it have been beneficial although some of the issues remain unresolved. Thorough coverage of the event by the news media brought out into the open society's unsatisfactory treatment of the homosexual. In the last three years police relations with the homophile community in San Francisco have improved markedly. On the national scene, voices were raised in defense of the homosexual, and Page 5: the basis for an intelligent and constructive discussion of homosexuality has been laid. THE PROGRAM AND GOALS OF CRH The Council on Religion and the Homosexual has addressed itself to two major problems confronting homosexuals as a group and society as a whole; the first, isolation; and the second, education. Accordingly, we have considered it our task to develop a program which will break down the isolation of the homosexual from the rest of society through the long and difficult process of educating the community. The first step has been to initiate a dialogue between the religious community and the homosexual. On this matter significant progress has been made. The second step is to work for a more inclusive understanding of human sexuality. Success here will occur as we encourage both laity and clergy to participate in a theological discussion leading to a rethinking of traditional Christian positions which have been outmoded by recent discoveries in other disciplines, The third step involves convincing society to accept the homosexual as a human being who should be judged on his own merits rather than on his sexual orientation or practices. This means attacking the homosexual stereotype which has led to discrimination and rejection. Steps two and three, on which progress is being made, must be undertaken simultaneously since they impinge upon and inform one another. As social isolation recedes and education progresses, all groups in society will have to direct attention to the correction of present official discriminatory policies and practices directed against homosexuals wholly because of their sexual orientation. To aid in the accomplishment of its tasks, the Council: 1 seeks to acquaint the religious community with the reality of homosexuality not only as it is conceptualized by research specialists and theorists but also as it is known and practiced by homosexuals. 2 suggests the study of all human relationships, of which the sexual is only one, from both theological and scientific points of view. 3 urges research on homosexuality within the framework of human sexuality rather than as a separate entity. 4 requests more accurate, comprehensive, and objective coverage of homosexuality by all communications media. 5 favors more rational laws and policies on the matter of adult sexual behavior in general and of adult homosexual behavior in particular. 6 encourages counselors and others working in the field of mental health to deal frankly and realistically with all facets of human sexuality. 7 supports educators, both public and religious, in their efforts to communicate the whole realm of sexual response, including the homosexual, through audio-visual, written, and other instructional methods. 8 offers help to any group interested in forming organizations similar to CRH in their own communities. THE WORK OF CRH To accomplish these goals, CRH seeks to contact and influence the religious community, the homophile community, the professional communities, public officials and community leaders, and the public at large. Reaching the Religious Community In the past three years CRH has seriously attempted to confront the religious community at every level with the variety of human sexual experience, particularly in reference to the homosexual aspect, as the following examples show. Members of the board, as well as others from the general membership of CRH, have met with influential denomination personnel and decision-making bodies of the United Church of Christ, the Protestant Episcopal Church, the Lutheran Church in America, and the Methodist Church. As a result, the United Church of Christ was the first denomination to officially, publicly, and financially announce its commitment to CRH. CRH was instrumental in influencing Bishop James Pike of the Protestant Episcopal Church to appoint in March of 1965 a Joint Committee on Homosexuality for the Episcopal Diocese of California. Members of the committee included individuals from the homophile community, Episcopal priests, and professional persons associated directly with CRH, as well as other clergymen and professional persons from the San Francisco area. After discussing the legal, medical, and moral issues of homosexuality, the committee recommended: 1 that present state laws should be changed so that any sex behavior between consenting adults in private is free of state control and criminal sanctions. 2 that police departments and public officials should do all in their power to bring an end to procedures leading to entrapment, such as suggestive dress and remarks on the part of plainclothes officers. 3 that the facts in the matter of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Department [regarding discrimination against homosexual bars] should be established and the procedure changed if they bear out the suspicions of the committee. 