Tangents (magazine), reborn, as good as ever

The reborn Tangents is as good under the new editor and writers as it ever was.  Don Slater and other editors would be proud of this issue (Vol V, #1, Spring 2014).

The editorial says why we need to continue the work of ONE/IGLA/HIC.  The memorial to co-founder Jim Schneider tells how we struggled to continue the work after the loss of the main one who inspired us, Don Slater.

The article on Jim Kepner and his Little Blue Books is a good explanation of how an archive works.  My review of Tracy Baim’s “history of the gay press” (Gay Press, Gay Power) explains how the history has been preserved by our community media.

There is a strange and interesting “exchange of views of our history and thinking” in the two separate yet almost conversational essays between Stephanie Donald’s memory of Jack Nichols and Craig Schoonmaker’s memory of the movement and his views on terminology—and it seems to me this discussion is as alive today as it was in the era discussed.

Listen to the views on marriage of Jack and Craig.  “Jack’s work on gay rights was hard work for full equality.  Marriage equality was never a consideration for him because he felt that getting married, at least for men (and he felt for women, too, but  thought the ‘nesting instinct’ was harder to break in the females) was taking the ‘sexual’ out of ‘homosexual’ and forcing gay rights into heterosexual assimilation, which would destroy gay and lesbian history and culture.”  While, in a sense, Don Slater would say some of this, he did NOT agree that we had a culture—and did not want us in a ghetto.  

But, here is Craig:  “I can say, however, that I am hostile to some of the notions of people who fought not for openness but for ‘privacy’ (shame) and who advocated the silly notion that homosexuality is only a point on a ‘continuum’ and related notions that we must not narrow ourselves to gay—only but must always see ourselves first and foremost as ‘human’.”  Again, Don would not agree with most of his thinking.  We never understood why people could not grasp the obvious need to protect our privacy—something now heard when discussing the government listening to our cell phone and email discussions.  Why would asking for privacy mean we are ashamed?

As to terminology, Craig says the word “queer” is bad, yet many young LGBT people say it is better than a long list of letters.  But the issue is alive and was an article in The New York Times in the last week or two—saying only the word gay is acceptable.

So reading Tangents is reading what is in the current discussion of issues of homosexuality.

So the Homosexual Information Center is continuing its work of preserving history but also speaking to today's issues.  Again, the pioneers of this movement would be eagerly reading this issue and joining the discussion.

I did not “know” many co-workers in the cause

Morning thoughts inspired by Stephanie Donald:

There were, thankfully, many even early workers in our cause that I did not know or know well.  Those more interested in the spiritual side I did not know because I was not interested in that—not that I opposed it.

Some of them worked with Harry Hay, and it is worth pointing out that they knew and worked closely with Harry, and John Burnside, and “saw” him in a way I did not.  We worked with Harry and visited with him and saw another side—such as going to Renaissance Faires, living in San Juan Pueblo.  Yet the side of Harry they saw did not conflict with the side I saw, as they shared the spiritual interest with him I was not interested in. 

That may explain why a few people I did not like, or appreciate: they were interested in an aspect I was not.  I knew I did not have time to get involved in all aspects.  Some did, such as Jim Kepner, though mostly he wanted to know what others were doing, knowing it was history.  But he tried to write/support ONE, Advocate, etc.  Others thought getting into politics would be a good way to educate on our issues.  Some kept pushing in their church.  And some, including our own Jim Schneider, pushed law issues—he got attorneys to defend school teachers, etc.

(That interest in pushing to use the courts to get “justice” he shared with Don Slater.  They both did it on issues other than sexuality.  Jim (Schneider) fought over the government’s taking his land (eminent domain to put in a parking lot for the school).  Jim Kepner made it into a book; the house was moved to Commerce where it remains. Don Slater fought the city over trying to dictate use of houses in his district—historic, Carroll Street/Echo Park.  And cutting back his shrubbery—they caved in when he pointed out they were not trying to make others cut their’s back.  (The house is on a corner lot and could make it hard for drivers to see—at least that was the argument.)  At the house in CO, he fought an increase in property taxes—and won, and fought the attempt to make him pay for part of an irrigation ditch expansion when the man doing the work had ignored him-since he was “an absentee owner.”  He won.

It was such stubbornness that made him such a good activist.  But which made a few fellow activists not like him and misunderstand him.  And his sense of humor was misunderstood—he would play devil’s advocate or argue something he did not believe in order to “educate” the issue—summed up in what I have learned to be important in any effort: watch out for unintended consequences.

A question from M Cherry: What was Don Slater and Jim Kepner's relationship like?

The relationship among Dorr Legg, Don Slater, and Jim Kepner was beneficial to the movement but, mainly due to Dorr, constantly caused frustration. He of course got Jim upset when he told him to say ONE was tax-exempt when it was not, and that is the final straw—at the time-that made Jim quit because he felt personally vulnerable if the IRS accused him of false claims. I don't recall—as I was not there—the relationship on the magazine, but think it was ok.  

The main issue Don had with Jim was that he was trying to be in ALL groups, which I don't think was a bad thing, but then Jim made what I think was his worst mistake when the separation came in 1965.

Jim was leading the ONE European tour, and Rudi Steinert was on it as was the man behind the tours, Chet Sampson. Dorr had promised Rudi Don could use his proxy in voting at the annual business meeting/Winter event. As Chair, he then refused to allow it.  I am not sure if Sampson was a voting member or if someone had his proxy.

But Kepner was called about our moving the office, and told told Chet, Rudi, et al. to support Dorr, as Don would not be successful. I always felt that this was nuts since he had had more problems with Dorr’s imperious attitude than anyone.

History shows that legally Don won, but both factions kept going, and both continued to contribute to the cause.

Jim eventually, as in fact Dorr did, worked with Don, doing book reviews, etc. (Jim and Dorr refused to work on the NACHO military protest in 1966. We did the Motorcade—but for different reasons, and of course Morris Kight didn’t participate either.

