Aaron Swartz and Don Slater: Why They Weren't Gay

Thanks for this, duchamp. The last link about sexuality sounds a lot like Don Slater—it is an act, it is society and its attitudes and laws that make us a minority, and there was no minority before the Kinsey/Mattachine era starting in the 1950s.  Before there were drag balls, but no effort to change or educate society or even homosexuals.

_ _ _ _ 

Aaron Swartz committed suicide a few days ago; I’d never heard of him.  There’s plenty to learn, though, from a just-posted Wikipedia entry:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz.  

Swartz was only 26 but he had taken on many fights including one against JSTOR, an online database of scholarly material. 

Federal prosecutors in Boston had brought an armload of charges against him for allegedly “hacking” JSTOR.  JSTOR, however, did not want to press the case but U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz barreled right ahead.  The trial was looming in just a few weeks. 

All too often the government quietly grinds people to dust in exercising its criminal justice prerogatives.  Here, Alex Stamos, a defense forensics expert has some very interesting things to say:

http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/

Swartz’s parents and partner have published a statement: 

http://www.webcitation.org/6DdbeYyVO

There’s lots more online; FWIW here’s the NY Times obituary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/technology/aaron-swartz-internet-activist-dies-at-26.html

And, finally, a 2009 piece from Swartz’s blog about sexuality, Why I Am Not Gay: 

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/notgay

A question to "gays" who keep asking for some other celebrities to “come out” so they can be proud of their sexuality

I just watched on Logo a show on Freddie Mercury and once again I hear the idea that “if he had come out” it would have been an inspiration to young people struggling with their homosexuality. Nonsense. What this means is that someone would only be happy to be “gay” if other cute, famous people are too. What about all the pioneers who risked their lives to change the world so that today it is possible for us to be happy and gay? Why are they not an inspiration?

Since 1953 there has been at least one (ONE) publication available in all major cities discussing the subject. Since 1950 there have been a dozen or more pioneers who were speaking out, including in courtrooms/cases. Since 1958 there has been a victory in the U S Supreme Court won by ONE, Incorporated, to gain our community/movement the right to even discuss homosexuality in publications.

Every major city has a glbt newspaper. There has been a national magazines covering our subject/lives given major publicity (Advocate and OUT) which have given coverage to dozens of cute and famous peple who have “come out.” There have been dozens of movies with gay-friendly themes, major tv shows with serious discussions on issues we face.

For years there have been organizations giving help in the legal, religious and political fields. There are lgbt centers in every major city. Thre have been marches on Wshington, and one is planned for next month.

How many people coming out does it take for all these young people to be comfortable with themselves? Perhaps the reason our cause has still got a long way to go for equal/civil rights is because too many “gays” are unhappy being gay. That is what we have been trying to educate them about since 1950. If they haven't heard us, that is their problem.

Review of Gay L. A.

Gay L. A., by Lillian Faderman and Stuart Timmons, from Basic Books, NY, 2006, $27.50, 429 pages.

A review by someone who was there for about a 10th of the material covered.
 
The main thing this excellent book points out is that the continuing  movement for civil rights for homosexual Americans started in about 1950 in Southern California, by the founders of early Mattachine (Harry Hay, Dale Jennings, et al.) and ONE, Inc. (Tony Reyes, Don Slater, Dale Jennings, Dorr Legg (Bill Lambert), Martin Block, et al.), which came out of that start, and that each decade since then there has seen a large growth of people and organizations and publications that pushed he cause forward.
 
The first 100 or so pages cover early L. A. which was transgendered Indians (often called berdache) and then the closeted movie stars, none of whom did a thing to make the world a better place of homosexuals—and there were ways to do that and remain in the closet, then as now. Then we come to the moment when a few good men and women decided to fight back, at the discrimination, by cops, preachers, psychiatrists, and the media—which gaily published names, address and employers of those arrested. Women were arrested as well as men.
 
And the work of ONE, Inc. is covered after the early Mattachine essentially died in L. A. as it was "moved" to San Francisco by the Hal Call faction which took over to remove the communist legacy that they feared would eventually destroy the cause in the McCarthy era.
 
The internal disagreements in ONE that eventually led to a separation are covered in a sense, but not well, as I will discuss later. But almost every decade saw gay/lesbian groups have internal disagreements, up to today, so that is a generic problem.
 
When ONE was the only local organization it had to do everything: publish its main work, ONE Magazine, and then educate homosexuals and non-homosexuals-often while under attack for making the issue public which closeted gays feared would hurt them by making the public aware that not all homosexuals were acting like the opposite sex.
 