4 that frank discussions should be initiated and maintained with law enforcement officers and agencies to ensure fair and equitable treatment of homosexuals when they are arrested or held in custody. 5 that a broad sex education program, including the area of homosexuality, should be initiated in the Diocese of California (and hopefully in other dioceses as well) for both clergy and laity. Page 6: 6 - that theological seminaries should be urged to include in their curriculum courses of study of human sexuality, including homosexuality, taking into account homosexual testimony and scientific data. These recommendations were officially adopted by the Diocesan Council on February 24, 1967. In addition, the Diocesan Council has promised financial support to CRH. In August, 1966, in association with the Second National Planning Conference of Homophile Organizations held in San Francisco, CRH and the Glide Urban Center co-sponsored a three day theological conference devoted exclusively to homosexuality. Some forty clergy and laity, both professional and non-professional, from as far away as Missouri, Nebraska, Illinois, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, participated in the consultation. Continued efforts on the part of CRH to reach the religious and intellectual community have resulted in numerous panel discussions, conferences, retreats, and seminars with both youth and adult groups in congregations of the United Presbyterian Church, the Protestant Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, and the Lutheran Church in America. Useful discussions have been held with Roman Catholic priests and lay leaders. In addition, speakers from CRH have discussed homosexuality and the problems of homosexuals with denominationally connected student groups and seminary student bodies. CRH considers its program of orientation and confrontation among its most effective activities. The CRH Board participated directly in the formation of the Southern California Council on Religion and the Homophile. Representatives of CRH repeatedly went to Los Angeles to confer at length with interested ministers and homophile leaders. Today the Southern California Council stands in its own right as a highly productive body in the homophile movement while the two councils remain in close and friendly contact. As a result of the consultation of a group of Dallas clergymen with the Board of CRH, the Dallas Council on Religion and the Homosexual was established. The clergy, upon their return to Texas, contacted homosexuals in Dallas, encouraged them to form their own organization, and convinced them to join in setting up a local CRH. In August, 1966, two members of the Board of CRH traveled to London to participate and speak at "The Consultation on the Church, Society, and the Homosexual." This international conference was attended by representatives from all major Christian denominations of the United States and Great Britain, and also by a number of research specialists and several members of Parliament. Last summer three members of CRH testified at a criminal trial in the Minneapolis Federal District Court which resulted in the acquittal of a firm which had been charged with violating obscenity statutes by sending through the mail magazines containing material allegedly appealing to the "prurient" interest of homosexuals. After the trial, a Council on Religion and the New Morality was established by interested ministers and laymen. Because of its varied activities in the religious community, CRH has become the subject of numerous articles and editorials in religious publications. Significant references to CRH and its work can be found in CHRISTIANITY TODAY, CHRISTIAN CENTURY, AVE MARIA, THE LIVING CHURCH, THE LUTHERAN, SOCIAL ACTION, and SOCIAL PROGRESS. Further, H. Kimball Jones in his book TOWARD A CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDING OF THE HOMOSEXUAL commends CRH's program and suggests it as a model for churches in other cities to follow. Reaching the Homophile Community From the beginning, leaders of such homophile organizations as the Daughters of Bilitis, the Tavern Guild, the Mattachine Society, and the Society for Individual Rights have served on the Board of Directors of CRH. Additional leadership has also been provided by the California Motor Club and the Coits. Furthermore, many homosexual individuals have joined CRH and attend its open meetings. CRH has maintained ties with Vanguard, a San Francisco organization of street youths, many of whom are homosexual or engage extensively in homosexual activity, has contributed financially to Hospitality House which seeks to provide a comfortable and friendly meeting place for these youths, and has offered its counseling services for those who wish to talk about their problems. CRH has also contributed to the National Legal Defense Fund, a permanent, national, non-profit, non-partisan corporation devoted primarily to protecting and defending the homosexual's right to privacy and freedom