We think Jim removed some books when he visited our Tangents office, but he had contributed many books to ONE, and since we had acquired most of the library, I doubt that made much difference—we think most of the material Dorr had when he died was really Jim’s, as the two libraries joined—thus ONE/IGLA and, for a brief time, ONE/IGLA/HIC.

I don’t seem t have much of Jim’s material—he published a newsletter in the 1990s, Jim Kepner’s Song & Dance, and of course he went broke and lost his home publishing Pursuit & Symposium magazine. I think his politics differed—but so did mine. He added to our work and was interested in aspects Don & Dorr were not.  He of course worked on ONE Institute Quarterly, which had the same problems I think the few current LGBT academic publications have—they are unreadable and on obscure topics on no general concern.

Letter from Don Slater, from Dec. 1990

Historians are talking on C-SPAN about how much harder learning history will be now that people no longer write letters.  So I thought I would share one, not important, letter Don Slater wrote to me here in LA while he was working in L. A.  It may be interesting if someone wants to know what he thought at the time of Stuart Timmons’ book on Harry Hay. (Or Troy Perry.) This letter was received on Dec. 3, 1990

Yes.  I wrote some time ago that Stuart Timmons' book about Harry, The Trouble With Harry Hay, had been published by Alyson. We got 2 review copies: 1 from Alyson via Timmons, and 1 from Dale Jennings who had been given a copy by Timmons here in the house when I had them over to meet. Martin, of course, is keeping the review copy we have given him, but I haven't seen the review yet. The book in my opinion is quite good. But unfortunately loaded with unimportant errors—all the result of Timmons’ relying almost exclusively on Kepner for his peripheral information. He had interviewed me a couple of times, but always for confirmation of what others had told him. I explained that I wasn’t going to second-guess, Jim or anyone else. If he wanted information about me or you, or the work we did, etc. I would have talked more to him. For instance, although it is not bad, most of the small bit about our break-up with ONE came from either Bill or Jim-or maybe both. And I said, okay, if those are your sources let it be. Everybody is mentioned including Tony (incorrectly),  me (incorrectly), no mention of our Committee to Fight Exclusion of Homosexuals from the Armed Forces, at least by name (which is strange considering that Harry was our head), no mention of you, and Dale wants to sue because he feels he’s been misrepresented. He has even consulted Herb Selwyn. But I say a suit would be the best thing that could happen to the book; I say this even thought I am basically in favor of it.  I can assure you, it was not easy for Stuart to deal with a living Harry Hay and all of the rest of the prima donnas still living. With all its errors the book is the best thing yet, and it should be allowed to die it own death; it doesn't need to be prodded. 

My fight at the moment is trying to get a review copy of the new biography of Troy Perry.  Jim and everyone else has it, but Troy sent me a formal note saying I would have to contact St. Martin’s Press if I wanted a copy. The whole tone of the note was distant. I want Chas. to review it in the same issue of the newsletter with Martin’s review of Harry, but I have a feeling that Troy may be afraid Charles will trash it since he ghosted the first biography as you know, and is not too happy with Troy who refused to give him any royalty. 

I will be writing to Karyn Schacter. But I can’t imagine a high school student is doing any serious “research,” as you call it.  She’s probably doing a school paper that’s all. You are wrong about Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund. They send us things all the time, and always addressed to you. In fact, a lot of material coming to the box is in your name so it is likely that some directory or other lists us there with you as secretary. This is fine except large packages I can’t get if I go on Sundays, and United Parcel will not deliver to a PO Box so some things get sent back, I imagine because I never get them even when I phone, and ask that they be forwarded to the house. 

Yes, we get the Gay & Les. Hist. Co. Newsletter from SF. But I like the old cumbersome name better than the new one, and I haven’t seen your letter. However, I’m glad you are getting printed because despite the length of time you’ve been in the movm’t you're still generally unknown. 

Don 

A Question About One Magazine

David Williams of the Williams-Nichols Collection at the University of Louisville asks:

From May to at least August 1965 there were two different versions of One Magazine.  One was edited by Don Slater and the other by Richard Conger. We have both versions of the magazine during that time. My question is, how long were the two different versions published? Did it end in August 1965, or were there different editions in  September, October, and perhaps November 1965?

Our reply:

Hello David!

Thank you so much for contacting us on this question.

When ONE, Inc. divided in the spring of 1965, Don Slater and company moved the entire operation to a new location. Even though Slater had emptied ONE’s office completely, Dorr Legg (as “Richard Conger”) was still able to continue to produce and distribute ONE Magazine (much, of course, to Slater’s dismay). Legg said that he had committed ONE’s mailing list to memory, but that's just silly. My best guess is that Legg anticipated some sort of brash act by Slater (Legg, it seems, was moving to kill ONE magazine entirely in order to grow his Institute) and had managed to have a copy of the list secured off site. (ONE’s mailing list was a highly coveted and much protected, so this is actually a very big deal, a confession Legg could never publicly make).

Soon after the division, a judge determined that Legg would keep the office and rights to the name ONE, Inc. Slater retained his materials but had to stop doing business as or representing himself as ONE. This was to be a tentative arrangement, but even after Legg continued his fruitless and expensive lawsuit against Slater for two more years, this is how things remained. 

You will find that the content of the two first dual issues is similar to identical. Some of the work was by Joe Hansen, who was devoted to Slater and would never have consented to have his work printed in Legg’s magazine, yet there it was. How Legg obtained that content remains a total mystery to me.

You can see the four covers of Slater’s magazine (clearly subtitled “The Homosexual Viewpoint” here.

I have started to post content, but work is proceeding slowly since I can only do this on a voluntary basis at the moment. As you can see, the magazine changed its name to Tangents in October, 1965. This, in a way, makes Tangents the “true” continuation of ONE magazine, with a great majority of ONE’s editorial and writing staff continuing on in this new venue. The July issue of ONE features a play on the male/female symbols that was designed by Joe Hansen's wife, Jane, and remains HIC’s logo to this day.