Each decade from 1960 on saw new organizations, such as PRIDE, publications like the Advocate, and later specialized groups, such as political ones (MECLA), religious ones (MCC), ethnic groups, women's groups, running and hiking clubs, as well as the a growing number of gay bars.  And finally homosexuals became politicians and won offices, such as state senator, and became judges. Gay attorneys became willing to handle cases which they had been afraid to in the first decades. (That is why the movement had to rely on allies such as attorneys like Eric Julber, who handled the ONE Magazine case all the way to the U S Supreme Court, and won (1958) and Herb Selwyn, who incorporated Mattachine and the Homosexual Information Center and other groups and handled arrest cases. They didn't get as much notoriety and make as much money as others, such as Gladys Towle Root or Harry Weiss, but the did the most important work for the nascent movement.
 
The authors say what they intend to do in their introduction and tell us what they did in the ending pages. Mostly they did a good job in the 351 pages, and they give us lots of notes and an index. Any student of the history of the homosexual movement will have to know what is in the pages of this book.
 
But regarding the one part of history that I was in, I believe that the authors, for what eve reason, seem to have a biased view of the problems at ONE, Inc., and I wonder if the fact that Stuart was at one time a director of ONE Institute might have given him a biased view of the facts. I'm not sure they would have come out different even if they had interviewed me, wich they could have but didn't. But I will leave it to my co-workers at ONE and the Homosexual Information Center (many of whom are no longer with us) and to other serious scholars of the civil rights movements to point out some significant distortions of the facts.
 
Often it is just the words they select that give a "flavor" that is wrong.  For instance, Faderman and Timmons seem to say that Don Slater agreed to sign a settelement agreement, as if Dorr Legg didn't have to sign the agreement too.  And they imply that Don owed Dorr materials, when a reading of the settlement (which is on our website at www.tangentgroup.org, as is much of the material covered, including a famous speech by Dale Jennings that the book mentions but fails to cite) would show that mainly all Dorr got was the right to the name "ONE." And they imply that Don held material and didn't give it back till his death in 1997. In the first place, the notes of this hisotyr are full of material from ONE Institute, which would seem to say Dorr had the material--otherwise how woudl Faderman and Timmons have access to it? But Don Slater's death was irrelevant since the material belongs to the Corporation and not to him as an individual.
 
A distinction that should be made is that ONE Institute is not ONE, Inc. ONE, Inc. is owned by the funding arm of ONE, the Institute for the Study of Human Resources, so that any material in dispute would be ONE's, not the Institute's. 
 
The authors seem to say that the internal problems in ONE were mainly between Don and Dorr (the only remaining, and equal, co-founders of ONE, Inc.) and only became problematic in 1965. The problem had actually been building for several years, as former board members kept pointing out to Don. Many were upset over Dorr's behavior and attitude. As several told Don later, they had warned him, but until Legg hit the magazine, Don just ignored the problem. But they pointed out that ethically only Don and Dorr had a right to decide what ONE would do as they were the reason it existed. And there were obviously two sides to the issues: Dorr was right that we needed to promote education with the education classes and that lousy Quarterly, etc. But they were local and money spent on the courses was not getting a return. Don was right that the magazine brought in the money and "educated" a national audience.
 
What I never understood is why this was an issue in 1965, since by the time Reed Erickson had come from Louisiana, as I had (and LSU as I had) and was funding our work by ISHR. Later Dorr would try to deceive the court and public by claiming that Don was mentally ill to have moved the material and was not even a ONE employee at the time. Technically (although time would prove Don's mental ability was better than Dorr's) that was true, since once ISHR was started, Don and I were "moved" to ISHR, and paid by ISHR, so as to help cut the overhead at ONE. 
 
When Dorr rigged the election in 1965 (to keep me from being elected to the board, which again was strange since up to that time I worked mainly with Dorr, not Don), Don knew he had to do something to save the work he had done since 1952. He consulted with an attorney and then acted. On Easter Sunday, 1965, a few of us (Don, Tony, Jano, Melvin and I) moved ONE to Cahuenga Blvd West. Dorr refused to try to compromise, and Jim Kepner got what may have been a "deciding" vote, Chet Sampson's, to go to Dorr by telling him Don would not last a month—another bit of evidence that even good people can be wrong—and thus Jim Schneider's attempt to get a settlement was killed and  as a  reward for his  work  Dorr kicked him off the board.
 
Dorr filed a lawsuit to recover ONE's materials. His attorney, Hillel Chodos, was misinformed from the start, but then blundered and got the judge mad at him, and our attorney, Ed Raiden (and Lequita McKay) was doing a good job, so the judge made it plain he was not going to waste much time on this frivolous case and the attorneys decided to work fast on a settlement, which they did and the judge approved.
 
