Dublin Core
Title
Brief of Injustices Published by CRH in September, 1965 (14 pages)
Description
Phyllis Lyon & Del Martin Papers.
Source
Repository: GLBT Historical Society
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
Page 1:
to implement the challenge of change...
A Brief of Injustices
an indictment of our society in its treatment of the homosexual
Presented by
The Council on Religion and the Homosexual, Inc.
330 Ellis Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Page 2:
to implement the challenge of change...
A Brief of Injustices
an indictment of our society in its treatment of the homosexual
Presented by
The Council on Religion and the Homosexual, Inc.
330 Ellis Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Page 3:
Index
1. Homosexuals are being prosecuted under laws which cannot be enforced equitably - Page 3
2. Homosexuals are being socially ostracized to the extent that they are often unable to avail themselves of effective legal counsel and unwilling to risk fighting for their legitimate rights in courts. - Page 4
3. Individuals who publicly assist persons/perceived by others as homosexuals face
attempted intimidation by police as well as other negative sanctions. -Page 4
4. Enforcement officers use methods of enticement and entrapment to develop grounds for arrest and conviction of persons presumed to be homosexuals. -Page 5
5. Persons perceived to be homosexuals are subjected to unreasonable and unfair discriminatory practices in employment based on the unfounded belief of employers
that homosexuals are unstable or are untrustworthy. - Page 5
6. Persons presumed to be homosexuals, on suspicion alone, are being willfully, publicly and illegally harassed by police in injurious ways. -Page 6
7. Criminals who attack citizens often go free because too much police manpower is
used to harass, entice and entrap suspected homosexuals. - Page 7
8. Licensed public premises, such as bars, are subject to prosecution because they provide services to homosexuals or persons presumed to be homosexuals. Conversely,
homosexuals and persons presumed to be homosexuals are deprived of access to such licensed public premises which are available to other people. - Page 7
9. In order to make a case against a licensed public place believed to serve homosexuals or persons presumed to be homosexuals, plainclothes investigators employ methods of enticement and entrapment to secure "evidence" which is often proved false or irrelevant. -Page 9
10. Private acts of unsuspecting persons which result from the deceitful enticement of
undercover agents are used to suspend or revoke the license of public places, even though neither the enticement nor the private acts have ever been reported to the licensee. Page 9
Cover: The Wall of the Jefferson Memorial, Washington D.C.
Page 4:
Police harassment and denials of civil rights in San Francisco to persons presumed to be homosexual have raised issues of concern to all citizens. To bring this situation to the attention of the public, the Board of Trustees of The Council on Religion and the Homosexual, Inc., has prepared this Brief of Injustices.
As a result of their involvement with the Council, many clergymen became aware of injustices which, until now, have been largely ignored by society. The clergy members of the Council's Board made their own investigation, and upon hearing their conclusions the Board of Trustees concurred. Consequently, this Brief is presented as the consensus of the Board.
To place this Brief in proper perspective, we list the purposes of The Council on Religion and the Homosexual, which has as its objective the promotion of a "continuing dialogue between the religious community and homosexuals."
1. To orient members of religious communities (both lay persons and clergy) on aspects of homosexuality (i.e., physical, economic, legal, emotional, etc.) in accordance with homosexual testimony and available scientific data.
2. 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.
3. 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 understandings of sexuality, morality, ethical behavior, and the life of religious faith.
4. To study systematically the deeper dynamics of authentic human relationships from biblical, theological and social science perspectives.
5. To engage in research which will further understanding of homosexuality within the larger framework of the present sexual revolution.
6. 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.
7. To provide an effective voice throughout the nation in matters of laws, policies and penal reforms governing adult sexual behavior.
8. To help professional people (clergymen, social workers, etc.) 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.
9. To encourage the formation of similar councils on religion and the homosexual in other areas of the nation and the world.
We feel that these objectives can only be obtained through a thorough and objective consideration of human sexual behavior from all points of view and with a deep concern for the human beings and values involved in such sensitive, personal matters.
The Council had its beginnings with a series of small group meetings which included homosexuals, members of the religious community, leaders of the homophile organizations, and other interested persons. After considering pertinent scientific and professional literature, we began a series of discussions with lawyers, doctors, psychiatrists, social workers,. and others knowledgeable in the field. With this background we held a consultation involving thirty people interested in the project. From this consultation there developed the idea of The Council on Religion and the Homosexual. Goals were established; the Council was formed, and later incorporated, and the major work began.
Up to this point the results of our investigations were neither conclusive nor consistent. Therefore in order to understand better the ramifications of homosexual behavior, we began direct observation of the homosexual's relationships. The clergy started visiting so-called "gay bars," dances, discussion groups and other
Page 5:
social functions. Many of us spent time examining the little-publicized problem areas in the homosexual's existence: male prostitution, the aging homosexual, and the behavior which police and society consider undesirable. In the process we met homosexuals of every type, from every social and ethnic group, with every sort of religious and political outlook. From these investigations we derived a new sense of the difficulties we were to face.
As time brought greater knowledge we discovered that a majority of homosexuals are productive members of society, doing excellent work in many fields of art, business, industry and the professions. Contrary to the conflicting theories of psychiatrists and other behavioral scientists, many of whom hold that homosexuals are abnormal, neurotic, dangerous people, we found that most of the persons we
met and talked to were normal in appearance and fully capable of deep, lasting and moral relationships. Also contrary to popular misconceptions, we learned that homosexuals were not inherently more criminal either in intent or actions than their heterosexual counterparts. As with any group of people, we discovered elements which constitute social or legal problems. But by and large this group in the homosexual community, as in the larger community, seems to be small. In short, homosexuals turned out to be no better or worse than their heterosexual counterparts, differing from them primarily in the choice of a sexual partner.
With this knowledge we were ready to act. The homophile organizations related to the Council volunteered to raise funds by sponsoring a benefit costume ball to be held January 1, 196 5. It was through this event that we experienced first hand the harassing tactics of the police. We had apprised the polic.e of the ball and the reasons for holding it, and had been led to believe the police would riot interfere- -
but they did. Floodlights illuminated the entrance to the hall and police photographers took still and moving pictures of all persons entering and leaving. Police both plainclothes and uniformed, attempted to enter the hall--and did--following the arrest of three attorneys representing the Council and one woman member who was on duty at the door. Subsequently all four of those arrested pleaded not guilty to
"interfering with police in the performance of their duty, " and at their jury trial were found not guilty.
Now we are confronted with new and more serious problems. Can we continue what we have begun? Can we do anything constructive without provoking further hostile reactions from the police and perhaps even from the general community? Our answer: We know that we cannot accept quietly the unexpected pressures to which persons of homosexual orientation are being subjected.
I
During many discussions with lawyers, including those involved in the court cases which followed the dance, we have discovered that there is very little justice for the homosexual. The reasons for this are disturbing. For instance, we were surprised to discover that while it is not against the law to be homosexual, the law forbids specific sexual acts which are illegal whether performed by homosexuals,
heterosexuals, or presumably even by children. We question whether such laws are either just or reasonable. Sexual acts are among the most private areas of human expression. As private acts, they should not be the subject of law. We also believe that law should sustain the right of each individual to engage in private sexual activity. Most sex laws are unjust, vague, unenforceable or unrealistic. Such laws
serve best to open up avenues for blackmail, police brutality, and the violation of civil rights.
The fact that the adult homosexual bears the brunt of a sporadic and prejudicial enforcement of such laws seems to be the choice of the law enforcement agencies themselves. In recent years there has been an increase in arrests for violations of these laws, but the enforcement has been directed almost exclusively against male homosexuals. If capricious enforcement of unjust laws continues, the day will
Page 6:
soon arrive when irritated or overzealous police officers may, at their own discretion, impose their own prejudices on some of the most intimate and private concerns of human life.
This, then, is the first great injustice: Homosexuals are being prosecuted under laws which cannot be enforced equitably.