I have been talking to several people about bringing Tangents back as a biannual newsletter, I hope becoming quarterly in time. I will keep you posted on the progress there as this could be happening very soon.

I hope this helps to clarify. The details of this can be found in my book, Pre-Gay L.A.: A Social History of the Movement for Homosexual Rights, published by the University of Illinois Press, if you are interested in learning more about this history. 

Best wishes,

Todd

C. Todd White, Ph.D.

Chair

Homosexual Information Center

http://www.tangentgroup.org

<todd@tangentgroup.org>

From Mary Ann in Los Angeles:

Mary Ann, from Los Angeles, writes:

Scroll down for a nice photo of Don Slater at the Barney's Beanery picket. 
I was surprised to see him there (well, to see a photo of him there) as my understanding was that he wasn't opposed to Irwin Held's constitutional right to have a sign in his establishment (you know, the Libertarian stand). Decent article, even if the facts are a little mixed up.

I hate you.  You confused me to my core.  I think I know how the Exodus man feels—if he is sincere.  To have what you believed for over 50 years challenged by a picture is NOT a gay feeling.

BUT, the fact was and is that Don Slater opposed the picketing.  He believed, as a conservative Republican and based on his personal faith and beliefs that the owner (of a private business) had a right to be wrong.  The answer was to educate him and NOT support his business.  (If taxpayers were involved, that was different.)

If that is truly a sign of him at the picketing, I can assure you his sign was not like the rest. I did not know he went there. I did not. We had enough work to do with the magazine and organization so did not take on every project, no matter how worthy. He did like—even though he worried about the idea of a ghetto church—Troy Perry and Morris Kight, even though we also did not agree with Morris’ EARLY idea that anyone showing up for a meeting had a right to vote.  That was one of Harry Hay’s ideas too as I recall.

What this article, I gather based on the death of one of the owners, does is force us to think about what the media and historians are finding of “importance” in our movement's history.  There is a new film about the fire at the gay bar in New Orleans.

Why, I ask, is it not just as important to have covered the picketing of the Los Angeles Times, by these same pioneers/activists?  It was successful in more ways than one.  Morris, Troy, Joe, Don, Melvin, I and others picketed, peacefully, at the newspaper when it refused an ad for a forgotten (I gather) play, The Geese, by a man later honored as a Louisiana celebrity, because it hadthe word homosexual in it.  There had first been a meeting with the paper’s representatives and ours.

The religion person at the paper (John Dart) came down and talked to Melvin and Troy.  He did not interview Melvin (Cain) as his church was not a “gay” church, but the writer decided Troy’s was, and his interview/ article went “viral” as it did in the old days-other papers reprinted it, and the MCC got publicity.

And the paper changed its policy. And later had the same problem with gay and lesbian.

I welcome any facts that differ from my history.  I have no contact with Troy or others still living, and have NO faith in what is said or claimed by people who were not there or got in the movement, say at ONE Archives, years later and have  only taken the time to learn/hear one biased version of “history.”

Sadly, that includes most “media” people.

Walter L. Williams' legacy

Karen Ocamb has written a wonderful article here.

I am glad I sent out my (unspell checked it turns out) email before reading Karen's excellent report.  It covered most of my concern.  I should say that many times before I have admitted that I was "present" and knew people and events and paid little attention and so missed perhaps important, relevant points.  So I am not surprised that I knew little of Walter Williams.

And as is pointed out, my view was affected by the dispute still going on between the two factions of ONE.  I do not think anyone currently at ONE Archives knows of the valid issues, then or now.

I do not believe  Hawkins' account, reprinted by Ocamb, of what happened when Don Slater died.  I never heard of him until years later. The person who DID tell this tale was John O'Brien.  It was a lie from start to finish.  Jim Schneider was with Tony Reyes when Don died and much time after.  He is the one who boxed up the material for storage so that Tony could sell the house (and move to the house in Colorado). While most of this time I was back in Louisiana, I WAS there at the time covered and at the memorial service, who else was???

The first point is the fact that I sat with Vern Bullough—as I had sat with Dorr Legg for a moment, a brief one, after the legal settlement, to voluntarily divide books—to start placing part of our part of the ONE collection with the library at Cal State, Northridge.  Nothing else had been done before that action.  No John O'Brien, and certainly no Hawkins.

Partly due to the effort, as we understood it, of Walter Williams, USC was giving a place for the ONE collection, which was mainly Jim Kepner's ILGA material.  And Jim, et al., approached us again to join the other two parts at 909 W. Adams.  There had been a previous address, and that I think is when Harry Hay et al. had been involved, and that location didn't work out, and so 909 W Adams was the place we were offered a separate room for our collection.

Once we moved in (and prior to that O'Brien had helped, but he then "helped himself" to, stole part of our material—he made a moral rather than a legal decision to take what he wanted) we discovered other workers at ONE were stealing our material. As they had refused to honor their pledge of a private room, we removed our materials. Some ONE people lied and tried to stop us moving our own material, which is now mainly at CSUN.

I never understood where Willliams was in this manipulation of HIC. I do not recall Harry Hay telling us not to move in, but Dale Jennings and Don Slater had told us not to.  But when Don died—and with the promise of our material being kept separate and under our control—we felt it was a good choice, as both Don and Dale (and now Todd White) had been USC graduates.

I do know for a fact that the 909 W. Adams facility would NOT have been ready for years, if ever, if John O'Brien had not left and Jim Schneider placed in charge.  He got USC to fulfill its promise to donate money and material to refinish the former fraternity building, and that is why I was in favor of placing the material there and we were there at the opening.

The cover of the June issue of OutSmart Magazine

While most media and people are waiting and worrying about what the Supreme Court is going to say about same-sex/equal marriage, intelligent (if that is not an oxymoron?) bigots should be afraid of the real world that is already here-they can see that in the faces of young glbt Americans such as are pictured in many of our community publications—such as on the COVER of (Houston’s) OutSmart Magazine’s June Pride issue.