Dorr immediately violated the settlement by issuing a claim that we were crooks and he had won. One day he and I were sitting on the floor in our office on Cahuenga dividing books we were going to give him, and the next we stopped all contact. We did NOT give up the name ONE.  Since The Tangent Group (a dba) had incorporated in the name of the Homosexual Information Center, and was the first honest homosexual organization gain tax-exemption, we continued to operate as ONE for tax purposes, until we closed the Bookservice years later. Government agencies knew and understood the two ONEs and we had no problem.  I think later there was also a third ONE, since the center in Long Beach at first was ONE in By ABCBeach.
 
There are other little questions I have as to why the authors chose to cover one incident and ignore another which was done by HIC.  For instance, they (in covering troy Perry and the MCC also cover him picketing with Gay Lib (and Morris Kight) at the Los Angeles Times, and getting a good mention the paper. The reason for the picket I gather was trying to get the paper to use the word "homosexual." Well, why do the authors ignore, then, the HIC-sponsored picketing of the paper, earlier, which was over their refusal to let us use the word homosexual in an ad for a play we were helping sponsor, Geese, by Gus Weill, also of Louisiana? We held discussions after the performances, and while we got no publicity, the paper did change its policy. Troy Perry got the publicity then, since John Dart, a religion writer, came down while we picketed and interviewed Troy and his article was carried not only in the Los Angeles Times but in many other papers.
 
Also, while the authors cover our work as the Committee to Fight Exclusion of Homosexuals From the Armed Forces, they say only that it was covered by ABC news. Why do they not say the person was Connie Chung, and that Tom Brokaw also interviewed us for NBC. They say correctly that the Los AngelesTimes ignored us but don't say that Peter Bart, now with Variety, did a good article in the New York Times. They gore Don’s further work with draftees, covered by Randy Shilts in his book Conduct Unbecoming. Don won court cases and was successful in his legal work, using attorneys, psychologists, etc.
 
They report that someone appeared on the Regis Philbin show. Why then not point out that I also appeared on his show, and was treated badly. And that I was on the Louis Lomax show, Don was on Joe Pyne, and Harry and John were on shows, etc. But probably most important, they don't mention that Maria Cole and Stan Bohrman had Don Slater on as co-host of their KHJ show for a week—Don had others as guests to talk about aspects of homosexuality. If we are going to honor celebrities who seem gay-friendly now, why not honor Maria Cole who did it before it was cool?
 
And a part of the cause they ignore, while covering almost too much the movie stars, are writers and authors. Why do they mention Joseph Hansen only once and in a strange way? "By 1948, the center of action had moved west along with the burgeoning migration, as L. A. writer Joseph Hansen reports." (Where?) That's it! There is o mention of him being a world-famous author, probably the first "out" one, and a co-founder of HIC, with his wife Jane.
 
And the only other author/writer and book mentioned that I remember was ONLY mentioned because it was an example of how "Hollywood" had been fearful of gay movies. That of course is Patricia Nell Warren and her famous book, The Front Runner.
 
We hosted political speakers and argued when Dorr tried to support Lamport despite his anti-gay ways. We supported the Gay-In. We had a play, thanks to Don Schneider, who organized with friends a benefit for HIC by a performance of an all-male version of The Women, at which time Don [Slater] was arrested, and we changed the rules making a permit necessary. We had a good time as well as working for the cause.
 
Some may think I'm worrying too much about these details, but it is interesting that the authors went to the trouble of seeking out Marvin Edwards, who came to L. A. with Dorr, and was arrested and left town, so why not take the trouble of seeking out "primary sources"to be sure their version of events were right, and give readers both sides of arguments?
 
But the information and groups covered in this book are important and I know of no other place they are on the record. And the history of this movement and the work to gain equal/civil rights for homosexual Americans needs to be told, just as those of the black movement, the women's movement, etc.
 
Because of what a few brave souls did in 1950 (Mattachine), ’52 (ONE), ’55 (DOB) and the people and groups and publications that follow each decade, starting in the dozens, then hundreds and now thousands, we now celebrate our lives, as the founders/pioneers dreamed of. We have the institutions they dreamed of, churches, center, housing for older homosexuals, in a few places for the poor, and in several places large housing developments where retired homosexuals live in luxury.
 
The authors have done a good job of telling this history in a book that is a pleasure to read and deserve the gratitude of those who helped make this history. This book removes any excuse for future historians not to know how we got to where we are today and who helped get us here.
 

Oct.-Dec. 1969 issue of Tangents Magazine. Cover story: “The New Homosexual”

It seems strange that we could call people in gay lib the new homosexuals—but they used the term too then, and we forget, or at least I did, that major magazines, thanks partly to Stonewall, covered homosexuals in that time. Esquire had a great article, Time had a messy article, etc.  But I think it may be worthwhile to look at what we did that issue, and suggest that today's editors might want to think about how the world will look back at their work 30 or 40 years later.
 