II
When we consider the effect of the moral standards of the community, we find that there are even greater inequities. In the Bay Area a sixteen year old boy attempted suicide arid subsequently it was discovered that. he was driven to this extreme by the brutal abuse of his schoolmates who found him to be bookish, a bit different, and therefore implicitly "queer." We have observed situations where
parents have disowned their children when they discovered they were homosexuals. When a homosexual's sexual orientation is exposed the result usually is instant and overwhelming social condemnation, public shame and ridicule, the loss of employment, friends and church affiliation. As a result, dread of exposure has made many homosexuals fearful, guilt-ridden and secretive. Such citizens are easily intimidated by the public, the police, the courts and the unscrupulous lawyers to whom they sometimes have to turn.
Lawyers who have represented homosexuals have told us that most homosexuals, even if not guilty, will not fight their cases through the courts. They decide it is better to plead guilty and hope for the court's mercy. They are so suspicious and fearful of exposure and publicity they usually prefer to forego trial by jury, feeling certain other citizens will consider them guilty despite all contrary evidence. While still in the hands of the police many homosexuals seem to be intimidated into making damaging admissions, often untrue, which are so incriminating that a merited defense becomes almost impossible. Hence, police statistics indicating the number of convictions may be more indicative of the fear and false guilt felt by the homosexual than of his actual guilt or innocence. Published police statistics which seek to prove that most homosexuals are criminals cannot withstand careful scrutiny from a scientific perspective. Basic prejudices and methods of enforcement preclude the scientific accuracy and importance of such data,
This, then, is the second great injustice: Homosexuals are being socially ostracized to the extent that they are often unable to avail themselves of effective legal counsel and unwilling to risk fighting for their legitimate rights in courts.
III
We have learned much from our confrontations with the police. Before the dance some of us had two long meetings with members of the sex crimes detail of the San Francisco Police Department. What we heard astounded us. We had come to discuss the ball and the possibility of opening up avenues of communication. They were determined to examine our theological beliefs and why we had chosen to concern ourselves with people who committed what were to them sinful acts. During one discussion, we were informed that even masturbation was a crime against "God's Law." They seemed sure they were involved in enforcing "God's Law."
It has become apparent that the police feel justified in doing whatever they want to do regardless of whether it is merited or not, wise, or even legal. We have also discovered that the word of some persons representing the police department is undependable; their attitudes tend to be rather big brotherish, and their actions tend to
Page 7:
be oppressive if not unjust. We fear this may set unparalleled precedents for, establishing a police state; where private fanaticism becomes public dogma, where eccentricity makes a man a felon, where suspicion invariably convicts, and where statutes come to mean whatever the police want them to mean. We were told; "Leave morals and law enforcement to us." In effect, they said return to the temple and pray. For us, however, God's action is not only in the temple but in the world confronting human need.
This, then, is the third great injustice: Individuals who publicly assist persons perceived by others as homosexuals face attempted intimidation by police as well as other negative sanctions.
IV
As we have noted, the choice of the persons against whom the penalties of law are enforced seems to rest with the police department. As a result, some homosexuals suffer from the inequitable enforcement of law. But we have found our greatest source of concern in the specific police tactics used to make arrests and obtain convictions. We are convinced that the police use entrapment or enticement in order to make arrests, although they vehemently deny resorting to such practices. It is our understanding that such methods are illegal. For instance, we wonder about the legality and justice of having attractive young police officers in civilian clothes making themselves receptive targets for approach and solicitation. Can
such officers be expected invariably to resist the temptation to lead the conversation into areas where an arrest is assured? The courts seem to believe the word of the police. But we wonder if the police always tell the truth. There may be many cases in which policemen color the truth or distort facts to get a conviction. And we suspect that there may be officers who spend time peeking through little holes into men's rooms or stationed behind vent screens. Others may stand at urinals inviting approach. As ministers, we have investigated many of the so-called "set-ups" used to make such arrests, and we can only wonder with what sort of men we are dealing.
It has been suggested that the frequency of arrests and their nature could indicate the existence of a quota system based on the principle that minimum police efficiency demands at least so many arrests of a certain type by certain officers over a period of time.
A more basic question is: Is solicitation with the intent to commit a sexual act of any kind justification for arrest and conviction? Is the discussion of possible sexual acts an adequate ground for considering that a person manifests sexual behavior presently against the law? If conversations about illegal matters are made equivalent to actual violation of law then we would have to incarcerate almost everyone.
This, then, is the fourth great injustice: Enforcement officers use methods of enticement and entrapment to develop grounds for arrest and conviction of persons presumed to be homosexual.
V
It does not end here. We have learned that when a person is arrested he is fingerprinted, photographed, and a record is made of the charges against him. Even if the courts dismiss the case or find him not guilty, this record of arrest is retained by the police department. It can follow the person throughout his lifetime and be used much later to ruin him, particularly if the charges involve, homosexual acts, which many employers consider a risky credit for an employee. It is unfair for employers to subject such persons to severe penalties on the basis of a police record of arrests--especially as arrests are made as a means of intimidation when the arresting officers know they cannot make a case in court. It is especially unjust when prolonged unemployment results from less than legal arrests and less than just
Page 8:
court proceedings.
But the police do not always stop at reporting the record. In many cases they tell the person's employer of the charges against him, or release this information to the press for publication, which has the same effect. The lawyers arrested at the ball were the victims of such practices by the police department which sent the San Francisco Bar Association a report that these attorneys had been arrested defending homosexuals. Fortunately, the ethics of the Bar Association are quite different from those of the police.
The same might be said, but in another way in reference to the discriminatory policies adhered to by the military and governmental sectors of our society. Suspected homosexuals are ferreted out and discharged as quickly as possible. For instance, a majority of homosexuals have served honorably in the military services without being detected or demoralizing their companions. The unfortunates who are discovered are discharged on "other than honorable grounds." This becomes all the more lamentable since the younger ones often do not manifest behavior associated with homosexuality until they are in the armed services.
Government employees often are pre-emptorily discharged after expensive investigations disclose grounds for "suspicion of homosexual behavior." Yet it has never been scientifically established that homosexuals are undesirable in public or military service because of their susceptibility to being blackmailed or because of innate characteristics which affect job performance.
Returning to the private sector, many private employers discharge homosexual employees on grounds justified by little more than custom, prejudice and taboo. These attitudes encourage mass personnel inquisitions consuming thousands of dollars and countless man hours, and often result in irreparable loss of talent and productivity which our society cannot afford.
This, then, is the fifth great injustice: Persons perceived to be homosexuals are subjected to unreasonable and unfair discriminatory practices in employment based on the unfounded belief of employers that homosexuals are unstable or untrustworthy.
VI
It is common knowledge that the police engage in other forms of harassment. Harassment of persons in bars, on streets, or in other public places seems predicated on the theory that although most people, even highly trained ones, cannot detect the average homosexual, the police are fully capable of making such fine distinctions. Persons are subjected to questioning based on suspicion alone without there being any proof that illegal sexual acts have been or ever will be performed by that individual. Because of dress, manner, place of assembly, choice of associates, or just because the officers detect a seeming difference from the norm, persons may be detained for questioning, have makeup cards filed on them, and in other ways be publicly embarrassed and forced to endure verbal abuse.
Members of the Council and their wives have experienced such verbal abuse. In our encounter with the police, one said: "I never thought I'd see the day when ministers helped queers." One of the ministers was asked by a policeman in a condemning tone, "Would you want your son to be a homosexual?" Another question was asked, "What does your wife think of your helping homosexuals?"
This, then, is the sixth great injustice: Persons presumed to be homosexuals, on suspicion alone, are being willfully, publicly, and illegally harassed by police in injurous ways.
Page 9:
Because homosexuals are subjected to the contempt of the public and the police, they become fair game for all forms of criminality. Fearful and distrustful of the police, the courts, and indeed of the public in general, homosexuals choose to submit to beatings, extortion and robbery by professional criminals.
Many of the major crimes committed in San Francisco, such as murder, assault and battery, extortion and robbery, are perpetrated on homosexuals. Few of the perpetrators of these crimes ever seem to be caught. A whole underworld of traffic in male flesh is reported to flourish in San Francisco, yet it often seems that persons most subjected to harassment are the homosexuals who, for one reason or another, find it necessary to be clients of male prostitutes.
