NOT a good example....

In a message dated 9/1/2007 11:36:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Ron Tate wrote:

Before we close this ‘fairy’ tale story that everyone lived happily ever after, much of the great accomplishments you mention are in Southern California and big cities like New York, Seattle, San Francisco, New Orleans. However, if you insulate yourself in these gay havens, you are leaving out a large part of the U.S., i.e., the South, the Midwest and mid-America. Go to those smaller cities and towns and try dancing with another man in a western bar or holding hands at MacDonald's or your local Baptist church. There is still much to be accomplished. There is more to life than just Los Angeles and the liberal Hollywood crowd.

Later in that day, Aristie Laurent replied:

But billy does live in some small town in upper redneck louisiana (let's just say boogaloosa) .... should he, therefore, be having sex in a public men's room??? should he not expect to be busted if he does it long enough? should he blame society if he does get busted??? or should he work to change the law and allow anyone, hetero or homo, to f&%k on the floor of public restrooms while daddies and their kids step over them? if not, move to L.A. where you'll most likely still be busted if you have sex in a public toilet but, at least, you can dance with each other at Disneyland after the arraignment.

But I content that I am not a good example. I came here to Louisana after my sexually active days, so I doubt I challenge anyone-most people seem to see me coming and instead of thinking I have a gay walk, they obviously see I'm an old man struggling to walk, and hold doors open for me, etc. I am no threat. I'm not sure about the two local gay bars—but I assume people do hook up there, but I worry that one has drugs around it—the security guard is worthless. There were arrests in a park along Red River, but there had been real complaints from the public, including families with kids coming upon two men having sex. And after one series of arrests, publicized in the paper and on tv, men still went there so a few months later there were MORE arrests. Again, were these Senator Craig types who couldn't go home with the person—didn't trust them—or what?

And there is a PFLAG group here with little support and a political group-non-partisan, which has been written up in the paper and still gets little support. The local social club, Krewe of Apollo, which costs lots to join and members spend hundreds of dollars on costumes for the Mardi Gras ball, gets lots of support. Frustrating. But I can tell you that life here is easier today than in the 40s when I was here, racially more so than sexually. Blacks were terrorized by the cops, the newspapers, etc. I didn't know of any coverage of sex, and then I left in 1950 for LSU and did a few visits to Dixie's in New Orleans, and had sex at LSU, then in 55 went to the army, and had sex, then to L. A. The irony is that like me, the front page of the local paper tells us that a local football player had the same dream (of going to L. A.) and now is USC's leading football player, but he loves Southern California, just as I did and do. And he sees celebrities, some even seek him out, and yet there are more and more movies being made here-he had a conversation with Ashton Kushner over where to eat in Shreveport, since Ashton had made a movie here and knew the places.

So we can live one place and visit another and so we can just play life as it comes, where ever we are.

What can a thinking homosexual say about Senator Craig’s Arrest?

There may still be more information to come, but it is just too easy for homosexuals, who have suffered from the votes and words of Idaho's Sen. Craig, to jump for joy and have a "gay" old time with his fall, his hypocrisy having been exposed as has happened to several "conservative" Republicans.
 
But shouldn't we ask ourselves, if he should have been arrested? What have we been working to stop since the 1950s? Of course what we should ask Senator Craig is,"do you think the arrest would have been valid if the person arrested WAS gay?" And in a complete change from what happened in Idaho (Boise) years ago, the local newspaper seems to have been on "our" side. 
 
But has anyone looked into the person who made the arrest? What record does he have? How long had he spent in that restroom? What law was broken? What is "lewd" conduct, and if the individuals involved had not had a sex act there but had gone to a private room, again, what law would have been broken?
 
Sure it could not have happened to a more "deserving" person, but what if YOU had been the person arrested, or some one you loved? Since 1952 (remember the arrest of Dale Jennings that put early Mattachine on the map?) when the idea of a magazine about homosexuality got started the "news" in ONE Magazine was about every city that had constant raids on gay bars and cops making arrests of mostly male homosexuals seeking a sex partner, or sometimes even kissing in public. We put out a card telling people what to do when arrested, and had 24 hour answering services to help people arrestred, etc. Now that our cause had made such great progress, thanks to a minority of homosexuals and a growing minority of heterosexuals who believe in civil/equal rights, we can not now change our objection to such an arrest just because the person involved in a "bad" person.
 
What we must do is use this "discussion" to further educate sincere Americans who still do not understand how we have been misused by law enforcement agents, bigoted psychiatrists—who can testify against us in court and help parents send their homosexual children to a "camp" to "change them"—and the lazy media people who still have no clue as to the real issues of homosexuality and will never make the effort to find out if they only hear from "professional' gays who seek celebrity and lots of money for being gays.

The Death of Elvis and TV This Month

I wonder how many people, and of what age groups, have been hearing and seeing Elvis on many TV shows this month? I gather in memory of his death. And if the older people who grew up on his music and remember how he changed music have thought about this in relation to music and politics and religion today. And if they realize, as I believe, that Elvis and Mattachine/ONE and Playboy affected this nation in a major way.  Below are some mixed thoughts, in no order, but I believe are important for anyone trying to understand where America is today in viewing music, sexuality and even religion.
 