(The cover, by Joe Johnson is red and white with picket signs, including Kameny's Gay is Good.)
 
The editorial was fussing at Time for its silly handling of its October 31st coverage (“The Homosexual: Newly Visible, Newly Understood”).  Same of sick theory, etc.
 
The main cover story was interviews with two "new homosexuals," Leo Laurence and Gale Whittington, co-founders of the Committee for Homosexual Freedom in San Francisco (Gale spoke at HIC and Leo was interviewed by Joe Hansen). Gale pointed out their work with Gay Guerilla Theatre and work on UC Berkeley campus, and San francisco City College, etc. He said members might be unemployed since employers would fire activists, citing his firing at State Steamship Co. and their picketing of Tower records for firing someone. He said SIR (Society for Individual Rights, which had thought Mattachine was old foggy) was old foggy and its members were not really "out.” He admitted they tried to infiltrate SIR and take control—something people then and now have tried to do which made leaders of such organizations wary and uptight. He said that in the future it would be the integrationists that are successful, not the separatists. They were going to picket a Pat Rocco film in San Francisco. (Exploitation problem, as they felt about another movie, The Gay Deceivers). They also picketed a drag ball by the Tavern Guild, saying it merely was a money-making effort. The philosophical thoughts of CHR is scattered, marxist, anarchistic, and even moderate and Republicanist.
 
Leo (also with the Institute for Homosexual Liberation) said it was an organization of thinkers.  They had written in the Berkeley Barb and formed the Committee for Homosexual Freedom. They were trying to develop gras-root support for the community. “We simply want the homosexual the bisexual to be able to live the life he wants and as he chooses, without harassment from the state, or from employers, or from the church or rom the schools, or from his neighbors...."  They want to get young people involved. They had picketed the San Francisco Examiner with about 100 people, while HIC had only gotten about 20, including Leo. Leo said HIC's picket was too quiet, they had shouted slogans in San Francisco.
 
There was a discussion about different ways to change things. For instance Dick Leitsch and NY Mattachine had gone to Mayor Lindsay and quietly gotten the harassment by police stopped. Leo seemed to think it needed people to get organized and force change. (He pained out how he had been falsely arrested in a S. F. picket with cops saying he did things he didn't.) He assumed our judicial system is unjust.  But the change should be from  non-violent action. First we must liberate ourselves. "The homosexual community is a scared community because of thousands of years of oppression, of being taught that it's wrong, of guilt."  "The worst enemy of the liberation movement is the closet queen, particularly the young ones, because the liberation movement is beginning to make him ask himself questions about where he is and is almost forcing him....Now when you start forcing a man to do something, you create a counter-movement against it." But you must allow people to develop at their own rate.  "Hopefully it will come before all hell breaks loose."  I find that thought interesting, since over 20 years later nothing like that happened, yet change has come, great change from my viewpoint.
 
In the news section, we mention the article "The New Homosexuality," by tom Burke in the December issue of Esquire.  It was a good article.  As I think about all of these names, where is this man today—where is Gale today, and where are the authors of books that have homosexual elements that we and Barbara Grier did (writing under the pseudonym Gene Damon) reviewed in 1969? We cover a brief mention of our picketing the L. A. Times when it rejected an ad with the word homosexual, saying "the word homosexual would be offensive to our family readership."  Man have times changed.  Several examples of young men in prison being raped, partly at the urging of the cops, are given, one by a Tulane law student in New Orleans, and conscientious objectors are "punished" in Lewisburg PA's prison by the guards by being put deliberately into places other prisoners can rape them.
 
And in Minneapolis MN in 1969 we learn of the founding of FREE (Fight Repression of Erotic Expression), at the university.  Founder was Stephen Ihrig, 21 and a unnamed lesbian. Again, where is Ihrig today??? And in Reno, the University fo Nevada has sex week featuring talks on lesbianism, etc. (Led by Rita Laporte of DOB). And there is a long exchange between Dr. Charles Socarides and his usual bull and John Gagnon (NY Sate University sociologist). Temple University named March (Margo) Frantz homecoming queen. Where is he today?
 
And we mention the play that was the cause of the ad we wanted in the L. A. Times, playing at the Coronet Theater, Geese, by Gus Weill. I think Weill is in L.A. and has worked with the PBS station, but I know of nothing in our field he has done. (We held discussions after several of the nights, with I think Evelyn Hooker, Joe Hansen, etc.)
 