We seriously question the advisability of the amount of police time and public money used to harass suspected homosexuals while many actual malefactors escape apprehension. We think members of the sex crimes detail now spending their time in latrines, in plainclothes standing on the street corners, or in gay bars seeking to entrap unsuspecting citizens, could better protect our community by concentrating on major areas of crime.
It appears to us that disorganized and prejudicial law enforcement is almost as much of a problem as organized crime.
This, then, is the seventh great injustice: Criminals who attack citizens often go free because too much police manpower is used to harass, entice and entrap suspected homosexuals.
VIII
Our investigation into the homosexual's behavior and his relationships to his society led us to consider the so-called "gay bars." For the harassed homosexual there hardly seems to be any place other then the gay bar in which he may freely associate without baleful scrutiny and the need to wear a mask.
We investigated heterosexual bars and gay bars impartially, and at no time did we observe in gay bars any actions we might deem shocking or immoral. In most cases our arrival was not particularly noticed. We doubt that the patrons in the bars could have known that we were ministers.
It can be said that in appearance, atmosphere, deportment of clientele, and the nature of any sexuality which might inadvertently find expression, the average gay bar is forced to be well above its heterosexual counterpart.
After a thorough investigation of bars we met with various bartenders, managers and others who were, familiar with the problems faced by the bar owner and his patrons. This led to a confrontation with the Alcoholic Beverage Control in a meeting we held with its regional director. Unsatisfied with what we had been told there, we examined court records of such famous litigation as "Stoumen vs. Reilly," or what is popularly known as "The Black Cat Case;" "Mary's First and Last Chance," a bar which was located in Oakland; and some more recent closures affecting "Jack's Waterfront," "The D'Oak Room" and "The Jumpin' Frog" bars which we had inspected prior to their closing. Legal matters were reviewed with several lawyers,
and in some cases we talked with some of the patrons who had been arrested by ABC agents or city police in attempts to gather sufficient evidence to justify closing the bars.
At first we did not realize the full implications of our investigations. Basically what we found was that an agency of government, in this case the ABC, was using prejudicial enforcement of a questionable law to justify the closing of homosexual bars under legal provisions it used much less frequently in cases involving heterosexual bars. Since the average life span of a gay bar seems to be something short of two years, while heterosexual bars usually remain open almost indefinitely, it
Page 10:
appears that the degree of scrutiny which homosexual bars receive may greatly exceed that accorded heterosexual bars. Apparently they are usually closed on several grounds which may be summed up in this way: the licensee is running a dis.orderly house injurious to the public decency or morals, because within the premises and with his full knowledge he permitted lewd or lascivious acts, a public display or manifestation of aberrant sexual urges or desires, verbal solicitations. indicating the intent to perform such acts, or that he allowed his bar to become a resort for dope pushers or addicts, prostitutes, pimps, panderers or sexual perverts.
It is very misleading to consider sexual pervert and homosexual as synonymous. For instance, some authorities consider the use of contraceptives as a practice of sexual perversion- -the perverting of sexual intimacies from the intended purpose of procreation. The disagreements which exist between scientists, sociologists, physicians, lawyers and even the clergy about the etiology of homosexuality, its nature and manifestations, preclude such a. connection between homosexuality and sexual perversion.
In addition, persons with homosexual inclinations have not been scientifically proven to be ipso facto criminals, intrinsically detrimental to civilization or infected with disease. Neither do they comprise a small element in the population which can be isolated, incarcerated or eradicated by repressive measures. Therefore, to close bars just because they are patronized by homosexuals, on the basis of the incorrect belief that homosexuals are sexual perverts, is incoherent reasoning. In fact, we are told by people knowledgeable in the field that even if this spurious contention were valid there is no way to determine with any certainty what persons or groups of persons in a bar are homosexual. Therefore, as written, justice and equity in applying this law are almost impossible.
There are more basic issues. Charges drawn up against gay bars are an itemization either of verbal solicitations or of acts tending to the public display or manifestation of aberrant sexual urges or desires, which are directed to, or seen by, specific ABC undercover agents whose entry into and departure from the bar are unknown to its owner. In such a sense, the act of a man placing his arm loosely around the waist of another man, in a gay bar, within the view of such an agent, indicates that the man is a homosexual publicly expressing sexual urges or desires, or the intent thereto, which are clearly against the present statutes. This sort of evidence is used to establish that the bar owner is keeping a disorderly house.
To establish that a disorderly house exists does not require that a person named in a charge must actually commit an illegal sex act, so any interpretation of intent to commit such acts on the basis that a person is presumed to be a homosexual is unjustified and irrational. Most intelligent people would never sanction branding citizens as homosexuals solely on the basis that their thoughts, speech, mannerisms, conversations, attitudes, tendencies or psychological responses are in some manner or to some degree, unconventional. Neither would they expect lay authorities such as the police, the ABC, or even the courts to be able to determine from simple aspects of non-sexual behavior whether persons were homosexual. Because there is a difference between the acts themselves and the mere intent to perform them, there
is no substantial connection between gestures or conversations and the specific sexual acts which are against the law. Therefore, justice itself would preclude confounding intent to perform with performance when the actual performance itself is substantially lacking.
Clearly, the manner of application and enforcement of these statutes depends upon the personal opinions and prejudices of the ABC and its agents, a type of enforcement which fosters oppression, blackmail and discrimination. We hardly think it prudent to invest the ABC with the exclusive, unlimited and unrestrained authority to suppress or regulate the behavior of bar patrons through its right to suspend or revoke licenses. Thus ABC becomes what it should not become, the keeper of morals for bar patrons in general and for homosexuals in particular.
Page 11:
This, then, is the eighth great injustice: Licensed public premises, such as bars are subject to prosecution
because they provide services to homosexuals or persons presumed to be homosexuals. Conversely, homosexuals and persons presumed to be homosexuals are deprived of access to such licensed public premises which are available to other people.
IX
The methods used by the ABC to gather evidence against bars are not unlike those used by the plainclothes agents of the police department. Through deceit and inducement, lure and suggestion, both police and ABC undercover agents encourage solicitations for sexual acts. Such solicitations are not reported to the licensee until months or years later when they are published in the charges used to suspend or revoke the license. In reading the charges filed against several of the bars, we concluded
that almost any act or conversation in a gay bar is sufficient for arrest and for use as data in revoking the license. There is also the question of the strict legality of ruses and ploys employed by these agents in their efforts to make a case against the gay bar. We ask: In playing their part in an endless crusade to enforce the so-called moral code of society, are these agents free from disposition toward prejudice or a tendency to deliberately distort and alter the facts just to get sufficient evidence to close the bar?
This, then, is the ninth great ,injustice: In order to make a case against a licensed public place believed
to serve homosexuals or persons presumed to be homosexuals, plainclothes investigators employ methods of enticement and entrapment to secure "evidence" which is often proved false or irrelevant.
X
Although the ABC has repeatedly denied that it keeps files of charges on gay bars, or that such charges are being gathered against all the gay bars in San Francisco, logic indicates that the entire truth is not being told. Somewhere a closed file, or its equivalent, unavailable for public or legal scrutiny, must be in
the process of being assembled, for in many cases the dates of actual incidents used as evidence to suspend a license date far back into the bar's history. As we have stated, from our observation the standards of behavior in gay bars are equal to, if not higher than, those in most heterosexual bars; therefore unless we assume that carefully assembled files of charges are kept on such bars we are at a loss to explain the fact that almost all gay bars are eventually closed.
Since the files remain secret, since the undercover agents never report arrests to the bar owner, and since the ABC never publishes the charges until action is taken to suspend or revoke the license, the owner of the bar is required to defend himself against accusations concerning acts which may have occurred months or even years earlier. Proper defense against such charges is then almost impossible. Indeed,
in criminal court the charges against the person arrested and named in the ABC action are often dismissed for lack of evidence, but the arrest is still held against the bar. Such accusations, traditionally of dubious merit, are used at a cut-and-dried proforma hearing where, almost without exception, they form the basis for the suspension of the license pending appeal. Appeals through the ABC almost always fail, and since actions on the constitutional issues in the civil courts are prohibitively expensive, most bars whose licenses are suspended are financially unable to fight for justice. Therefore they have no alternative but to go out of business.