of choice in his private life and related constitutionally protected rights. This organization's work has been discussed in our NEWSLETTER, and members of CRH have been alerted to watch for cases of particular concern to NLDF so that proper referral can be made. CRH is a member of the National (now North American) Homophile Clearing House. Through this media it receives copies of publications distributed by the homophile organizations and keeps in contact with what is happening in the homophile movement. In the past two years, CRH has participated in three national homophile planning conferences-at Kansas City, February 1966; San Francisco, August 1966; Washington D.C., July 1967. At the first two conferences the President of CRH was elected conference chairman, while the third meeting was chaired by one of the original board members of CRH. Delegates have also been sent to Western Regional Homophile Planning Conferences held in Los Angeles in April, 1967, and in Seattle in December, 1967. Page 7: Reaching the Professional Communities Contacts with various professional groups in San Francisco have been initiated. CRH belongs to the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and the American Friends Service Committee. A member of the CRH Board is a physician and former director of the San Francisco Center for Special Problems (a unit of the Department of Mental Health) which, among other services, provides specialized counseling of homosexuals. Several other board members are lawyers and educators. In 1965 CRH sent delegates to participate in the ACLU meetings in Los Angeles which resulted in a statement of policy by the Southern California Civil Liberties Union that private sexual acts between consenting adults should be of no concern to the law. This statement was adopted in August, 1967, as the national policy of ACLU. More and more faculty members and graduate students in the fields of medicine, sociology, anthropology, theology, psychology, psychiatry, and law are doing research on homosexuality. CRH has cooperated with these researchers by distributing information concerning their studies and by helping find homosexuals willing to serve as subjects. Contacts have also been made with the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University. CRH has been happy to cooperate with their researchers and looks forward to further work with them. Reaching Public Officials And Community Leaders Reaching public officials and community leaders has proved to be our most difficult task. Although a few officials express some sympathy and interest privately in homosexuality and the plight of the homosexual in a hostile society, most of them consider the subject so inflammable or distasteful that they resort to evasive actions and comments. Attempted contacts with chaplains in the armed services have been totally unproductive. Contacts with local naval authorities have led to an expression of some interest in the condition of homosexuals awaiting discharge, especially in matters of legal, religious, psychiatric, and vocational counseling. Letters to the United States Civil Service Commission and the Defense Department have been invariably answered with the assurance that homosexuals are not eligible for federal employment without evidence of rehabilitation and are not permitted in the armed forces. Reasons to justify present policy are sometimes given, and statements are usually added that no change in policy is contemplated. Attempts to suggest that the time has come for a reconsideration of federal policies which call for undesirable discharge of homosexuals and denial of employment have so far failed completely. In order to dramatize disapproval of these policies, especially as they apply to the armed services, members of CRH and its Board of Directors participated in the National Protest Day demonstration held in front of the Federal Building in San Francisco in May, 1966. Visits with members of Congress have evinced some concern and resulted in many requests to be kept informed. But for the most part visitors are reminded that the legal aspects of homosexuality fall under the jurisdiction of the individual states. Members of Congress do not yet seem concerned about present discriminatory policies of the federal government as they apply to homosexuals. Officials of the San Francisco office of the Veterans Administration have met with a delegation from CRH and have spoken at one of CRH's public meetings. They have said that, although "in general" persons who have received undesirable discharge because of homosexuality are not eligible for veterans' benefits, each application for benefits will be carefully considered. CRH intends to pursue the issue of veterans' benefits further. On the state and local level, CRH has explained its purpose and program to elected and appointed officials and has discussed problems and issues with the police department and agents of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. CRH will make known its views to the California Legislature when that body considers the penal law reforms which are now being prepared by