In the letters section there is comment on how Playboy got uptight about letters they had (printed) from Kameny and me. And how NACHO had not really worked for the issue of homosexuals and the military, missing the point about our seeking equality of homosexuals in the military since they opposed the Vietnam war—but of course 3 or 4 groups in NACHO DID have events, such as our Motorcade, which got lots of publicity and a good article by Peter Bart in the New York Times. And there is the timeless issue (in a letter) of just what the income is of the average homosexual. AND, someone wants us to change our name to Homophile Information Center as it is more “acceptable."  Wonder wonder that dear soul would think today with lots of use of the words queer, gay, dyke, etc.
 
Well, what do we think about today's "New Homosexual"? Have we settled any issue we discussed in 1969? It seems strange that the government is still anti yet most major corporations are gay-friendly and large cities place ads seeking gay tourists. Yet, even with no sodomy laws now, we still have people being arrested for sex acts. And the religious nuts are still a major problem.

On hearing of the Death of Yolanda Retter

To read more about Yolanda Retter, see her Rogues Gallery profile at http://www.tangentgroup.org/mediawiki

To Jim Schneider:

Thanks for this remembrance. You obviously knew her more than I did. I only saw her a few times when we were getting ready to move in at 909.  I had of course sent her emails and in a few cases she replied with a thought and in one case a name-that Bill Percy might want to think about donating to-I forget which one now but am sure I sent it on to Bill. But I never understood how such good people could get along with what we considered bad people, but then I'm sure Morgan Farley, and even Harry Hay & John Burnside, kept asking that question about Don Slater sticking so long with Dorr Legg.

In a way, I sometimes think, how did I get through life and Mattachine/ONE/HIC with so little or few problems.And life, in a way. Of course I took forever getting out of LSU (1955), with low grades of course, but I had fun and then went into the army and was kicked out of the army (Undesirable Discharge) but didn't suffer. I got on a train, came to L. A., got a job and place to live right away, in late 1956, handed out brochures for Stevenson for President, as I had at LSU in 1953 or ’54, and joined ONE after Mattachine's Denver convention and a short time with Hal Call. I would not have gotten any real benefits from the military even if I had an honorable discharge, as I already had a college degree and flunked out trying to get an MA at LSU, can't remember the year or summer though. And I have Medicare and have got Medicaid now—Donnie pointed out that I had such a low "income" that I qualified. So I have no medical costs and like LSU Medical (same as County-USC there) fine and it is close but think I could go anywhere with Medicaid, or at least to Emergency rooms as many people do since most doctors don't accept it. Anyway, I of course was unhappy with Dorr, and was unhappy that Jim Kepner told Chet Sampson to not support Don's move, thus thwarting your plan to save ONE as one.

I have had an eye operation-detached retina—and then my prostrate taken out and have short, thank goodness, flairups of arthritis, and otherwise, am quite of with a small house and car—thanks to my parents—who also supported HIC (a little) and me all those years. 

And now I have good co-workers/friends like you and Susan Howe and Todd White and friends like Jeanne Barney, and my non-gay friends/neighbors here, Donnie Underwood, and even Carolyn Smith and an older neighbor who gives me soup and her daily paper.  And now I am again in contact with Glenn and Lou and may find others from the good ole days.

I have one stray cat that sometimes comes in the house and a mother and 3 almost-grown cats that eat the food but are not friendly, which I think is best. But I have never wanted much more and to travel much.

I still have dear Melvin Cain and Peter and now Percy and Ron and Paul Harris, even thought I fuss at him. And I like many people in the movement, such as Paul Cain, Bill Kelley, and editors like Tracy Baim, Mark Segal, et al. So I have been to Boston, Pennsylvania, San Antonio and maybe to L. A. again someday and that is all I would do if I were rich.

So I feel I accidentally got through to 75 in good shape.


Thoughts on reading Leading the Parade, by Paul Cain

June 6, 2007

I should say that I of course view the "history" of each of the pioneers with my own. Several, like myself, had family support, so that in my case, I never had to worry about losing a job, etc. That makes a difference, so that I admire people like Jim Kepner, who had to risk having no income to work for the cause. I had an easy childhood, even though a sissy, but played flute in our band and had lots of fun. Good grades in high school, but lousy ones in college-and even in band, which I immediately dropped. I don't recall any problems with sex even in the army, until they kicked me out as they had seen me driving around lots in my great black top, white and red bottom Pontiac convertible. And then when I drove fast, argued with officers, etc, that did it.

So I parked the car in L, and got on the train, with about $300 and after throwing my Undesirable Discharge and army clothes away, went to L. A. which is where I had known I wanted to go after a family vacation there a few years before—this was in 1956 after finally getting enough hours to get out of LSU mid term 55 and going in the army at Chaffee and Riley. I was lucky. I got off the train at hat great station, got copy of the L. A. Times, found a bed, literally in a dorm room in a house at 3rd and Mariposa (butterfly is it?) Got a job as a clerk at Anderson, Clayton Cotton Co at 6th & Lafayette Park. That didn't last more than 6 months I think and I think they finally stopped that part of the company. I then had contact with my family—who did not know where I was, as I just left the car and a note saying don't worry, as I really didn't want them to deal with my sexuality—but I joined the 1st Methodist Church and so knew they would know where I was when the Bossier church transferred my membership.