The whole idea of suspending a license pending appeal seems to be a denial of due process. Unable to properly defend himself against vague and often uncorroborated charges of which he is unaware until his license is suspended, the licensee is found sufficiently guilty by the ABC to justify suspending the license, leaving him the
Page 12:
almost impossible task of proving that he is innocent when in effect he has already been convicted. When we examined the actual court cases, the hearings and the appeals, we noticed that gay bars never seem to win reversals of any sort. As we have seen in the Black Ca.t case, those few that do fight their cases through the courts only achieve a temporary stay of execution. ABC pressure continues until something is found which will justify a revocation of the license. We feel the ABC is well aware that without funds the licensee cannot afford the great cost of taking the case into the courts where reversal might be possible. We suspect that both the hearing and the appeal boards of the ABC are inclined to follow the basic dictum
of the entire agency; that all homosexual bars must be closed. This arrangement is a prime example of the vicious circle in exercising unlimited power to try to convict. The ABC is the investigator through its undercover agents, the accuser through its list of secret and vague charges, the prosecutor through its published charges, the judge through its boards of hearing and appeal, and the punisher through its right to suspend a license pending appeal. Such policies and actions lead us to believe that a highly prejudiced concern with a moral function exists which does not properly fall within the purview of the ABC.
If they are disorderly, bars should be closed. But such treatment should be equitable, and should be based on investigations and charges which apply uniformly and which do not violate due process. Gay bars per se are not hotbeds of unspeakable acts, or the scenes of wild orgies. Just because homosexuals gather together there is no automatic offense to public morals and decency. We ministers have been in and out of all these bars often enough to reach this conclusion.
This, then, is the tenth great injustice: Private acts of unsuspecting persons which result from the deceitful
enticement of undercover agents are used to suspend or revoke the license of public places; even though
neither the enticement nor the private acts have ever been reported to the licensee.
Our police department, ever alert in rooting out crime in our community, does its small part to intimidate the patrons of gay bars. Besides the use of entrapment and enticement inside the bars they also harass people as they enter or leave. Indeed, as we have discovered, in the last ten years arrests in and out of bars has increased sharply. We wonder if these statistics do not suggest that in many cases arrests of homosexuals are like parking tickets, an effective and socially acceptable way of showing that the police are doing the job of enforcing "God's Law." Such indications provide little comfort when we read about murders and robbery on streets and in parks, or in one case, at the benefit ball, we observed over 35 policemen standing on the sidewalks.
As ministers, we are discouraged when we realize that some of these social problems stem in part from misconceptions about theology and the interpretation of the Bible. The churches cannot escape their own participation in the perpetuation of these injustices. Selection of scriptural references, for instance, contribute to the attitudes of parishioners. One may read the Ten Commandments, wherein
homosexuality is not mentioned at all, or one may use the oft-quoted Sodom and Gomorrah passage to justify the extermination of all homosexual behavior.
We as churchmen cannot separate ourselves from our participation in the society which now perpetrates the injustices which we have described. At the same time we want to align ourselves with the causes which uphold the rights of persons, and against institutions which treat any person as less than a human and a child of God.
In drawing up this Brief of Injustices we feel we are helping to expose a pattern of social, legal and economic oppression of a minority group, based not on fact and scientific analysis but rather on taboo and fear. No amount of condemnation, intimidation or incarceration in penal or mental institutions can alter the fact that a large minority of American citizens has, according to existing laws, at least upon
occasion been guilty of committing homosexual acts. Further, the unreasonable
Page 13:
discrimination against homosexuals is demonstrated by the existence of a vast schism between the actual sexual activities of the entire population and those theoretically ideal standards which legal codes seek to uphold. Thus that a few are caught and punished is even more reprehensible.
In sexual matters the law should be concerned with the protection of youth and the guarding of the public against force or predatory conduct. Other sexual behavior should be rooted in personal liberty and should be legally protected. Closely related, the right to peacefully meet in places open to the public is no more than the right of assembly granted to all citizens and should not be denied to the homosexual.
It seems to us the first duty of the police is to prevent crime, not to provoke it for the sole purpose of its prosecution and punishment. Surely the utilization of plainclothesmen to try to induce citizens to perform homosexual acts for the purpose of arresting them is neither the best use of our police force nor an act of public justice.
We also believe that Americans should reject any custom or law which would make any public authority the judge of private, personal moral convictions. Certainly such an authority should not permit a civil right to be whittled away indirectly any more than it should be allowed to be destroyed directly.
We feel that the test of a democratic society is in the extent to which it suppresses individual thought and action. For some time there has been a demand for regulation of every aspect of human behavior and the repression of more and more conduct that is supposedly different from the so-called norm. This in itself is an expression of a growing tendency to employ broad standards and vaguely worded laws which seem to equate sin with crime, and which are used by the police to scoop up possible violators as they see fit. The excessive concern of some Americans over what are essentially areas of personal expression in sexual behavior, exercised between adults in private, can result in our becoming a nation of professional
snoopers and privacy invaders, a society of voyeurs seeking to expose the scandals and defects in others which we refuse to recognize in ourselves. Laws based on such whims are a step backward. Such tendencies are. diametrically opposed to the principles of equality we profess to maintain, reducing suspected homosexuals to the status of second grade citizens and inferior human beings. In addition, it is our firm belief that any law which is unenforceable is worse than no law at all.
Besides the violations of civil and human rights which these injustices imply, there are issues which reflect concern for human tragedy and waste of potential contributions to the growth of our society. The expenditures of public monies on witch hunts is only the smallest part of such waste. Greater losses occur in the reduced capacity of the individual to produce either for himself or his society. The dispersal of energies in countless small, yet terrible tragedies, seems unnecessary. We feel the chief goal in dealing with homosexuals should not be to try to reorient their sexual propensities through punishment and intimidation but rather to help them attain a satisfactory self-image and a meaningful relationship to society. Indeed, no one should be forced to suffer in silence or live in fear.
We believe that only sensible criteria for judging human relationships is the maturity, necessity and justice inherent in•each relationship. Social and legal justice is essential. Society must not suffer from cheap harassment perpetrated in the name of virtue when, in fact, it is the terrible vice.
Reacting to these pressures, the persecuted minority is forced into ghetto-like in-groupisms and secrecies which lead the homosexual to perpetrate on himself insults and degradations far beyond those imposed by the oppressive and hostile society in which he lives. So the homosexual is forced to perpetrate the last great injustice upon himself, that of failing to realize the best in himself and his part in cultivating the best in his society.
There is an old Chinese proverb which says, "It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness." This is what we have tried to do. We are convinced that to change these constantly reinforced patterns of injustice, existing barriers to the ex-
Page 14:
change of knowledge must be destroyed. We of The Council on Religion and the Homosexual must find ways to establish communication between the homosexual and his society. Our work.is not aided by police who harass us, by politicians who are fearful of talking with us, by segments of the press which prefer either sensationalism or silence, by portions of the religious community which prefer to condemn rather than to understand, and by homosexuals who reject any effort to approach them.
Fear will never set man free, and fear itself is perhaps the greatest obstacle which man must overcome. In our efforts to become free men we must be guided by the central ethical command of our Judeo-Christian tradition: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."
Signed by the Board of Trustees of The Council on Religion and the Homosexual, Inc., June, 1965
The Rev. Ted Mcllvenna, President
Mr. Donald S. Lucas, Vice-President
Mrs. Del Martin, Secretary
Mr. Robert Walker, Treasurer
Mr. William Beardemphl
Mr. Harold L. Call
The Rev. Dr. Clarence A. Colwell
The Rev. Canon Robert W. Cromey
Mr. Mark Forrester
Mr. Darryl Glied
Miss Phyllis Leon
The Rev. Charles Lewis
The Rev. Jan Marinissen
Mr. Guy Strait
The Rev. A. Cecil Williams
to implement the challenge of change...