And they can read about the people working for the cause, such as three Pride marshals, reported on inside the issue, as well as the many listings of ride events in Houston alone.

And for me, the many great ads for gay-friendly businesses proves that early movement co-founder and editor/journalist Don Slater was right: if we do our job right, we will force the government to give us our rights, but probably private enterprise/true conservatives will be the first segments of society to deal honestly with issues the right to privacy (see the Ninth Amendment) including our sexuality and understanding that our having civil rights benefits everyone. 

ENDA...

Paul Cain asks (referring to a comment in my last post):

“This the first time I’ve heard anyone say they DON'T want ENDA. Can you clarify?”

My reply:

Don Slater was doubtful of the very issues most movement people were working for: affirmative action, ENDA, etc.  He said that in the end the results would do more harm than good. Just passing a law does not change minds.  As we saw with Board of Education and Roe, in fact it might have delayed the results we wanted. Many black people said that due to affirmative action they were treated as if they didn’t really deserve the degree, or job, even though they could have been successful without affirmative action.  I am not sure the negative (you didn’t deserve getting into this college, you just got here because of your skin color, etc/) out did the positive (truly bigoted college bureaucrats could not let their bigotry keep deserving minorities out).

As I was told, LSU had refused black students—partly because Southern people had feared it would destroy it (the oldest and largest state black college in America, I think) but mainly because of bigoted state legislators.  Every white student graduate (I think) could go to LSU or a state university.  No black student could, no matter how qualified.  Didn’t some states actually pay for black students to go to colleges out-of-state?

Justice O’Conner said years ago that she voted to keep affirmative action, but it should not be needed 25 years after.  Colorado had affirmative action for businesses, which the Supreme Court ended. (We were in Dolores at the time of the decision, and Don said it was right—I think the company was nearby.)  In some cases where female or minority businesses were to get a certain amount of jobs, the companies would make a woman president, etc.  I think even in some cases companies that made a higher bid got the contract because they were able to do the job, and competitors were fake and could not.

As to ENDA, there is something to be said for making companies or any taxpayer-supported institution be truly equal.  But, as the court said in the Boy Scout case, a private entity should be allowed to decide for itself what it wanted to do. As we know, that was wrong in the case since many government agencies were supporting the scouts. (What ever happened to the San Diego case where they had use of a building?)

But forcing a bigot to hire someone or not fire them would not work, as they would simply fake a reason, as they now do in the case of the law supposedly protecting older workers. Now they refuse to hire anyone who might get older on the job as they could not then fire them if they had a valid reason for fear of being falsely accused of discrimination. And insurance companies, which businesses need, refuse to cover older workers, or charge them higher premiums, so that companies can’t afford to have older workers.

How laws help women (or not) I am not sure about. And it has always been a part of the anti-marriage special rights argument about benefits that married people, especially those with children, get benefits single workers do not.

It seems to me that businesses have been glbt supporters without laws. And if we can expose and hold anti-gay businesses accountable for bigotry, that will make them change more than a law.  We can’t seem to get  to Exxon, but that is what we need to do.

It could be that today Don Slater would not have the same concerns. But I am not sure, and we certainly should have this discussion in the community.

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

No evidence it mattered, but Don Slater connected with several people who had media coverage—including one on C-SPAN’s BookTV today

I was watching on BookTV today a repeat of an old interview with Gore Vidal.  Then on came a discussion of a book, and the author is Rev. Robert Sirico.  He even says in his speech that he had been involved with several movements including the gay rights movement.  He was discussing his book, Defining the Free Market, the moral case for free economy. He is founder of Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, and he met Don Slater during the decade after leaving the Catholic church as a young man in his 20s, and when he came back and became a Catholic Priest.  I don't remember what Don thought of his work.  But I’m sure our files have material about him.  My thought is that here is a person still affecting society that talked with Don—who knows what he thought then and now, but he at least knew Don’s thinking.

The same would apply to a psychologist, and I have no idea where she is today, but she appeared on talk shows, etc, and she and Don liked each other.  Her name is Irene Kassorla.  And who knows who read Don’s editorials when they appeared a few times in the Los Angeles Times and Herald Examiner.

The best part of working with Don Slater and others in the movement...

I have been trying to understand and deal with what is obvious—a generic issue—that young people don’t know the history of our nation or the movement go gain civil rights for homosexual (now GLBT) Americans.  I think that I don’t care for giving credit, but think that if they don’t know how much work had to be done then they might not know that they now have to do some more work, not just to keep what we have given them, but to keep it from being reversed.

Much time in ONE’s offices was spent, obviously, on practical things: putting together the next issue of the magazine, having committee meetings, doing the monthly lectures, preparing for the yearly business meeting, doing the banking, answering letters, etc.  BUT while we were doing these tasks, we also could talk and discuss things.  I don’t remember covering this issue, but it seems to me it will help us philosophically and emotionally to understand that, even though young people will not know or care what we have done, what the founders of the nation and this movement have done each succeeding generation, they have a right to enjoy the results. They can use the phone without knowing who injented it or how.

But there seems to me to be a valid reason for preserving the history of the nation and the movement. It is good to not worry about having the right to freedom of speech, press, etc. But if young people assume the rights came about with no work, and will always be there, they are mistaken.  That is why education is necessary.  I see TIME magazine is advertising you can get copies of the covers of their magazines, starting with the very first issue.  I’m not sure the covers of ONE magazine will tell people much—we didn’t have pictures of the current celebrities or events.  But a glance at the index, starting with the very first issue, will tell historians that we covered every issue of homosexuality that is being discussed today.  Since Lawrence vs. Texas, and the ending of DADT, perhaps some think we have nothing more to worry about.  But a glance at the local newspapers, while they still exist, will show that there are constant attacks on the same issues—some Republicans want to return DADT, and many law enforcement agents still try to arrest people for sex.

