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.

President Kennedy's Gay Friend

Letter to Outsmart Magazine (letters@outsmartmagazine.com)

May 20, 2007

Starting with the cover photo of 6 people, including President Kennedy and LeMoyne Billings, the May issue of Houston's OutSmart Magazine has an article based on a new book, by David Pitts, Jack and Lem: John F. Kennedy and Lem Billings-the untold story of an extraordinary friendship, published by Carroll Graf.

My question to not only the homosexual community, but to all those journalists, since the ’60s, and the dozens of historians and authors who made lots of money writing about President Kennedy and all the Kennedys, is, why has no one told the public this before?

I think the media also hid the many women President Kennedy had sex with, but they finally talked about that. Perhaps heterosexual writers didn't think Lem was of interest. But, in a sense contradicting myself when I've complained about our gay media trying to out celebrities, and putting merely gay-friendly celebrities on their covers and in their pages, as if we would be happier-gayer-if famous rich and cute people were also homosexual, it seems to me that this friendship is of great interest in knowing how our government acted on sexuality in the 60s and after when the homosexual movement for civil rights was slowly but surely growing.

A major issue is that the most powerful person in the world had a lifetime friendship with a homosexual, and everyone in the White House, and the family members all along, knew this, and so you have to ask why no one mentioned this all these years.

The issue is a major one also because those who started this movement were accused of alerting the public to homosexuality and thus scaring off possible sex partners. And the author covers this issue this way: "That's one point I tried to make in the book in one of the chapters. Ironically, in some ways gay people had more license at that time than they do now. Homosexuality wasn't on the radar screen, the general population wasn't really aware of it, and so, in a sense, gay people could do certain things, such as the example you gave, and it did not come under suspicion the way it clearly would today."

So those people who complained that once Mattachine stopped being secret, and become public as ONE Magazine, their easy find of sex partners would be hurt, had a point.

Can heterosexual men and women have close friendships with homosexual men and women without being called homosexual? Will this book be almost as important as Brokeback Mountain in getting all of us to think about homosexuality?

Charles Lucas’s Life

Neal H. wrote upon news of the death of Charles Lucas:

“Charles Leslie Lucas was born June 27, 1919 in Lewistown, Montana. He passed away Friday March 18, 2005 at St. Vincent Medical Center in Los Angeles, California. He checked himself in the hospital because of pneumonia and became free of it but was unable to recover because of his congestive heart failure. Educator, author/editor, performing artist and director are some of his accomplishments here and in Mexico despite his health problems. He helped people in crisis. He helped many. He cared. He was a true and trusted friend.

“He was a test pilot in WWII and his remains will rest at Riverside Memorial Cemetery.”

I will try to find the pamphlet that Joe did and Jim published for Don Slater's memorial. It has Charles’ thoughts on Don but will help us on his own involvement. As I understood Neal, the family or someone is taking charge and he will be buried in the VA Cemetery in Riverside, and a nephew will come after Easter and then there may be a memorial. I asked Neal if there were any materials on homosexuality that Charles may have wanted HIC to have, since I doubt Neal or the nephew wants them.

I’m not even sure we have a copy of Charles’ book on Rev. Troy Perry, The Lord Is My Shepherd and He Knows I’m Gay, in our library but I would really be surprised if we don’t. I think we can handle the issue of troy by just saying Charles worked with Troy on the first biography—or is it an autobiography?

Melvin reminds me that we had several HIC business meetings at Nina Blanchard’s home where Charles lived when he was her secretary when she was a talent scout or what do you call them, talent agency? And I think Jeanne Barney said that Charles had been involved in theater, writing or something, as Melvin did. And we had a great time at the meetings, eating and swimming. Obviously Charles was a member of the Homosexual Information Center, Inc. Board, not sure the years, but wsas still, even though he could not attend meetings and work, due to his arthritis. I think he died from emphysema, or however you spell it— as Neal said, to much fluid just built up in his lungs, but as we know he was ill even when Don Slater died in 1997.

I’m sure we could say Charles was an associate editor as I think he helped on Tangents magazine.

Homosexuality and the Law, book by Chuck Stewart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HIC's Archival Material

Here are some items that appeared in our newsletters and newsheets, in the ’60s on. Many had book reviews, including those of Dorr legg, Jim Kepner, Vern Bullough, Charles Lucas, Jeanne Barney, Don Slater, Joe Hansen, Dale Jennings and other pioneers in our movement. (See web site www.tangentgroup.org)

Newsletter #49 (Spring 93) was book reviews, Lambda Gray (Adelman, Berger, etc from Newcastle) by Dorr Legg; J Edgar Hoover, by Dale Jennings Homosexuality and Society by Charles Lucas, and a play, Total Eclipse reviewed by Roger Rogers.