A Brief of Injustices
an indictment of our society in its treatment of the homosexual
Presented by
The Council on Religion and the Homosexual, Inc.
330 Ellis Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Page 2:
to implement the challenge of change...
A Brief of Injustices
an indictment of our society in its treatment of the homosexual
Presented by
The Council on Religion and the Homosexual, Inc.
330 Ellis Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Page 3:
Index
1. Homosexuals are being prosecuted under laws which cannot be enforced equitably - Page 3
2. Homosexuals are being socially ostracized to the extent that they are often unable to avail themselves of effective legal counsel and unwilling to risk fighting for their legitimate rights in courts. - Page 4
3. Individuals who publicly assist persons/perceived by others as homosexuals face
attempted intimidation by police as well as other negative sanctions. -Page 4
4. Enforcement officers use methods of enticement and entrapment to develop grounds for arrest and conviction of persons presumed to be homosexuals. -Page 5
5. Persons perceived to be homosexuals are subjected to unreasonable and unfair discriminatory practices in employment based on the unfounded belief of employers
that homosexuals are unstable or are untrustworthy. - Page 5
6. Persons presumed to be homosexuals, on suspicion alone, are being willfully, publicly and illegally harassed by police in injurious ways. -Page 6
7. Criminals who attack citizens often go free because too much police manpower is
used to harass, entice and entrap suspected homosexuals. - Page 7
8. Licensed public premises, such as bars, are subject to prosecution because they provide services to homosexuals or persons presumed to be homosexuals. Conversely,
homosexuals and persons presumed to be homosexuals are deprived of access to such licensed public premises which are available to other people. - Page 7
9. In order to make a case against a licensed public place believed to serve homosexuals or persons presumed to be homosexuals, plainclothes investigators employ methods of enticement and entrapment to secure "evidence" which is often proved false or irrelevant. -Page 9
10. Private acts of unsuspecting persons which result from the deceitful enticement of
undercover agents are used to suspend or revoke the license of public places, even though neither the enticement nor the private acts have ever been reported to the licensee. Page 9
Cover: The Wall of the Jefferson Memorial, Washington D.C.
Page 4:
Police harassment and denials of civil rights in San Francisco to persons presumed to be homosexual have raised issues of concern to all citizens. To bring this situation to the attention of the public, the Board of Trustees of The Council on Religion and the Homosexual, Inc., has prepared this Brief of Injustices.
As a result of their involvement with the Council, many clergymen became aware of injustices which, until now, have been largely ignored by society. The clergy members of the Council's Board made their own investigation, and upon hearing their conclusions the Board of Trustees concurred. Consequently, this Brief is presented as the consensus of the Board.
To place this Brief in proper perspective, we list the purposes of The Council on Religion and the Homosexual, which has as its objective the promotion of a "continuing dialogue between the religious community and homosexuals."
1. To orient members of religious communities (both lay persons and clergy) on aspects of homosexuality (i.e., physical, economic, legal, emotional, etc.) in accordance with homosexual testimony and available scientific data.
2. 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.
3. 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 understandings of sexuality, morality, ethical behavior, and the life of religious faith.
4. To study systematically the deeper dynamics of authentic human relationships from biblical, theological and social science perspectives.
5. To engage in research which will further understanding of homosexuality within the larger framework of the present sexual revolution.
6. 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.
7. To provide an effective voice throughout the nation in matters of laws, policies and penal reforms governing adult sexual behavior.
8. To help professional people (clergymen, social workers, etc.) 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.
9. To encourage the formation of similar councils on religion and the homosexual in other areas of the nation and the world.
We feel that these objectives can only be obtained through a thorough and objective consideration of human sexual behavior from all points of view and with a deep concern for the human beings and values involved in such sensitive, personal matters.
The Council had its beginnings with a series of small group meetings which included homosexuals, members of the religious community, leaders of the homophile organizations, and other interested persons. After considering pertinent scientific and professional literature, we began a series of discussions with lawyers, doctors, psychiatrists, social workers,. and others knowledgeable in the field. With this background we held a consultation involving thirty people interested in the project. From this consultation there developed the idea of The Council on Religion and the Homosexual. Goals were established; the Council was formed, and later incorporated, and the major work began.
Up to this point the results of our investigations were neither conclusive nor consistent. Therefore in order to understand better the ramifications of homosexual behavior, we began direct observation of the homosexual's relationships. The clergy started visiting so-called "gay bars," dances, discussion groups and other
Page 5:
social functions. Many of us spent time examining the little-publicized problem areas in the homosexual's existence: male prostitution, the aging homosexual, and the behavior which police and society consider undesirable. In the process we met homosexuals of every type, from every social and ethnic group, with every sort of religious and political outlook. From these investigations we derived a new sense of the difficulties we were to face.
As time brought greater knowledge we discovered that a majority of homosexuals are productive members of society, doing excellent work in many fields of art, business, industry and the professions. Contrary to the conflicting theories of psychiatrists and other behavioral scientists, many of whom hold that homosexuals are abnormal, neurotic, dangerous people, we found that most of the persons we
met and talked to were normal in appearance and fully capable of deep, lasting and moral relationships. Also contrary to popular misconceptions, we learned that homosexuals were not inherently more criminal either in intent or actions than their heterosexual counterparts. As with any group of people, we discovered elements which constitute social or legal problems. But by and large this group in the homosexual community, as in the larger community, seems to be small. In short, homosexuals turned out to be no better or worse than their heterosexual counterparts, differing from them primarily in the choice of a sexual partner.
With this knowledge we were ready to act. The homophile organizations related to the Council volunteered to raise funds by sponsoring a benefit costume ball to be held January 1, 196 5. It was through this event that we experienced first hand the harassing tactics of the police. We had apprised the polic.e of the ball and the reasons for holding it, and had been led to believe the police would riot interfere- -
but they did. Floodlights illuminated the entrance to the hall and police photographers took still and moving pictures of all persons entering and leaving. Police both plainclothes and uniformed, attempted to enter the hall--and did--following the arrest of three attorneys representing the Council and one woman member who was on duty at the door. Subsequently all four of those arrested pleaded not guilty to
"interfering with police in the performance of their duty, " and at their jury trial were found not guilty.
Now we are confronted with new and more serious problems. Can we continue what we have begun? Can we do anything constructive without provoking further hostile reactions from the police and perhaps even from the general community? Our answer: We know that we cannot accept quietly the unexpected pressures to which persons of homosexual orientation are being subjected.
I
During many discussions with lawyers, including those involved in the court cases which followed the dance, we have discovered that there is very little justice for the homosexual. The reasons for this are disturbing. For instance, we were surprised to discover that while it is not against the law to be homosexual, the law forbids specific sexual acts which are illegal whether performed by homosexuals,
heterosexuals, or presumably even by children. We question whether such laws are either just or reasonable. Sexual acts are among the most private areas of human expression. As private acts, they should not be the subject of law. We also believe that law should sustain the right of each individual to engage in private sexual activity. Most sex laws are unjust, vague, unenforceable or unrealistic. Such laws
serve best to open up avenues for blackmail, police brutality, and the violation of civil rights.
The fact that the adult homosexual bears the brunt of a sporadic and prejudicial enforcement of such laws seems to be the choice of the law enforcement agencies themselves. In recent years there has been an increase in arrests for violations of these laws, but the enforcement has been directed almost exclusively against male homosexuals. If capricious enforcement of unjust laws continues, the day will
Page 6:
soon arrive when irritated or overzealous police officers may, at their own discretion, impose their own prejudices on some of the most intimate and private concerns of human life.
This, then, is the first great injustice: Homosexuals are being prosecuted under laws which cannot be enforced equitably.