As Obama has said, and the Republicans have distorted, we are where we are because previous generations built roads, fought and died in wars, and gave us the Internet. As we enjoy the TV tonight, we are foolish if we don’t appreciate how good things are and want to work to keep them that way and make them even better for the next generations.

Harry Hay and Don Slater: Two Views on Homosexuality from Pioneer Friends and Parallels with the Tea Party and the Founders of America

If it is worthwhile and even important to try to learn how this nation was founded and who the founders were and how they thought about the government they were establishing (Constitution/Bill of Rights) then it is equally important for citizens to know how and why a movement was started go gain civil/equal rights for homosexual Americans, and who the founders were and what they thought about homosexuality.

This civil rights movement is easy to document, and primary sources still exist with a few of the founders and historical material of their work and ideas. 

Each year there are more books written about the founding of America and the founders.  But there has been no such historical interest in the founders of this movement, even though issues of homosexuality are in the pages of most newspapers, and on tv talk shows and in the halls of Congress.

Why is there no interest in knowing the people who started a movement that was successful in about 50 years and continues to add success each year, despite opposition from bigots?  In a few cases, people working in this movement also worked in the black or women’s civil rights movements, including Dr. King’s co-worker, Bayard Rustin.  It should be worth knowing how Harry Hay, Dale Jennings, et al., started, in secret, the first organization, Mattachine (the foundation) in 1950, during the worst of times, the McCarthy anti-communist era when homosexuality was “joined” with communism to gain political power.  The irony is that most of the founders had been Communists but were kicked out of the party because of their sexuality—and thus they started this movement which has thrived while the Communist Party has essentially died.  But it is important to know that after early Mattachine was so wildly successful, with meetings all over Los Angeles and then California, it was “killed” and was reborn (the Society)  by Hal Call, et al., in San Francisco, by conservatives.

But before this happened in 1953, part of the organization had separated in 1952 to become the public voice, and publish a magazine, and thus under conservatives (Don Slater, Dorr Legg, et al) was born the first homosexual magazine, ONE, social service organization, educational work-with classes (and ONE Institute and Quarterly), some of the first homosexual books (Homosexuals Today, Game of Fools) and public lectures and legal efforts (a lawsuit against the Post Office that went to, and was barely won in, the U. S. Supreme Court (1958).

Like a new current book on America’s founders,  Madison and Jefferson, in which we again learn how the founders were able to work together while having different views on how america should be governed, a book should be written about how the pioneers of this movement also worked together, while having different views on homosexuality, how to change society, etc.

The two major views were important because they were so different.  The first was that of Harry Hay, covered in an article in one of the major glbt publications trying to discuss serious issues, The Gay & Lesbian Review, of January/February, 2008).  The author, Douglas Sadownich (and Chris Kilbourne) make the point perfectly before writing a word, by quoting Harry himself:  “We are a separate people, with, in several measurable respects, a rather different window, a different consciousness which may be triggered into being by our sexuality.”  There can be no exaggeration of the importance of Harry, and his views still exist, and his work is added to in the current issue of the Review by a co-worker, Don Kilhefner, discussing another organization/work harry co-founded, the Radical Faeries.

This view was welcomed by closet cases and bigots since it fit the stereotype that we are different, exotic and not like the majority.  

The second view was that of the ONE founders, mainly Don Slater and Dorr Legg.  Their view was based partly on the work of Dr. Kinsey and Dr. Hooker.  They took the view that this is not a lifestyle but a sex act, and all we needed was the right to privacy and we didn’t care what others thought but they should not be allowed to vote about our civil rights, especially if they based their views on some religious doctrine.  And further, we did not want to be separate—it was only society that forced us to be a minority by passing laws against us.  (This is also the view taken by a decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in a Colorado case.)  We sought integration, not ghettos.

This is relevant to issues of the Tea Party people. What authority the government has over our personal lives is what the Constitution and Bill of Rights say.  Don Slater said the legal people should re-read the Ninth Amendment.

The one point that has to be made, to newly “out” people and young homosexual men and women, is that, whether or not  they know it or like it, how they live today is based on the work and views of both Harry Hay and Don Slater.  Even though they disagreed on what they both considered basic issues, they always worked together on the major efforts, and from the start to the day they died, they loved and admired each other.  And they worked; they didn’t sit in meetings talking about terminology and making up academic words and phrases such as “gay identity,” “deconstructionism,” “gay essentialism,” “social construction,” etc.

Our rights do not depend on why we are or if we could change; they are granted to us as individual citizens. It is time for Americans to stop trying to “understand” us but to understand why some people seem to hate us and have a personal interest in denying us our rights.

And our cause will continue to become even more successful if young people and citizens interested in all citizens having equal right join us.  It is strange to hear some young people be so skeptical of politics and the ability to gain our goals.  Some even think we have gotten everything we needed—full (or close enough) equality.  The facts don’t support this—as suicides and bar raids in 2010 prove.  And to those who think we have not made positive changes over the years, I suggest they get in a time machine and go back and live in 1950.  

I say the same thing to some Tea Party people who want to go back to yesterday, when their kind were so happy and gay.  That is because they were in control, a clear majority, and thus benefitted from the way things were.  Let them try living in 1950 as a black or a homosexual citizen—and to do without the technology we have today.

Homosexual citizens and Tea Party citizens actually have the same problem with government: it is too involved in our personal lives.

A Letter to the Botts Collection in Houston

Dear Larry Criscione:

I am happy, even gay, to hear from you and that you are working to save that material.  That you say some was harmed in the storm is an example of  what we have worried about all these years—as there have been at least a dozen (not all glbt) archives harmed by weather, fire, etc, or just general falling apart.

And your work is an example of why most of our lgbt archives/libraries have little time to communicate with each other.  We are working with the few volunteers we have.