a special state commission. For three years, CRH has held a "candidates' night" at which aspirants for public office may present their views and be asked questions. Active support has also been given to voter registration drives. The result of these activities has been that public officials are expressing an awareness of the voting power of the homophile community, an interest in its problems, and support for law reform. In order to promote greater justice for all, CRH supports the efforts of Citizens Alert, a non-profit corporation consisting of concerned citizens organized to investigate reported cases of police harassment and brutality, and urges its members to participate in police-community relations activities. In its regard for the well-being of the inhabitants of the central city area of San Francisco, many of whom are homosexual and some of whom are involved in drug addiction and prostitution, CRH supported the creation of a special program relating to these matters which has been funded by the Office for Economic Opportunity under the federal poverty program. To encourage the employment of homosexuals on the basis of job qualifications and job performance, the Board of CRH has passed a resolution endorsing the efforts of the Glide Methodist Church Task Force for Fair Employment Practices for Homosexuals. Reaching the Public at Large The work of CRH has helped to make homosexuality an increasingly acceptable part of American society and has aided in promoting more open Page 8: discussion of the subject by the various mass media. Articles containing significant references to CRH and its work have appeared in NEWSWEEK, TIME, LOOK, SEXOLOGY, NATION, the WALL STREET JOURNAL, the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, the SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, and the LOS ANGELES TIMES, as well as in the religious journals mentioned above. Officials of CRH have frequently appeared on radio and television programs, have been interviewed by reporters for feature articles on homosexuality, and have spoken before such varied audiences as high school and college classes, university seminars, Y.M.C.A. and Y.W.C.A. groups, a Junior Chamber of Commerce, and several women's clubs. The Council's work has been extensively covered in local newspapers which gave headline coverage to the New Year's ball incident, the National Planning Conference of August, 1966, and the theology consultation which preceded it. Additional coverage was granted during the summer of 1966 after the California State Fair Committee turned down the application of CRH and various homophile organizations for a booth at the fair from which they might distribute informational literature. CRH's lawyers sought unsuccessfully to have the decision overturned by the courts. The matter has not yet been resolved, however. Meetings open to the public sponsored by CRH have included speeches by Father Eugene Schallert, sociologist from the University of San Francisco; Rabbi Elliot Grafman, panel member on radio station KGO's "Clergy on the Line;" Mr. Anson Mount of the Playboy Foundation; Dr. John Gagnon of the Institute for Sex Research; and Mr. Anthony Grey of the Albany Trust and Homosexual Law Reform Society of London: Discussion sessions have dealt with the homosexual and family relations, the report of the President's Crime Commission, the international conference on homosexuality held in London in the summer of 1966, and the homosexual and veterans' benefits. CRH considers its publications program an especially effective way to reach and influence the general public. So far pamphlets have been written and distributed on such subjects as the consultation which led to the formation of CRH, society's unfair treatment of the homosexual, theology and the homosexual, and homosexual law reform. Additional essays on employment and the views of doctors and social scientists are in preparation. (Publications currently available are listed on page 16 of this pamphlet.) Page 9: THE IMPACT OF CRH In its three and one-half years of operation, CRH may not have effected a revolution in the attitudes and action patterns of American society or the American religious community on the subject of homosexuality, but it has been a pioneer. It saw a problem that needed to be faced and dared to face it. It began the construction of bridges between the homosexual and the socio-religious body politic-bridges which must be completed in the years ahead. Through its educational program the Council has helped to focus public attention on homosexuality in a responsible way. By its openness and support it has given much needed encouragement to the homophile community. With its deep concern for justice, it has brought to the surface, especially in religious circles, an interest in a subject too long ignored. Members of the Council have found in their travels across the country, in their correspondence with people of all professions, and in their conversations with visitors to the Council's office that CRH has become a symbol of something which is basically good and worthwhile and that it is looked to for