II
When we consider the effect of the moral standards of the community, we find that there are even greater inequities. In the Bay Area a sixteen year old boy attempted suicide arid subsequently it was discovered that. he was driven to this extreme by the brutal abuse of his schoolmates who found him to be bookish, a bit different, and therefore implicitly "queer." We have observed situations where
parents have disowned their children when they discovered they were homosexuals. When a homosexual's sexual orientation is exposed the result usually is instant and overwhelming social condemnation, public shame and ridicule, the loss of employment, friends and church affiliation. As a result, dread of exposure has made many homosexuals fearful, guilt-ridden and secretive. Such citizens are easily intimidated by the public, the police, the courts and the unscrupulous lawyers to whom they sometimes have to turn.
Lawyers who have represented homosexuals have told us that most homosexuals, even if not guilty, will not fight their cases through the courts. They decide it is better to plead guilty and hope for the court's mercy. They are so suspicious and fearful of exposure and publicity they usually prefer to forego trial by jury, feeling certain other citizens will consider them guilty despite all contrary evidence. While still in the hands of the police many homosexuals seem to be intimidated into making damaging admissions, often untrue, which are so incriminating that a merited defense becomes almost impossible. Hence, police statistics indicating the number of convictions may be more indicative of the fear and false guilt felt by the homosexual than of his actual guilt or innocence. Published police statistics which seek to prove that most homosexuals are criminals cannot withstand careful scrutiny from a scientific perspective. Basic prejudices and methods of enforcement preclude the scientific accuracy and importance of such data,
This, then, is the second great injustice: Homosexuals are being socially ostracized to the extent that they are often unable to avail themselves of effective legal counsel and unwilling to risk fighting for their legitimate rights in courts.
III
We have learned much from our confrontations with the police. Before the dance some of us had two long meetings with members of the sex crimes detail of the San Francisco Police Department. What we heard astounded us. We had come to discuss the ball and the possibility of opening up avenues of communication. They were determined to examine our theological beliefs and why we had chosen to concern ourselves with people who committed what were to them sinful acts. During one discussion, we were informed that even masturbation was a crime against "God's Law." They seemed sure they were involved in enforcing "God's Law."
It has become apparent that the police feel justified in doing whatever they want to do regardless of whether it is merited or not, wise, or even legal. We have also discovered that the word of some persons representing the police department is undependable; their attitudes tend to be rather big brotherish, and their actions tend to
Page 7:
be oppressive if not unjust. We fear this may set unparalleled precedents for, establishing a police state; where private fanaticism becomes public dogma, where eccentricity makes a man a felon, where suspicion invariably convicts, and where statutes come to mean whatever the police want them to mean. We were told; "Leave morals and law enforcement to us." In effect, they said return to the temple and pray. For us, however, God's action is not only in the temple but in the world confronting human need.
This, then, is the third great injustice: Individuals who publicly assist persons perceived by others as homosexuals face attempted intimidation by police as well as other negative sanctions.
IV
As we have noted, the choice of the persons against whom the penalties of law are enforced seems to rest with the police department. As a result, some homosexuals suffer from the inequitable enforcement of law. But we have found our greatest source of concern in the specific police tactics used to make arrests and obtain convictions. We are convinced that the police use entrapment or enticement in order to make arrests, although they vehemently deny resorting to such practices. It is our understanding that such methods are illegal. For instance, we wonder about the legality and justice of having attractive young police officers in civilian clothes making themselves receptive targets for approach and solicitation. Can
such officers be expected invariably to resist the temptation to lead the conversation into areas where an arrest is assured? The courts seem to believe the word of the police. But we wonder if the police always tell the truth. There may be many cases in which policemen color the truth or distort facts to get a conviction. And we suspect that there may be officers who spend time peeking through little holes into men's rooms or stationed behind vent screens. Others may stand at urinals inviting approach. As ministers, we have investigated many of the so-called "set-ups" used to make such arrests, and we can only wonder with what sort of men we are dealing.
It has been suggested that the frequency of arrests and their nature could indicate the existence of a quota system based on the principle that minimum police efficiency demands at least so many arrests of a certain type by certain officers over a period of time.
A more basic question is: Is solicitation with the intent to commit a sexual act of any kind justification for arrest and conviction? Is the discussion of possible sexual acts an adequate ground for considering that a person manifests sexual behavior presently against the law? If conversations about illegal matters are made equivalent to actual violation of law then we would have to incarcerate almost everyone.
This, then, is the fourth great injustice: Enforcement officers use methods of enticement and entrapment to develop grounds for arrest and conviction of persons presumed to be homosexual.
V
It does not end here. We have learned that when a person is arrested he is fingerprinted, photographed, and a record is made of the charges against him. Even if the courts dismiss the case or find him not guilty, this record of arrest is retained by the police department. It can follow the person throughout his lifetime and be used much later to ruin him, particularly if the charges involve, homosexual acts, which many employers consider a risky credit for an employee. It is unfair for employers to subject such persons to severe penalties on the basis of a police record of arrests--especially as arrests are made as a means of intimidation when the arresting officers know they cannot make a case in court. It is especially unjust when prolonged unemployment results from less than legal arrests and less than just
Page 8:
court proceedings.
But the police do not always stop at reporting the record. In many cases they tell the person's employer of the charges against him, or release this information to the press for publication, which has the same effect. The lawyers arrested at the ball were the victims of such practices by the police department which sent the San Francisco Bar Association a report that these attorneys had been arrested defending homosexuals. Fortunately, the ethics of the Bar Association are quite different from those of the police.
The same might be said, but in another way in reference to the discriminatory policies adhered to by the military and governmental sectors of our society. Suspected homosexuals are ferreted out and discharged as quickly as possible. For instance, a majority of homosexuals have served honorably in the military services without being detected or demoralizing their companions. The unfortunates who are discovered are discharged on "other than honorable grounds." This becomes all the more lamentable since the younger ones often do not manifest behavior associated with homosexuality until they are in the armed services.
Government employees often are pre-emptorily discharged after expensive investigations disclose grounds for "suspicion of homosexual behavior." Yet it has never been scientifically established that homosexuals are undesirable in public or military service because of their susceptibility to being blackmailed or because of innate characteristics which affect job performance.
Returning to the private sector, many private employers discharge homosexual employees on grounds justified by little more than custom, prejudice and taboo. These attitudes encourage mass personnel inquisitions consuming thousands of dollars and countless man hours, and often result in irreparable loss of talent and productivity which our society cannot afford.
This, then, is the fifth great injustice: Persons perceived to be homosexuals are subjected to unreasonable and unfair discriminatory practices in employment based on the unfounded belief of employers that homosexuals are unstable or untrustworthy.
VI
It is common knowledge that the police engage in other forms of harassment. Harassment of persons in bars, on streets, or in other public places seems predicated on the theory that although most people, even highly trained ones, cannot detect the average homosexual, the police are fully capable of making such fine distinctions. Persons are subjected to questioning based on suspicion alone without there being any proof that illegal sexual acts have been or ever will be performed by that individual. Because of dress, manner, place of assembly, choice of associates, or just because the officers detect a seeming difference from the norm, persons may be detained for questioning, have makeup cards filed on them, and in other ways be publicly embarrassed and forced to endure verbal abuse.
Members of the Council and their wives have experienced such verbal abuse. In our encounter with the police, one said: "I never thought I'd see the day when ministers helped queers." One of the ministers was asked by a policeman in a condemning tone, "Would you want your son to be a homosexual?" Another question was asked, "What does your wife think of your helping homosexuals?"
This, then, is the sixth great injustice: Persons presumed to be homosexuals, on suspicion alone, are being willfully, publicly, and illegally harassed by police in injurous ways.
Page 9:
Because homosexuals are subjected to the contempt of the public and the police, they become fair game for all forms of criminality. Fearful and distrustful of the police, the courts, and indeed of the public in general, homosexuals choose to submit to beatings, extortion and robbery by professional criminals.
Many of the major crimes committed in San Francisco, such as murder, assault and battery, extortion and robbery, are perpetrated on homosexuals. Few of the perpetrators of these crimes ever seem to be caught. A whole underworld of traffic in male flesh is reported to flourish in San Francisco, yet it often seems that persons most subjected to harassment are the homosexuals who, for one reason or another, find it necessary to be clients of male prostitutes.