I then worked at Retailers Commercial Agency, on Wilshire Blvd near downtown, credit clearing, and they didn't check my army record, but did LSU, idiots. I had a lousy record—grades of course. Sociology and a little psychology saved me as it was common sense, but I had trouble with French, Biological Science, and chemistry—I would never have made it if I had to take a math course. So it was ironical that I ended up in finance in the army. And working at ONE did some and at Tangents/HIC.

I had great fun/sex at first when I finally got to ONE in 60 after Mattachine in Denver, with Hal and Don Lucas in San Francisco. I picked up sailors in Long Beach and Marines in Oceanside, San Clement. And then met Melvin the day Kennedy was shot, walking from the bus station on 6th street, to Pershing Square, took him home to my apartment on Belmont, across from Belmont High School. We were together for (off and on) over 13 years and today i still feel he was a great part of my life, as he and Peter are now and Irwin Shattner (they were in church together) are now.

I worked mostly with Dorr at ONE, so it was strange how I ended up in splitting us. Over the years we had many good people come and go, and I wonder where they are today—some are dead of course. Rodney Riggall, from Prairie Grove AR, his partner Ben is still thee in their house. David Kennedy, who had a terrible life. Dick Spelman, who moved to Chicago and disappeared. Stan perry, who moved to san Diego and disappeared. Bob Waltrip, who vanished. So I'm glad to still have Susan Howe, Jim Schneider and newer friends, like Bill Percy, Todd White and you, to share life with.

Anyway, it goes without saying that the most important mentor was Don Slater, even though he, like Dorr was a conservative and I a liberal Democrat. The days in the office, long trips to CO. gave us time to visit. He taught me how to live cheaply-I was spending family money then, which i don't have now.

On to the book.

I like Jack Nichols' words, that we affected change in a few decades. And he eternal question, repeated in my mind with many of the pioneers you cover, why did they feel the need to try to change things and so many millions of other homosexuals, then and now, didn't. We did have moral grandeur and the intelligence to find ways to work for change—obviously they worked, either separately or together—Kameny and ONE being at odds on the issue. Future generations should know and appreciate us, as we do the founders of our nation, and workers in other civil rights movements, that make America the great nation the founders risked their lives to give us.

I like that Cain saw the need to document this history before it and the people were gone. As was said, even young people today don't even know what "Stonewall" was or means, much less Mattachine and ONE in the ’50s. I think each decade since the ’50s has been easier. I, like Barbara Gittings, joined a decade late-starting in 9/59 after visiting ONE's office and talking with Kepner.

On Dorr Legg, Cain covers him well in a few pages, but that may be because I of course "lived" with him till 1965. I literally lived with Don Slater and Tony, but knew Dorr from office more than Don. I liked the quote that Dorr wanted to correct the discrimination and gain our civil rights. And ONE still is working, now we are preserving our history and still giving our opinions. But I never accepted the idea that Dorr alone was ONE. He and Don and Kepner certainly gave it the base,a nd without them it would not have lasted, but he was obviously wrong in cutting back the magazine-both education and publication are alive today and both are necessary. He was an example of how most of us had no problem with the race issue.I like that you found sources I did not know of, such as Dean Gengel and the Advocate material. I do think it has to be on the record that ONE was first the magazine, and the organization/corporation came to support it and then to educate, social service, etc. (5/27/53, but the magazine was 1/53)

Kepner--the name Jim confuses me as of course I have Jim Schneider working today--says Dorr had no real interest in the magazine, and Dorr agreed, but he was not that much in the library from my memory. And I am sorry I and others judged Dorr by his looks. But his actions were so arrogant it didn't matter, but I didn't see that for a year or so, as I merely came to work and tried to learn, as they had been at it for a decade. Kepner was of course right, Dorr no mater his charm, was a devious dictator in corporation matters. Don didn't mind at first. And Dorr was totally wrong about the importance of the magazine, magazines still do things today classes can't. But we hear today of classes at the University of Wisconsin, doing a tour of historic gay places in the East. And supporting education, such as USC for ONE Institute, UCLA for Williams Institute, etc. And of course Jim Kepner really was right when he wanted to have and save the library/archives.

We were absolutely right to move ONE to the Cahuenga Blvd West location, across from Universal City. Legally and morally we were right. But only Don could have done it, as he and Dorr were the major factors. But Tony, Jano, Melvin, I and others who supported the move were right. Rudi was scared and Morgan (Farley), John and Harry and others had quit because they thought only Don had the right, and duty, do it. But almost everyone with Dorr quit too out of fear—Bob and Greg were school teachers. Not sure about "Joe Aaron."