Newsletter #48 (3-93)i s a discussion by Don Slater,on privacy, and the issue of orientation versus preference, and the idea of choice, caused by the Colorado Amendment

Newletter#47 (12/92) was books. Queer Edward, by Dale, Making History reviewed by Don, and among other things he again says what he always did, homosexuality leaves no trace. And Charles' review of The Dreyfus Affair, which I think is still being thought of for a movie. A take off as I understand it, on the French Dreyfus thing.

Jump to some early ones,

Oct 65) ( I gather this is Volume 1, No. 1) Discusses some about the ONE split. Saying that there had been an attempt to separate the library from ONE long before Don moved. And also a generic discussion of some libraries beng censored about pornography. Also a discussion of the bibliography and ISHR giving $10,000 to support it which was instead spent on the ONE dispute. Also an ACLU statement on homosexuality, and Vern and (my notes are as usual no good) apparently they or we discussed the fact that some laws are based on religion and connected our privacy etc to the Griswold v CT decision. And an editorial in The Nation Magazine of 11-8-65. I can’t believe that all of this is in this one issue, but then it discussed the fact that the DOB withdrew support of the picketing of Independence Hall, not sure if this is same as the Motocade time or before, but was (I think) with Frank Kameny, Barbara Gittings, Jack Nichols, etc

There is just a page with our statement on the issue of the draft, that Don put out for the Committee (to Fight Exclusion of Homosexuals From The Armed Forces).

Then there is also a discussion of the play The Geese, at the Coronet Theater, at which we helped get guests to speak to the audience after the play, such as Joe Hansen, Irene Kassorla, Gale Whittington, Fred goldstein, Don Slater, Morris Kight and Herb Selwyn.

Newsletter #44 (9-91) was Dale Jennings thoughtson Simon LeVay and the Salk thing about the cause of homosexuality.

Back to 1965,

Oct 65, Mentions Harlan Antler, as a speaker at our monthly meetings, from the Young Democrats. Also we had Laurence Anderson, of psychodrama, Herb Selwyn, Bob Cleaves had us sponsor the play by Martin Duberman, In White America, and the report of Joe Hansen speaking on KPFK. So the play is just more evidence that our movement worked on other issues, such as racial civil rights.

Nov 65, Covers the ACLU on teachers' rights, based on the Donald Odorizzi case that Jim (Schneider) and Herb Selwyn worked on. Also some legal work done by Burton Marks and Stuart Simke, I guess on the case. We issued a press release.

Dec 65 About the post office snooping on pronography and our Vennen case, and we got Roger Hunting and Harriet Pilpel of the law firm of Greenbaum, Wolff and Ernst (in New York) to work on it some. The DOB had a conference in S. F., with Bishop Pike, Joel Fort there. I gather we had ads in the New York Times, The Nation.

A newsletter with no date I can find: We had an income tax consultant available for those who wanted to have hlep and would make a donation. We had a 24 hour answering service-advertised in the Los Angeles Free Press, and this is when I think the Black Cat or some bar raids took place. Don Slaterwas on ABC TV answering the police on police brutality, Carl George show I guess. I spoke to Paul Bentler’s UCLA psychology class. Jim Schneider worked on a Whittier legal case. I don't remember it, but I was chair of a West Coast section. We had 30 people at a monthly meeting, and 100 at the Tavern Guild, which we helped start. Tangents was mentioned in the Village Voice. World Journal Tribune. Don was on Joe Pyne’s show, I was on Regis Philbin's (on the draft, and he was unfriendly). LOOK Magazine did the article on homosexuality. The Frontier Club did something. Pride also mentioned our Vennen case. And Frank Patton was the New York attorney, mentioned above, handling the Vennen case. Also there was a letter in Playboy that mentioned us. I gather our ONE case was 3-14 in L.A. Sup Court. NACHO met in Washington 8-17 to 19. Still not sure of month and year of this newsletter.

Anyway, I think it is important to remember just how active we really were. And reading the newsletters reminds us of that. And it should be evidence that people and groups working in the this century need to keep records and not think they will remember what happened or was said.