We seriously question the advisability of the amount of police time and public money used to harass suspected homosexuals while many actual malefactors escape apprehension. We think members of the sex crimes detail now spending their time in latrines, in plainclothes standing on the street corners, or in gay bars seeking to entrap unsuspecting citizens, could better protect our community by concentrating on major areas of crime.
It appears to us that disorganized and prejudicial law enforcement is almost as much of a problem as organized crime.
This, then, is the seventh great injustice: Criminals who attack citizens often go free because too much police manpower is used to harass, entice and entrap suspected homosexuals.
VIII
Our investigation into the homosexual's behavior and his relationships to his society led us to consider the so-called "gay bars." For the harassed homosexual there hardly seems to be any place other then the gay bar in which he may freely associate without baleful scrutiny and the need to wear a mask.
We investigated heterosexual bars and gay bars impartially, and at no time did we observe in gay bars any actions we might deem shocking or immoral. In most cases our arrival was not particularly noticed. We doubt that the patrons in the bars could have known that we were ministers.
It can be said that in appearance, atmosphere, deportment of clientele, and the nature of any sexuality which might inadvertently find expression, the average gay bar is forced to be well above its heterosexual counterpart.
After a thorough investigation of bars we met with various bartenders, managers and others who were, familiar with the problems faced by the bar owner and his patrons. This led to a confrontation with the Alcoholic Beverage Control in a meeting we held with its regional director. Unsatisfied with what we had been told there, we examined court records of such famous litigation as "Stoumen vs. Reilly," or what is popularly known as "The Black Cat Case;" "Mary's First and Last Chance," a bar which was located in Oakland; and some more recent closures affecting "Jack's Waterfront," "The D'Oak Room" and "The Jumpin' Frog" bars which we had inspected prior to their closing. Legal matters were reviewed with several lawyers,
and in some cases we talked with some of the patrons who had been arrested by ABC agents or city police in attempts to gather sufficient evidence to justify closing the bars.
At first we did not realize the full implications of our investigations. Basically what we found was that an agency of government, in this case the ABC, was using prejudicial enforcement of a questionable law to justify the closing of homosexual bars under legal provisions it used much less frequently in cases involving heterosexual bars. Since the average life span of a gay bar seems to be something short of two years, while heterosexual bars usually remain open almost indefinitely, it
Page 10:
appears that the degree of scrutiny which homosexual bars receive may greatly exceed that accorded heterosexual bars. Apparently they are usually closed on several grounds which may be summed up in this way: the licensee is running a dis.orderly house injurious to the public decency or morals, because within the premises and with his full knowledge he permitted lewd or lascivious acts, a public display or manifestation of aberrant sexual urges or desires, verbal solicitations. indicating the intent to perform such acts, or that he allowed his bar to become a resort for dope pushers or addicts, prostitutes, pimps, panderers or sexual perverts.
It is very misleading to consider sexual pervert and homosexual as synonymous. For instance, some authorities consider the use of contraceptives as a practice of sexual perversion- -the perverting of sexual intimacies from the intended purpose of procreation. The disagreements which exist between scientists, sociologists, physicians, lawyers and even the clergy about the etiology of homosexuality, its nature and manifestations, preclude such a. connection between homosexuality and sexual perversion.
In addition, persons with homosexual inclinations have not been scientifically proven to be ipso facto criminals, intrinsically detrimental to civilization or infected with disease. Neither do they comprise a small element in the population which can be isolated, incarcerated or eradicated by repressive measures. Therefore, to close bars just because they are patronized by homosexuals, on the basis of the incorrect belief that homosexuals are sexual perverts, is incoherent reasoning. In fact, we are told by people knowledgeable in the field that even if this spurious contention were valid there is no way to determine with any certainty what persons or groups of persons in a bar are homosexual. Therefore, as written, justice and equity in applying this law are almost impossible.
There are more basic issues. Charges drawn up against gay bars are an itemization either of verbal solicitations or of acts tending to the public display or manifestation of aberrant sexual urges or desires, which are directed to, or seen by, specific ABC undercover agents whose entry into and departure from the bar are unknown to its owner. In such a sense, the act of a man placing his arm loosely around the waist of another man, in a gay bar, within the view of such an agent, indicates that the man is a homosexual publicly expressing sexual urges or desires, or the intent thereto, which are clearly against the present statutes. This sort of evidence is used to establish that the bar owner is keeping a disorderly house.
To establish that a disorderly house exists does not require that a person named in a charge must actually commit an illegal sex act, so any interpretation of intent to commit such acts on the basis that a person is presumed to be a homosexual is unjustified and irrational. Most intelligent people would never sanction branding citizens as homosexuals solely on the basis that their thoughts, speech, mannerisms, conversations, attitudes, tendencies or psychological responses are in some manner or to some degree, unconventional. Neither would they expect lay authorities such as the police, the ABC, or even the courts to be able to determine from simple aspects of non-sexual behavior whether persons were homosexual. Because there is a difference between the acts themselves and the mere intent to perform them, there
is no substantial connection between gestures or conversations and the specific sexual acts which are against the law. Therefore, justice itself would preclude confounding intent to perform with performance when the actual performance itself is substantially lacking.
Clearly, the manner of application and enforcement of these statutes depends upon the personal opinions and prejudices of the ABC and its agents, a type of enforcement which fosters oppression, blackmail and discrimination. We hardly think it prudent to invest the ABC with the exclusive, unlimited and unrestrained authority to suppress or regulate the behavior of bar patrons through its right to suspend or revoke licenses. Thus ABC becomes what it should not become, the keeper of morals for bar patrons in general and for homosexuals in particular.
Page 11:
This, then, is the eighth great injustice: Licensed public premises, such as bars are subject to prosecution
because they provide services to homosexuals or persons presumed to be homosexuals. Conversely, homosexuals and persons presumed to be homosexuals are deprived of access to such licensed public premises which are available to other people.
IX
The methods used by the ABC to gather evidence against bars are not unlike those used by the plainclothes agents of the police department. Through deceit and inducement, lure and suggestion, both police and ABC undercover agents encourage solicitations for sexual acts. Such solicitations are not reported to the licensee until months or years later when they are published in the charges used to suspend or revoke the license. In reading the charges filed against several of the bars, we concluded
that almost any act or conversation in a gay bar is sufficient for arrest and for use as data in revoking the license. There is also the question of the strict legality of ruses and ploys employed by these agents in their efforts to make a case against the gay bar. We ask: In playing their part in an endless crusade to enforce the so-called moral code of society, are these agents free from disposition toward prejudice or a tendency to deliberately distort and alter the facts just to get sufficient evidence to close the bar?
This, then, is the ninth great ,injustice: In order to make a case against a licensed public place believed
to serve homosexuals or persons presumed to be homosexuals, plainclothes investigators employ methods of enticement and entrapment to secure "evidence" which is often proved false or irrelevant.
X
Although the ABC has repeatedly denied that it keeps files of charges on gay bars, or that such charges are being gathered against all the gay bars in San Francisco, logic indicates that the entire truth is not being told. Somewhere a closed file, or its equivalent, unavailable for public or legal scrutiny, must be in
the process of being assembled, for in many cases the dates of actual incidents used as evidence to suspend a license date far back into the bar's history. As we have stated, from our observation the standards of behavior in gay bars are equal to, if not higher than, those in most heterosexual bars; therefore unless we assume that carefully assembled files of charges are kept on such bars we are at a loss to explain the fact that almost all gay bars are eventually closed.
Since the files remain secret, since the undercover agents never report arrests to the bar owner, and since the ABC never publishes the charges until action is taken to suspend or revoke the license, the owner of the bar is required to defend himself against accusations concerning acts which may have occurred months or even years earlier. Proper defense against such charges is then almost impossible. Indeed,
in criminal court the charges against the person arrested and named in the ABC action are often dismissed for lack of evidence, but the arrest is still held against the bar. Such accusations, traditionally of dubious merit, are used at a cut-and-dried proforma hearing where, almost without exception, they form the basis for the suspension of the license pending appeal. Appeals through the ABC almost always fail, and since actions on the constitutional issues in the civil courts are prohibitively expensive, most bars whose licenses are suspended are financially unable to fight for justice. Therefore they have no alternative but to go out of business.