In the discussion with other people, including those in Houston, we have for years tried to decide what the best answer is to how to preserve and USE the material we have that documents this civil rights movement, which since it only started in 1950 makes it easier than those of the women’s or black Americans’.

We at ONE/HIC, before the separation and after, were at first a magazine and educational organization but knew that while we were making history the library would be valuable long after we were gone.  And we hoped that other people and groups would join the work, which history shows they have done more than could have been dreamed.

We knew the best way would be to have control of our material, but that needed an endowment which we never got.  There was a tax-exempt part formed (ISHR) but its  money was, sadly, wasted over legal fighting.

After the deaths of the three main people at ONE, Dorr Legg, Don Slater, and Jim Kepner, there was an effort made to rejoin all the material that had  been saved by the then three separate parts of the original ONE.  Two, ONE (Legg) and IGLA (Kepner) joined and now still exist as ONE Archives which this month were donated to the USC Library.  We at the HIC (Slater) tried to rejoin but had again disagreements and have now placed our material at the library at Cal State Northridge, where it is safe-the library was rebuilt after an earthquake so is partly underground.

Another example of a collection that chose the same answer is the Tretter Collection at the University of Minnesota—which is hosting an exhibit of the collection this November, thus showing that one fear we had did not happen-that a library would not want to use the material.

Others have been able to get space from local glbt centers—such as in Philadelphia, (William Way) or have separate housing, such as in Chicago (Gerber Hart) or Fort Lauderdale (Stonewall) or Quatrefoil (Minneapolis/St Paul).  A Few own their own building—obviously needing much income—such as Lesbian Herstory in New York.

So we chose the middle way: the material is housed at a university, but we have some control and keep adding and can host events, etc.

The obvious problem you know well is that we still need community/movement support from the local glbt media and organizations to not only donate their material but urge support of their members.  Young people have to learn why our history is important.  That is why we need to reach lgbt organizations at the universities.  It is interesting that people will not donate to a library if they have to give through a church.  I would think MCC needs an archive itself.

Your work is important and is not done by any other part of our community/movement.  Supporting our work is no competition to the work of their groups, such as legal, religious, social service, etc.  We need to get people to understand this.  Hopefully college students will learn and join the work.  And people can give time when they retire.  So I think we will just have to work in the meantime.  So best wises and we can keep exchanging ideas and news.

We are individuals, perhaps more so than most heterosexuals-and a minority because society has made us all "one."

Regarding: John Duran on the De-’Outlawing’ of West Hollywood  (to Bill Kelly and Karen Ocamb):

Where did you find this wonderful letter?  It is perfect Don Slater thinking.  We have always had the extremes in the community/movement, but we must say no to the glbt Taliban that wants to make us like everhyone else.  And the idea that hetero families want to moved to a glbt area and then change it is no different from Muslims moving to America and then trying to force us to change to their Sharia law.

The more I think of the letter and the “issue,” the more complicated it gets with the two views of  founders—Harry Hay and Don Slater.  It seems to me that they would have the same view on this.  Yet their disagreed on the issue of integration versus being different-outsiders, the “canary in the mine”—seeing things first and differently because of our not being like heteros on the basic issue of sex.

You were right that it is a national-generic problem. To get people to like us, we are told to conform-which defeats the very purpose of the movement—according to Don Slater, the right of any American to his/her privacy.  It is no one else's business what we think or who we have sex with.  But it is interesting that in a sense “we” have taken over some parts of a city and made it a good place to live and then non-homosexuals see how good it is and move in and then try to force us to change to fit their views, which views didn't seem to make where they lived before as good as the way we made the area.  (Not sure how to say this better.)

But this is not a bigoted problem. The same thing, I was told long ago in some class—I think it was a sociology class on housing around Baton Rouge while we toured to see some of them—we tend to take our errors with us.  The example was many people being told, for medical reasons, to move to dry areas, especially Phoenix where the growth that gave them problems would not exist.  The people moved and soon started thinking the place would be “better” if it had a little greenery and started planting things like the place they came from.  Soon they had destroyed the very atmosphere they had moved to, making it as bad as the place they had moved from.

It is one thing for the community/movement to support those who seek the benefits of marriage.  But it wrong for those people to then use religion and societal approval (or disapproval) to say that ALL homosexuals should marry and conform.  That makes them like the Taliban—deciding what rules are best for everyone.  And killing those who disagree.

Arthur Laurents and Don Slater: You can be affected by and inspired by, someone you never knew

My thinking about the book I found accidentally, the autobiography of Arthur Laurents, titled, strangely, Original Story By, subtitled A memoir of Broadway and Hollywood, is proof to me that I was affected by the work of this man that I had never heard of. Yet he was working in “Hollywood” during the time I was working in Hollywood (both on Cahuenga Blvd. West across the freeway from Universal Studios and later ON Hollywood Blvd. in 2 places, 6715 and 6758.

He was working with rich and famous celebrities (actors/writers/directors) whose work reached millions in books and movies—and would today on the TV celebrity shows. We were reaching hundreds with a message that he personally needed. He wrote, and we wrote.

He reached millions, most of whom did not know who he was, but saw his work, on Broadway and in the movies. He seemed to know every famous person, and had sex with most, such as of course Farley Granger. We did a lot of talking about homosexuality—we were educational, not entertaining—but had little sex. The media did not find the work of the early people working for civil rights for homosexuals of interest, even that of the cute, sexy ones. So no one heard of Don Slater-even though his work appeared not only in ONE/Tangents Magazine but also in the pages of the Los Angeles Times, the Herald Examiner and our work was written up by Peter Bart in The New York Times, and his military work was covered briefly in Randy Shilts’s book, Conduct Unbecoming: Gay and Lesbian People and the Military, and later in the book of short biographies of pioneers edited by Vern Bullough, Before Stonewall, plus tv and radio talk shows (Joe Pyne, for instance, that day’s Rush Limbaugh?) and at college and church discussions. I was on Regis Philbin’s show, treated shabbily, and Louis Lomax’s, treated well, and a few others. As were Harry Hay and John Burnside. And so were people on the East Coast, making news, which Laurents doesn’t seem to have known about, as he dealt with his “issues.” But Judd Marmor was one of his consultants, and he worked with our movement too.