First, do people remember how much the religious nuts and politicians and in fact lots of "artists" attacked Elvis? Watching the upbeat shows made at the time, showing his concerts, and some personal life ignore the constant harassment in the early days he got from white people in the south over his singing black music, shaking his booty, etc. Some DJ's actually broke his records, as people still burn books, as if that will hold back the tide of history.
 
I think we can compare Elvis and his world wide popularity as a major event in history, but it is in a way the same as saying that he was rock and roll's Stonewall. Think about it. There were, we now know, major black artists/singers who did the same thing as Elvis, as he acknowledged and honored. But it took Elvis to get on tv and get the music to all groups of people, and the media was willing to support him where they had not supported earlier black artists. And again, not many tv shows show the terrible hardships black artists had to suffer, not only in the south, but even in las Vegas, to do what they wanted to do, just sing and entertain people.

And history has to give credit to ONE Magazine, and Playboy, for getting the legal right to publish about sexuality. There had been Kinsey before, and others, but perhaps it was just the time that was ready, but ONE's U.S. Supreme Court victory, as Playboy's, changed publishing forever. But it took Stonewall for the media to finally get to covering our movement/cause. (And don't forget the problems Playboy had with distribution, censorship, etc.)
 
So any history classes in any university that tries to cover America since the 50s has to give space to ON, Playboy and Elvis. And when we hear religious nuts still attacking homosexuals today, we must remember that their ignorance is the same as the ignorance of earlier "religious" people when they used the Bible to support slavery, racial segregation, hatred for Jews, hatred for homosexuals, prohibition, and most of the bad things that have happened in America on our way to being the nation envisioned by the founders of equal/ civil rights for everyone.

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.


Review of Current Gay and Lesbian Review Worldwide

Letter to editor sent to Richard Schneider
Aug. 23, 2007

I spent a great evening reading the current (Se/Oct) issue of GLR and of course liked it very much.  I admit I read reviews and watch them on C-SAN more than I read books, but there are a few I learn about that I do seek to read.  I will skip over the articles, I am not interested in Tennessee Williams, or Trans issues, but did find Walter Williams’s article on the Buddhist conference good, and the discussion of ads in old ladies magazines, and agree with Edward White's thoughts on the pc gays censoring the Gendercator thing.
 
I liked very much the thoughts in the review of what I consider a very important "issue/book" David Pitts/ Jack & Lem.  The review by Ian Young is good, but it for the first time made me wonder something—we keep talking about how the Kennedy family thought of the relationship, what did the Billings family think????
 
The review of Marcia Gallo's book, Different Daughters, by Vernon Rosario is excellent—it does a good objective job but shows insight that many people would not have had. I would like to have his thoughts on the Sears book on Hal Call/Mattachine. I would hope he would be equally as objective when he/if he sees the Todd White book covering the other of the three major early homosexual organizations/publications. 
 
I have not seen the book on Jack Nichols, but the thoughts on it by Burr sound right and may be generic to most of our movement/cause's pioneers, as is seen in the Gallo book and Sears book.
 
I can't remember where in the issue something said reminded me of a distinction that Dorr Legg seems to have made that we ignored too long before the division of ONE.  He made a point about a question of why ONE was not worried about the government trying to get our mailing list-and I even now can't understand why he thought0 this way-but he said some organization's mailing list MAY be vulnerable, but ours was a publication list and was protected.  I wonder if Eric (Julber) had said this or why he thought it-there had been an attempt by the government I think to get a list of members of some group-maybe the NAACP.  But this sure made his later arguments about the priorities of ONE strange since he by this thinking said we WERE mainly a magazine, which of course we started out as, there was ONLY the magazine at first.  But reviewers of our history will not see all these perhaps small, but relevant issues that did cause internal differences even among even good people.
 
I might also point out, since I'm reading back issues of ONE and Tangents for another reason, that it seems to me that we got it right all those 40 or so years ago, and that is that the parts of ONE most people thought were the most important, were NOT, and the "news" and letters to the editor, and even the ads, now in 2007 seem to me to be of more importance to those seeking to learn how life was in the ’50s to ’70s when we published.
 
And finally I am encouraged by all the events listed on your "Bulleting Board."  You and your co-workers are doing a great service for our community and for non-homosexuals who seek to understand the issues and our community.

Warning to Democratic Politicians from One Homosexual

Saturday, Aug. 18, 11:30 AM

Watching parts of the "event" on LOGO in which some "representatives" for the gay/lesbian community asked questions of some Democratic presidential candidates, I was frustrated in 2007 as much as I was in the 1960s when the founders of our movement started to seek equal/civil rights.  That is a sad thought, that after all these years there is as much ignorance IN the community as there is out of it.  Such ignorance is as bad for pro-gay people as it is for anti-gay people.
 