The whole idea of suspending a license pending appeal seems to be a denial of due process. Unable to properly defend himself against vague and often uncorroborated charges of which he is unaware until his license is suspended, the licensee is found sufficiently guilty by the ABC to justify suspending the license, leaving him the
Page 12:
almost impossible task of proving that he is innocent when in effect he has already been convicted. When we examined the actual court cases, the hearings and the appeals, we noticed that gay bars never seem to win reversals of any sort. As we have seen in the Black Ca.t case, those few that do fight their cases through the courts only achieve a temporary stay of execution. ABC pressure continues until something is found which will justify a revocation of the license. We feel the ABC is well aware that without funds the licensee cannot afford the great cost of taking the case into the courts where reversal might be possible. We suspect that both the hearing and the appeal boards of the ABC are inclined to follow the basic dictum
of the entire agency; that all homosexual bars must be closed. This arrangement is a prime example of the vicious circle in exercising unlimited power to try to convict. The ABC is the investigator through its undercover agents, the accuser through its list of secret and vague charges, the prosecutor through its published charges, the judge through its boards of hearing and appeal, and the punisher through its right to suspend a license pending appeal. Such policies and actions lead us to believe that a highly prejudiced concern with a moral function exists which does not properly fall within the purview of the ABC.
If they are disorderly, bars should be closed. But such treatment should be equitable, and should be based on investigations and charges which apply uniformly and which do not violate due process. Gay bars per se are not hotbeds of unspeakable acts, or the scenes of wild orgies. Just because homosexuals gather together there is no automatic offense to public morals and decency. We ministers have been in and out of all these bars often enough to reach this conclusion.
This, then, is the tenth great injustice: Private acts of unsuspecting persons which result from the deceitful
enticement of undercover agents are used to suspend or revoke the license of public places; even though
neither the enticement nor the private acts have ever been reported to the licensee.
Our police department, ever alert in rooting out crime in our community, does its small part to intimidate the patrons of gay bars. Besides the use of entrapment and enticement inside the bars they also harass people as they enter or leave. Indeed, as we have discovered, in the last ten years arrests in and out of bars has increased sharply. We wonder if these statistics do not suggest that in many cases arrests of homosexuals are like parking tickets, an effective and socially acceptable way of showing that the police are doing the job of enforcing "God's Law." Such indications provide little comfort when we read about murders and robbery on streets and in parks, or in one case, at the benefit ball, we observed over 35 policemen standing on the sidewalks.
As ministers, we are discouraged when we realize that some of these social problems stem in part from misconceptions about theology and the interpretation of the Bible. The churches cannot escape their own participation in the perpetuation of these injustices. Selection of scriptural references, for instance, contribute to the attitudes of parishioners. One may read the Ten Commandments, wherein
homosexuality is not mentioned at all, or one may use the oft-quoted Sodom and Gomorrah passage to justify the extermination of all homosexual behavior.
We as churchmen cannot separate ourselves from our participation in the society which now perpetrates the injustices which we have described. At the same time we want to align ourselves with the causes which uphold the rights of persons, and against institutions which treat any person as less than a human and a child of God.
In drawing up this Brief of Injustices we feel we are helping to expose a pattern of social, legal and economic oppression of a minority group, based not on fact and scientific analysis but rather on taboo and fear. No amount of condemnation, intimidation or incarceration in penal or mental institutions can alter the fact that a large minority of American citizens has, according to existing laws, at least upon
occasion been guilty of committing homosexual acts. Further, the unreasonable
Page 13:
discrimination against homosexuals is demonstrated by the existence of a vast schism between the actual sexual activities of the entire population and those theoretically ideal standards which legal codes seek to uphold. Thus that a few are caught and punished is even more reprehensible.
In sexual matters the law should be concerned with the protection of youth and the guarding of the public against force or predatory conduct. Other sexual behavior should be rooted in personal liberty and should be legally protected. Closely related, the right to peacefully meet in places open to the public is no more than the right of assembly granted to all citizens and should not be denied to the homosexual.
It seems to us the first duty of the police is to prevent crime, not to provoke it for the sole purpose of its prosecution and punishment. Surely the utilization of plainclothesmen to try to induce citizens to perform homosexual acts for the purpose of arresting them is neither the best use of our police force nor an act of public justice.
We also believe that Americans should reject any custom or law which would make any public authority the judge of private, personal moral convictions. Certainly such an authority should not permit a civil right to be whittled away indirectly any more than it should be allowed to be destroyed directly.
We feel that the test of a democratic society is in the extent to which it suppresses individual thought and action. For some time there has been a demand for regulation of every aspect of human behavior and the repression of more and more conduct that is supposedly different from the so-called norm. This in itself is an expression of a growing tendency to employ broad standards and vaguely worded laws which seem to equate sin with crime, and which are used by the police to scoop up possible violators as they see fit. The excessive concern of some Americans over what are essentially areas of personal expression in sexual behavior, exercised between adults in private, can result in our becoming a nation of professional
snoopers and privacy invaders, a society of voyeurs seeking to expose the scandals and defects in others which we refuse to recognize in ourselves. Laws based on such whims are a step backward. Such tendencies are. diametrically opposed to the principles of equality we profess to maintain, reducing suspected homosexuals to the status of second grade citizens and inferior human beings. In addition, it is our firm belief that any law which is unenforceable is worse than no law at all.
Besides the violations of civil and human rights which these injustices imply, there are issues which reflect concern for human tragedy and waste of potential contributions to the growth of our society. The expenditures of public monies on witch hunts is only the smallest part of such waste. Greater losses occur in the reduced capacity of the individual to produce either for himself or his society. The dispersal of energies in countless small, yet terrible tragedies, seems unnecessary. We feel the chief goal in dealing with homosexuals should not be to try to reorient their sexual propensities through punishment and intimidation but rather to help them attain a satisfactory self-image and a meaningful relationship to society. Indeed, no one should be forced to suffer in silence or live in fear.
We believe that only sensible criteria for judging human relationships is the maturity, necessity and justice inherent in•each relationship. Social and legal justice is essential. Society must not suffer from cheap harassment perpetrated in the name of virtue when, in fact, it is the terrible vice.
Reacting to these pressures, the persecuted minority is forced into ghetto-like in-groupisms and secrecies which lead the homosexual to perpetrate on himself insults and degradations far beyond those imposed by the oppressive and hostile society in which he lives. So the homosexual is forced to perpetrate the last great injustice upon himself, that of failing to realize the best in himself and his part in cultivating the best in his society.
There is an old Chinese proverb which says, "It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness." This is what we have tried to do. We are convinced that to change these constantly reinforced patterns of injustice, existing barriers to the ex-
Page 14:
change of knowledge must be destroyed. We of The Council on Religion and the Homosexual must find ways to establish communication between the homosexual and his society. Our work.is not aided by police who harass us, by politicians who are fearful of talking with us, by segments of the press which prefer either sensationalism or silence, by portions of the religious community which prefer to condemn rather than to understand, and by homosexuals who reject any effort to approach them.
Fear will never set man free, and fear itself is perhaps the greatest obstacle which man must overcome. In our efforts to become free men we must be guided by the central ethical command of our Judeo-Christian tradition: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."
Signed by the Board of Trustees of The Council on Religion and the Homosexual, Inc., June, 1965
The Rev. Ted Mcllvenna, President
Mr. Donald S. Lucas, Vice-President
Mrs. Del Martin, Secretary
Mr. Robert Walker, Treasurer
Mr. William Beardemphl
Mr. Harold L. Call
The Rev. Dr. Clarence A. Colwell
The Rev. Canon Robert W. Cromey
Mr. Mark Forrester
Mr. Darryl Glied
Miss Phyllis Leon
The Rev. Charles Lewis
The Rev. Jan Marinissen
Mr. Guy Strait
The Rev. A. Cecil Williams