So I personally got much pleasure out of The Way We Were, and I did so then and now regardless of any “issues” Laurents had with the others who got the movie made. My overall feeling was and is that it is both a love story and how politics etc affect even those who love, and how things turn out. That was what I wondered then, and now at the age when I KNOW how things turned out. And the issues covered by the move, the black list, HUAC, applied not only to Laurents and his friends, but to our movement’s main co-founder, Harry Hay, so this all is the same even if the players never knew each other.

I feel America is better for the work of Laurents, even if we don’t know it, and that is true of the work of Don Slater.

Good and bad in current Washington Blade

The historic news that the Republican party's candidates for president and vice president have said they are gay-friendly is good, and I have suggested that people view the McCain interview in your publication, online.

You also did a good coverage of our community/movement loss of Del Martin. I have not seen coverage of the loss of John Burnside. But this is the time in our movement’s history, which essentially started in Los Angeles in 1950 with Harry Hay, Dale Jennings, et al. and early Mattachine, from which came the first public organization and publication, ONE Inc and ONE Magazine (Jan. 1953), and then a different Mattachine under Hal Call, and then Del and Phyllis and the Daughters of Bilitis, SIR, etc., when those who got us started are leaving us.

So it is good that Equality Forum and others are aware of just who did start this movement. The question is why they have not been able to cite the words of Don Slater, Jim Kepner, Stella Rush, or mention the history as recorded in the book Vern Bullough edited, Before Stonewall, or in Paul Cain's Leading the Parade, etc.

And my worry is that in your pages some of us see the major event of McCain's interview, but what your columnist seems to only see is that Palin, equally historic, says that terribly un-pc word: choice. In what world is that the most important word she said? How does an intelligent, objective person ignore the other words? And who gave your columnist the authority to decide technical issues such as what makes us homosexual or heterosexual, etc? That sure sounds just like the bigots, who come from the most ignorant part of society but, seem to personally know when life begins and want the authority to force the rest of us to let them make our choice-in other words we have no choice.

Perhaps serious homosexuals or gays should go back and read a few of the great articles in ONE Magazine and Tangents where the founders put forth their ideas, and then tell us why such ideas are wrong. That might be difficult of course, since those are the ideas that have got us to where we are today—which is a great place to most of us.

What really went on at the 1959 Denver Convention of Mattachine???

My memory is that I met Jim Kepner at ONE when I was at loose ends, and we talked over a coke (after meeting at ONE’s offices on Hill St. (I think that old elevator was on the Broadway side) in the Thrifty Drug across from Pershing Square. He said he was going to the convention. I decided to go—I must have had a car, but I went anyway. I wonder if there are any records of who signed up, any brochures if any? I know it got lots of publicity in the 2 papers-The Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News. I don't know if Jim wrote it up in his journals. I don't remember any of the meetings or even the speakers.

But they all are relatively unimportant-also what did Hal write up about it later? I'm not sure if Don Lucas was there. BECAUSE people there were so excited at how well things were going, publicity etc, that they paid little attention to a sneaky proposal to honor the mayor of San Francisco for being so helpful and in a sense gay-friendly. Now as I recall San Francisco was NOT all that good in those days. But no one thought much about it and it passed along with some other things and the convention ended and everyone went home—except the members who had done such a great job and lived in Denver. All hell broke loose—they lost jobs, etc.

AND suddenly Wolper or whatever the politician’s name was that was running against Christopher started publicizing the queer, I forget what term he used, organization honoring Christopher and how terrible that was for San Francisco’s image, etc. and of course the voters should NOT vote for Christopher.

Talk about unintended consequences—the papers, etc., which were NOT gay-friendly, took out after the man, calling HIM a troublemaker and supporting Christopher. Hal, et al., loved it of course—it got Mattachine great publicity. I'm not sure how many new members it got, but in those days neither Mattachine nor ONE got much help from all the publicity they got—which wasn't that much anyway.

I am not sure of the dates, but I must have gone to San Francisco then and that is when I first (of two times) stayed with Hal and worked a week or so in the PanGraphic office, and the only record is the book review I did of Advise and Consent, which appeared later.

I had actually lived a few months in San Francisco earlier and did not contact Mattachine at the time—I was working the last “regular” job, as “caller to check on credit” at Retailers Commercial Agency-Retail Credit, now called something else, in Atlanta GA. Ironically my first job after getting kicked out of the Army at Ft Riley, dropping off my car in Bossier city, taking the train to L. A., and following Don Slater’s idea, even before I knew him, I lied and neither firm ever checked on my military service (and thus Undesirable Discharge) but did send for my lousy transcript at LSU—was a southern company that should have checked as that was their business—the first company was southern also, Anderson, Clayton Cotton co, of Houston, and some parts still in business, on 6th St. at Lafayette Park. Retailers in L. A. had been on Wilshire near downtown, across from the hospital. I was not doing well, so they transferred me to try San Francisco, and finally we just mutually called it quits.

I took a bus trip around the country, Boston, N. Y., etc. Left car parked on hill in S. F. and it was in good shape when I returned. Then returned to L. A. and went to work for ONE, and rest is history.

But it seems important to think that what we or they thought was the main thing at the convention turned out to be nothing and yet the convention put Mattachine on the map andin a sense started San Francisco toward being what it is today and that was NOT what the agent provocateur had wanted.

A lesson rightwingers might want to consider.

A newsletter that should be read by the people at the LGBT Journalists Association

I have been looking around at material and found a copy of our newsletter #55, of Fall/Winter, 1996.