On to Jim Kepner. I love it that he said, “It was hard to understand Don worrying about the world changing so ONE needed to,” as "Don hardly noticed the changes in the world." Well, Don was against lots of things--he didn't have a Social Security Number till he finally had to work for money to help HIC-law publication, proof reading I think. Tony worked first as a dancer-and still does it for fun in CO, and later in shipping for publication place-books on car repair, etc. Don only allowed the one black phone in the house, no phone in CO, was only reading old books, as Joe mentions, refused to accept things so fought several legal cases about taxes and water rights in CO. And fought the government on the drafting of homosexual men, and Customs over magazines from overseas.

A point, that in the final settlement of the issue, we kept the material mostly and Dorr got the name. But Dorr immediately violated the agreement so we ignored it too. SO, we continued to operate as ONE, Inc for a decade, as we needed a way to pay taxes on the Bookservice, and a city license, and didn't want to harm our tax-exemption as HIC, probably the first openly gay group to get it. And remember that ONE's chapter in Long Beach operated as ONE, and is the Center there today.

As to the phrase "Bandito" Don, well, friends, Don won, so we were the legal ones, just without the name. We must acknowledge the work of Ed Raiden and Lequita McKay on our behalf. I'm not sure how Chodos did for Dorr. And Dorr suffered rom working with Reid Erickson and ISHR-and Don and I were the lst ones paid by ISHR, so we knew Dorr had that income to work with after we separated.

Harry Hay, or who said, that ONE, Don and Dorr were dinosaurs. That is not true. What they, and Harry did still exists today. Harry's later groups still are around, as are the 3 parts of ONE. They all serve a purpose-faeries or whatever. And for Harry to say he approved of Don but didn't like how he did it=what would he or anyone else have done???

A very important point here--you quote Dorr as saying the issue was settled. But there are people at ONE Institute today, who know nothing of any of the 3 people or legal dispute, who still claim that our material is theirs, including John O'Brien. They should do their homework.

The main reason for HIC to continue is to keep Don Slater's work and thinking alive, as it is the best in the field. And Dorr was right, ONE was good as it stayed out of politics-Morris Kight is glad of course-religion, even social clubs, etc.

Gittings was right: Dorr stopped reaching out and ONE Institute today still is not reaching and using the material they have. But Kameny is wrong— ONE has affected the movement and thinking more than any one other goop. He merely concentrated on the federal issue and they did on the psychiatrists, but we talked at conferences of psychologists, etc. too. We too were on tv shows, radio shows, Don wrote opinions for the 2 L. A. papers.

And while I don't remember hearing the phrase, Dorr was right in that our enemies were the 4 horsemen, church, legal, social and sciences. Kameny had to fight laws, and science which said we were sick and criminal, but ONE did too, as did Hal Call, etc. We still have to get rid of religions that attack us, and remaining reparative psychologists, etc.

(I would change or delete some of Joe Hansen's biography of Don (A Few Doors West of Hope) including the part about Dorr using black partners.) But Joe and Jane did much for HIC.

I share the feeling of Lisa Ben, in being happy to have a home in my old age, and I just wish I could have contact with Edith, Stella, et al and want them to get the honor they deserve. Why was she aware of the possibility of communicating with a publication, and no other women? I hope we have a copy of her record.

Kepner's part is the major part of ONE Institute, I think, although they stole some of our material, and even tried to claim our Dale Jennings material, even though he died only long after the separation and left his work to HIC. Again, Jim Schneider did most of the work-with Gus and family-to get 909 W Adams ready for use, and he kept Dale in his last years, and deserves great credit. The same thing applies to those in San Francisco who helped harry and no help John.

I have always been concerned that neither Dorr nor Kepner ever mentions HIC to visitors, and that showed a problem that lasted, even though they both did work with HIC, such as book reviews, etc. People visited Kepner's place on Hollywood bl d and never knew we were a few blocks down the street. We always told visitors about Dorr and Kepner.

I of course have now read the Sears book on Hal Call (Behind the Mask of Mattachine), and it agrees with Kepner's thought that Hal had a problem with sexuality, so he acted to try to overcome it. I didn't see it and liked him of course.

Kepner was right, and should have supported don-which he didn't do nd in fact hurt us as he advised Chet Sampson to stick with Dorr as we would fail in a few weeks, they were on the tour in Europe-as he knew how devious Dorr was when he kept the IRS letter secret from Jim even though it was a legal problem for Jim and ONE. I lied that Jim was a gadfly and worked with many groups. His library is a great legacy for our community. I am just sorry he suffered trying to do Pursuit and Symposium.