leadership in its field. Many people consider CRH a model for others to emulate, if not in its structure and program, at least in its concern. And even at this youthful stage it has begun to gain the confidence of the religious community as well as the homophile community as being a key agent for change, making the world just a little more human. Thus do we attempt to fulfill the will of God and to make his love known. Significant results have been realized, most important of which have been: 1 - the part played by CRH in bringing about the appointment of the Episcopal Diocese of California's committee on homosexuality whose recommendations in favor of homosexual law reform, etc. were officially adopted by the diocese and will serve as a model for other denominations. 2 - the role played by CRH in bringing into being similar councils in Los Angeles and Dallas. 3 - the confrontations CRH entered into with the religious community and with the police and liquor authorities which have improved the state of the homosexual in San Francisco Bay area. What CRH has done could never have been realized without the financial support and unqualified confidence which have come from a variety of sources. CRH is especially grateful to the United Church of Christ's Board of Homeland Ministry, the Northern California Conference of the United Church of Christ, the California Board of Christian Social Concerns of the Methodist Church, the Glide Urban Center, the Episcopal Diocese of California, and the leaders and members of the various homophile organizations of San Francisco. Additional thanks are warranted for the moral support and interest in our work expressed by numerous religious and professional groups, including the National Council of Churches, and for political endorsement of our program by the Young Democrats of San Francisco. THE FUTURE OF CRH The work of CRH has only begun. In each area to which CRH has directed its attention, its program must be continued and expanded. Specifically: (I) CRH must step up its program of counseling, orientation, and publication; (2) CRH must involve additional ministers and church groups, and especially chaplains in the armed forces, in concern for the well being of the homosexual; (3) CRH must call the attention of the public and responsible government officials to such unjust practices as: a - discrimination against homosexuals in employment, especially by federal agencies, b - exclusion of homosexuals from military service under present draft and defense policies, c separation of overt homosexuals from the armed forces with undesirable discharge and denial of veterans' benefits, d - harassment of homosexuals by the police and exploitation of them by unscrupulous persons, e - arrest procedures which rely on the use of such unsavory tactics as clandestine observation or enticement and entrapment by vice squad decoys and liquor agents and which result in registration of consenting adult homosexuals as sex offenders, f - labelling homosexuals sex psychopaths solely on the basis of their homosexuality, and g - using homosexuality as a political weapon or as the basis for witchhunts; (4) CRH must make the public aware of criminal law reform, an issue which will come before the legislatures of many states in the next several years as they consider the redesign of penal codes; and (5) CRH must appeal to professional groups in such fields as medicine, the law, education, and the social sciences to deal scientifically with the study of homosexuality and to offer the contributions of their disciplines so that constructive, practical, and fair solutions may be found to the problems facing society and the homosexual. The challenge is here and now. The crucial issue is how we respond. Page 10: CRH PUBLICATIONS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE A Brief of Injustices-An Indictment of our Society in its Treatment of the Homosexual $1.00 The Challenge and Progress of Homosexual Law Reform $1.00 The Church and the Homosexual by the Rev. Donald Kuhn $1.00 Churchmen Speak Out on Homosexual Law Reform .25 Homosexuality: A Contemporary View of the Biblical Perspective by the Rev. Dr. Robert L. Treese .60 (Organizational rates upon request.) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource <i>CRH: 1964/1968</i> (10 pages) Description An account of the resource Published by the Council on Religion and the Homosexual, 1968. Phyllis Lyon &amp; Del Martin Papers. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Repository: <a href="http://www.glbthistory.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GLBT Historical Society</a> https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/4141b9ebecbc252473971b92e8d946f4.jpg f99e4a79082e56f98ef9777dbd1cf8d9 YouTube Video A video hosted on YouTube. YouTube ID Eleven-character ID assigned by YouTube BBvnXu1JoB8 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Phyllis Lyon & Del Martin Recollect Why CRH Was Formed Description An account of the resource From "Shedding a StraightJacket" produced by the GLBT Historical Society, October 1996; Paul Gabriel, videographer and curator; Edd Dundas, editor and duplicator. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Repository: <a href="http://www.glbthistory.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GLBT Historical Society</a> https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/c5323d533a5852d3e79def14ac72eca1.pdf 48e9488261029b86f0cf73d31f212356 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Page 1: Constitution of the Washington Area Council on Religion and the Homosexual Adopted: December 6, 1965 Address: Post Office Box 5618 Washington, D.C. 20016 Page 2: Article I Name This organization shall be known as The Washington Area Council on Religion and the Homosexual. Article II Purpose It is the purpose of this organization to provide communication, mutual understanding, and appropriate action between homosexuals and organized religion, in order: A. To effect the integration of the individual homosexual into the religious life of the community be alleviation of the estrangement and alienation which now exist between the homosexual and the religious community. B. To work to establish the homosexual as a member of the community-at-large, with his full dignity as a human being, and his full rights as a citizen. C. To foster mutually beneficial communication between organized religion and the homosexual community. Article III Membership Section 1. A. Members from the clergy shall be duly ordained clergymen who are sympathetic to the purposes of the Council, with inter-faith representation encouraged. B. New members from the clergy shall be approved or disapproved by the clergymen on the Council, after attending two meetings. Section 2. Members from the homosexual community shall be provided by The Mattachine Society of Washington through procedures instituted by the Society. Article IV Officers Section 1. There shall be two Co-Chairman, one from the clergy and one from the homosexual community; a Secretary; and a Treasurer. Section 2. A. Each officer shall serve for a term of two years. B. 1. The Co-Chairmen may not succeed themselves in office. 2. The Co-Chairmen from the clergy shall be elected near the time of adoption of this Constitution, and in even-number years thereafter. 3. The Co-Chairmen from the homosexual community shall be elected in odd-numbered years. Page 3: Section 3. Officers shall be elected in October, and shall serve from November 1 until October 31, two years later. Section 4. Special elections shall be held to fill vacancies in office. Such elections shall be held at the next regular meeting of the Council after the vacancy occurs. An officer so elected shall serve out the unexpired term of his predecessor. If it be necessary, temporary officers to fill vacancies in office for the period between the occurrence of the vacancy and the next regular meeting of the Council. Section 5. The Co-Chairman shall be responsible, jointly, for the general administration of the Council. Section 6. The Secretary shall keep formal minutes of all meetings of the Council, copies to be distributed to the members, between meetings; shall maintain all other records of the organization except those specifically assigned to others; in coordination with the other officers and with the Council itself, shall conduct the correspondence of the organization; shall send out notices and otherwise handle notification of meetings; and shall perform such other duties as the Council or the Co-Chairman may assign to him. Section 7. A. The Treasurer shall be responsible for the safekeeping of the funds of the organization shall keep necessary financial records; shall collect dues; and shall make disbursements. B. The Treasurer shall make written financial reports at the first meeting of the Council after December and after June, and at whatever other times the Council may direct, but upon not less than 14 days' notice. Article V Meetings Section 1. Regular meetings shall take place not less often than once in two months. Section 2. Special meetings may be called by the two Co-Chairmen, or by one Co-Chairman and one other officer, or by any four members. The notice of a special meeting shall be made to every member not less than three days in advance, and shall state the purpose of the meeting. No action which does not pertain to the stated purpose shall be taken at the meeting. Section 3. A. A quorum for a meeting shall consist of all of: (1) At least one Co-Chairmen; (2) Not less than five representatives of the clergy; and (3) Not less than three representatives of the homosexual community. B. If a quorum is not present at a meeting, action may be taken subject to ratification at the next meeting. C. 1. Unless otherwise stipulated, action at any meeting shall be by a majority vote of the members voting as individuals. Page 4: 2. (a) Either the representatives of the clergy, or the representatives of the homosexual community, as a group, can exercise veto power. (b) As necessary, caucusing of the the two groups shall be in order. Article VI Dues and Finances Section 1. A. Dues shall be established by By-Law. B. 1. Notification shall be given to any member whose dues are three months in arrears. 