If we don't let the world know any more about our work, they should know the information and views expressed in the reviews of the books and the books themselves, mainly the two relevant to NLGJA: Straight News: Gays, Lesbians and the News Media, by Edward Alwood (Columbia University Press, 1996) and Unspeakable, the Rise of the Gay and Lesbian Press in America, by Rodger Streitmatter (Faber & Faber, 1995).

The reviews say that for the most part the books give information and history that journalists, and everyone, needs to understand how this movement got to where it is today.

But the reviewers also point out the misinformation, and that is important since for the most part later historians will just quote from the books without checking to see if there are any errors.

Straight News is reviewed by Joseph Hansen, famous not for being an editor and writer for ONE/Tangents Magazine, but as a gay writer of gay mysteries. But he knows the facts. And he points out important things relevant even to the discussion I have had with NLGJA people and the editor of Bay Windows.

Gay/lesbian journalists of today may not even know how bad the situation was in the ’50s and ’60s and how awful the media covered us, in the few times they did cover homosexuality.

Later journalists still did not check their facts. As Joe points out, sometimes he, Morris Kight, Troy Perry or others may have been at the same event and the newspaper coverage only gave one view-usually Morris’s. One strange point is that AIDS got us attention.

You will understand the feeling I have even now, reading Joe’s closing remarks: The efforts told to us in story after story in Edward Alwood’s fine book, efforts by numberless heroic men and women down the decades to educate and awaken to our common humanity the people among whom we lived should lift your hearts.

"Not that the war is won as this grisly century dies. Many battles lie ahead, not the least to wipe antihomosexual laws off the books of ALL states. But reading this account of the equal-rights battles already won should give all of us courage to fight on with the certainty that if we do, in the end our victory will be complete." Joe and Don would rejoice to see how much has been done so far.

Unspeakable is reviewed by Jim Kepner. He of course points out the conflict among g/l journalists,which in the early days seemed to be that “professional” college trained journalists looked down on the first g/l journalists who trained on the job. He says rightly that Streitmatter seems to not have really read his material and makes statements that are simply not true, such as that ONE was not forceful on seeking rights, or that we were not as good as the Mattachine Review and The Ladder, which is by any objective view simply nonsense. Hal Call merely used “professionals” and copied items and ONE did original work, and we never allowed “professionals” to tell us about us: we told them.

He points out that there were publications before Vice Versa, and that even Henry Gerber is ignored. And Jim's work is completely misunderstood by Streitmatter—Jim didn't merely quote the news, he commented on it—the very title of the Tangents section was news and views. But ONE has to be given credit as the first public and continuing-for two decades homosexual publication. And the NLGJA honored Don Slater as its editor and his struggle to make the magazine professional and something our community could be proud of.

Jim also points out the constantly repeated error that ONE was an all-male publication/organization. Obviously he never looked at the credits as for years the main editor was a woman and Stella Rush, still alive and kicking was a writer as was Betty Perdue (as Geraldine Jackson).

Bayard Rustin: Troubles I've Seen

Bayard Rustin, by life and words, left a message that too many black preachers have not learned from. I suggest they need to stop preaching hatred of homosexuals since their lives today are better because of a black homosexual: Bayard Rustin.

Do they not know that it was a homosexual who was the main force behind the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, and the main strategist for several early black civil rights groups? If not, they can read, among other books, Jervis Anderson's biography of Rustin, titled: Bayard Rustin; Troubles I've Seen. It would also be a very worthwhile book for all Americans to read, especially activists today in the black and homosexual civil rights movements.

The most important point about Rustin's life is that he, as the book shows, did not waste any time trying to explain his homosexuality to his co-workers, all of whom where heterosexual, male and female, black and white, young and old. You "hear" of his arrest on sex charges in Pasadena CA early in his career, and that is the end of discussion except for the bigots in the FBI and black organizations who tried to use the arrest to prevent him from doing his work, which they were jealous of.

There is a direct parallel between the black and homosexual civil rights movements, and only ignorant people try to deny it. Rustin was the perfect example. The tactics used by southern racists against him were due to his being a proud black man who happened to be homosexual. He combined the two movements even though he only worked for the black movement.

The issues he and the black organizations faced were the same that homosexual movement pioneers faced. They were both attacked by the FBI and politicians and churches. There are many examples given, but one that stands out to show how the media was complicit in working against both civil rights movements is that the Alabama paper allowed itself, as did the New York Times, etc, to be used by his enemies to attack Rustin and the black leaders of the march in Alabama. And it is not widely known that Rustin was a main organizer of this work, as well as the famous March on Washington. People in the black movement who were jealous of his power and influence, including Adam Clayton Powell, who blackmailed leaders to keep him out of the movement. Some good leaders tried to stop Rustin because they felt he, as was and is true of both movements today, was trying to join/combine too many issues together, in his case pacifism and black civil rights, and poverty, etc. An issue relevant today in politics thanks to Senator Clinton's famous remark that Dr. King's work and words were important but it took president Johnson to change the laws, was used by Roy Wilkins against Dr. King—he said to King, your words have not changed any laws.

Rustin, in the black movement, like Don Slater in the homosexual movement, was not always in agreement with the views and tactics of the majority of his co-workers. Many plans and events that Rustin warned his friends against turned out to do harm to the movement when his warnings were ignored. His views on affirmative action were not in the mainstream. Same with Don slater. He came to think that the time of marches had passed. Same with Don Slater. He was the most important person in the background in several organizations and few knew of his great work. The same is true of Don Slater.

Southern racists used Rustin's skin color against him. Jealous co-workers used his homosexuality against him. In the end Rustin remains the most important unknown person in the black civil rights movement. His words are as important today as when he was speaking them. And it would be a good idea for Senator Obama and his associates to take the time to read about Bayard Rustin-as he was the person behind the scenes who helped make Dr. King and later black civil rights leaders who they were. And he planned what they did.

Again, the book is: Bayard Rustin: Troubles I've Seen, a biography by Jervis Anderson, published by HarperColins, in 1997.