But such ignorance can be deadly to some candidate hoping to win an election with the votes of homosexual citizens when the people that were "representing" us on that panel were as ignorant and unrepresentative of our community as apparently the politicians are.  The obvious question is, what criteria do politicians use in deciding who they decide speaks for the homosexual community.  That community  may differ from the left-wing "gay" community and from the views of a select few "leaders" who are paid lots of money to claim to know how all homosexual people think and vote.
 
You believe them at your peril.  While  Republicans just ignore all in our community, this question of who do you believe in the homosexual community may turn out to get them the White House again if the Democratic candidates trust the wrong people.
 
Only one example shows how ignorant and arrogant the people on that panel were.  Once again, after many days of time to check and be sure they are right, again Governor Richardson was attacked for using a word on the Imus show that these "experts" claim was a negative word for homosexuals: maricon.  I personally sent out an email to the media pointing out that while meanings vary not only in part of America, but within the Hispanic community on some words, no one is allowed to force their belief on everyone else.  Specifically, Richardson does not have to apologize or "explain" his use of the term maricon as meaning effeminate.  He is right for some Hispanics.  The evidence is in a place that certainly has not reason to have an agenda on this issue.  It is in a 1964 issue of ONE Magazine, at that time the first homosexual public publication in the nation and the primary one.  In an article on homosexuality in Latin America we reported, rightly or wrongly, that in Venezuela the term maricon meant effeminate.  The term used for gay/homosexual was puto—duck, and it was thought the reason was that we "walk like a duck."
 
Now that does not prove that all Hispanics use the word that way, but SOME did and or do. And a thinking person would thus not make an issue of the "correct" meaning of the word from now on.  A similar example in the early homosexual movement was with the research of Dr. Evelyn Hooker.  She set out to test the idea that all homosexuals are mentally ill, and her research proved that professional people could not determine who among 2 sets of people were or were not homosexual or mentally ill.  As I recall  she said, well, if someone tells you that all cows are brown, and you discover cows that are black, you have proven that not all cows are brown.
 
The question is why well-paid gay experts from HRC, GLAAD, etc., decide that they alone can say what term everyone in the community should use.  What research exists to "prove" that homosexuality does not have an element of choice?  Does this mean that queers go around asking for sympathy because they "can't help it because they  are this way," or "that their mommy made them this way? " That sure doesn't sound "gay" to me.  So who gave anyone the right to say the media can ONLY use the word gay, or orientation-as opposed to proclivity or preference?  Who would tell left-handed people how they must talk or feel or vote?
 
And who says that ALL homosexuals are in favor of marriage-I would urge the HRC and other "experts" to seek the information available to us since the ’50s and know that some are not interested and that included some of the founders, such as Don Slater, and today there exist organizations giving other views on marriage—have the ever even seen a copy of Gayellow Pages, much less ONE Magazine?  And some founders, again including Don Slater, opposed hate crime laws.  Don Slater was homosexual before it was cool.  He took risks and didn't make money being "gay."  And he didn't even use the word gay as a noun, much less "gays."
 
The fact is that from the time in America when politicians and the media refused to "hear" the voice of homosexuals when Mattachine and ONE started in 1950/52, and many "gays" were deep in the closet and even opposed starting an effort to change views on the subject and the laws against us, we slowly gained more people coming out and more and more politicians and family members who saw the discrimination against us and each decade has seen more and more such people.  But there still exist today closeted homosexuals who oppose reality and seek to find terms and excuses to hide their discomfort with being homosexual-a sad fact the bigoted ex-gay people and rightwing religious people exploit. 
 
 No president  can change this situation one way or the other.  But I warn you that from the ’60s on most homosexuals have tried to learn about sexuality, stopped believing that they are criminals, sick, or sinful, and they are not going to follow celebrity "gays" no matter how much publicity the media gives them, and they will vote as do most citizens, and that means that they do not seek special rights or laws, only equal/civil rights.  And any person listening to professional gays and leftwinger nuts will not be hearing the voice of the 10% of this nation that is homosexual and our families and friends and will lose more votes than they gain by going to extremes, right or left.
 
We are not "one issue" people, and you are able to honestly say you oppose same sex marriage, or as Don Slater says, look at it as a gender issue, or quote the Ninth Amendment saying the government was not given the right to control our private lives, and this not not make you anti-gay, if you support our efforts in other areas, such as: that no matter what your view on the war in Iraq is, homosexual Americans have the right to serve their nation in the military equally, as President Truman said about black Americans in 1948.  A good American, politician or average citizen has only to practice the fairness the nation's founders envisioned, even while making temporary compromises such as slavery, limiting who could vote, etc.  We need to arrive at a time when no  employer has to be forced by law to treat all employees fairly/equally.  And why is not a crime a crime, no matter who the victim is?  Your actions and life should be such that, as many religions say, you have thus told us what you believe.  If some "gays" are still so ignorant that they don't understand this, I am sure that most homosexual voters, like the majority of American voters do.

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.