2. Following final notification, any member more than six months in arrears in payment of due or of any assessment, shall be dropped from membership, and shall be notified of this fact. C. Any other assessment of the members shall be decided by a two-thirds vote of those voting. Section 2. The Treasurer shall attend to the orderly collection of dues and notification to members who are incipiently and actually in arrears. Section 3. Disbursements of funds shall be made only upon authority of the Council. Section 4. All checks of the organization shall be signed by one Co-Chairman and by the Treasurer. Article VII Parliamentary Authority Robert's Rules of Order Revised shall be the parliamentary authority for this organization, except that we here it differs from, or conflicts with the Constitution or a By-Law, the Constitution shall prevail. Article VIII By-Laws Section 1. The Constitution shall be supplemented by By-Laws, except that no By-Law shall have force or effect insofar as it conflicts with this Constitution. Section 2. A. A By-Law or an amendment to a By-Law shall be proposed at a meeting of the Council; if passed by a majority of the Council present and voting at the meeting, it shall be submitted to the entire Council by a mail referendum ballot, and shall be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the members voting. B. Either group, acting explicitly as a group, may, by a two-thirds vote of its members voting, exercise veto power over the adoption of any By-Law or amendment thereto. Page 5: Article IX Amendment Section 1. An amendment to this Constitution shall be proposed at a meeting of the Council, if passed by a majority of the Council present and voting at the meeting, it shall be submitted to the entire Council by a mail referendum ballot, and shall be adopted by a three-fourths vote of the members voting, except that amendments proposed within the first three months after the ratification of this Constitution shall be adopted by a three-fifths vote of those voting at a meeting, and amendments proposed within the second three months after ratification of this Constitution shall be adopted by a three-fifths vote of those voting by a mail referendum ballot. Section 2. Either group, noting explicitly as a group, may, by a two-thirds vote of its members voting, exercise veto power over the adoption of any amendment to this Constitution. By-Laws 1. Dues Dues shall be $2.00 per year per member. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Constitution of the Washington Area CRH adopted Dec. 6, 1965 Description An account of the resource Organization Collection, Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Repository: <a href="http://www.gaycenter.org/community/archive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">National Archive of LGBT History</a> https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/files/original/5c794dbe1a06c03754e14c687ca3b9a6.pdf a8ce56baa70911f813f42cf9f6d089a0 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document THE MATTACHINE SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON POST OFFICE BOX 1032 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20013 NEWS RELEASE HOMOSEXUALS MEET WITH CLERGY FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WASHINGTON AREA COUNCIL ON RELIGION AND THE HOMOSEXUAL FORMED Tho second meeting, here in Washington and in the eastern part of tho country, between representatives of the homosexual community and members of the clergy, took place on Monday, May 24, 1965. Highlight of the three-hour mooting was the formal establishment, as a continuing organization, of The Washington Area Council on Religion and the Homosexual. For the present, pending the adoption of a formal internal structure, the Council has two co-chairmen - one, a distinguished local clergyman; the other, a member of the Mattachine Society of Washington. Nine clergymen of the following denominations were present: Congregationalist, Disciples of Christ, Episcopal, Methodist, and Roman Catholic. Among the areas in which the Council will work are: (1) To seek to remedy the alienation and estrangement which now exist between the individual homosexual and the religious community. (2) To explore the question of the role of tho clergy in the homosexuals' fight for his civil liberties and his human rights, and in his effort to eliminate the adverse discrimination which he faces. The May 24 meeting was devoted primarily to discussion of problems of the denial of civil liberties to homosexuals. Another meeting of the Council is planned for June 25. For additional information, contact: The Mattachine Society of Washington Post Office Box 1032 Washington, D.C. 20013 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Mattachine Society of Washington DC Press Release Announcing Formation of Washington Area CRH Description An account of the resource Organization Collection, Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Repository: <a href="http://www.gaycenter.org/community/archive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">National Archive of LGBT History</a>