I'm running out of time and patience, so will close and o more later. But again Kepner was right:"Hal's sexual attitudes reflected his poor self-image." Again, thank goodness Hal, Don etc found the desire to work in the movement, even though he hurt Harry in taking over Mattachine, he was right. And Hal's concentration on P.R. and the Review proves that we were right that the magazine was important.

Homosexuality and the Law, book by Chuck Stewart

I was surprised a day or two ago  in the Broadmoor (Shreveport LA) library to see on a desk a copy of the book, Homosexuality and the Law, a Dictionary, by Chuck Stewart, published in 2001 by ABC-CLIO, (Contemporary Legal Issues series) at 130 Cremona Ave, PO Box 1911, Santa Barbara CA  93116-1191.

It is a well done book, of about 430 pages, alphabetical on topics of homosexuality.  Obviously I feel that his short view of the history of the movement is slanted since he apparently never mentions Don Slater or the Homosexual Information Center and seems to list a few people but does not list such founders as Dale Jennings.

Here are a few of my thoughts and to show that he does find space for a comprehensive coverage, even though he seems to duplicate certain issues and people, such as marriage seems to be covered several places, but of course now this seems to be a good thing.

He covers Harry Hay 3 times, Jim Kepner once, and Dorr Legg once.  He mentions twice or more the ONE Inc. v. Oleson court case (over publishing material about homosexuality-ONE Magazine in this case) but never mentions Eric Julber who never seems to get credit for the successful work he did.

I know my notes are not good, but it is important to point out that he mentions ISHR dba ONE, Inc., which of course was not true. They were separate then, if not now.

He covers history such as Ulrich in Germany, Hirschfeld, the 1934 Roehm Brown Shirt issue, and that 50,000 homosexuals died in the Holocaust.

He starts the movement with Henry Gerber in 1924, and says there were 10,000 discharges for sex in World War II.  He gives credit to the Kinsey books (1948 men and 1950 women) and then to Cory’s book in 1951.

He mentions ONE about 5 times, as an organization, as he does Mattachine, and then goes from the main work, in Southern California, to cover Mattachine in New York, mentioning Tony Segura, The League, Sam Morford, and how they were conservative, as were people in L.A., then mentions Frank Kameny and the Daughters of Bilitis (DOB), and how they picketed back East, as if we had not picketed in L.A and San Francisco and SIR had not done great work with/against the police etc.  I don't think he mentions Hal Call’s Mattachine work, or Don Lucas.  He does mention Dr. Evelyn Hooker.

He covers Stonewall in 1969, mentioning Michale Brown, and Dick Leitsch, only because of Dick's not liking the Stonewall coverage.  Then the founding of the GLF and GAA in 1960.  He then points out that by 1973 there were over 1,000 groups working for the cause, mentioning by 1984 the Project 10 work with young people.

If later it is listed, he does not give importance to the changing of the sodomy law in Illinois, yet covers Romer v Evans and 1998 Clinton issues.

He mentions work with young homosexual students and some education issues but in a list of court cases or legal issues does not mention the Donald Odorizzi case, but does mention 1969 Morrison v Board of Education case. I had never heard, although he credits Katz with it, that Harry Hay had met Champ Simmons who had been connected with Henry Gerber, and says Harry was at USC. BUT the most important problem I find is that he always refers to ONE Magazine as One Newsletter!  How could anyone make such a obvious mistake?  He also says that ONE “absorbed” Mattachine.

He covers  the HRC in 1980 and the Task Force in 1973. He spells Dorr’s name Door and confuses me on the issue of ONE and IGLA.  He apparently used Blumenfeld and Gay Almanac as his only resources for much on ONE.  I got the impression that he says Jim Kepner led mattachine.  He does mention Fred Snyder, the attorney.

He does cover a subject dear to Don Slater’s heart, the question of whether homosexual citizens are a “suspect class.”  And it seems a good coverage. One point he makes that I liked was that in the issue of homosexuality there is the question/problem of listening to the testimony of scientists versus the moralists.  He uses Walter Williams’s book, The Spirit and the Flesh.

He covers state and local laws.  (Sex, marriage, hate crimes, etc.)  He gives mention of the Tulane University Law publication, and resources such as www.gaylaw.email.unc.edu, nlgla@aol.com, queerlaw@abacus.oxy.edu, gjgl@law.Georgetown.edu, and, for instance, a contact in states, such as in Louisiana, the Civil Rights work at P O Box 3776, Baton Rouge  LA  70821, phone 504, now 225-342-2700—I didn’t test to see if that is still valid. I wonder how much coverage this book and others by the publisher get.  I was glad to see it in the library here. I find articles or mention of several people, as this man, that were or are connected with USC.  I just wonder if they all know each other, etc.