Review of Gay L. A.

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

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

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

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

Leo Laurence’s Mention in a Tangents Magazine

I have been trying to reread back issues of the Tangents magazine and other material that ONE/HIC has done over the years that I have with me here in Louisiana. And while glancing at the Tangents magazine of Aug–Sept. 1969 (the the cover image to the right), I found such items as an editorial warning us to “beware the ghetto mentality.”
 
This editorial was backed up by Don Slater’s excellent article on the issue of the military’s policy of excluding homosexuals from the armed forces. This editorial covers the work of the Committee to Fight Exclusion of homosexuals From the Armed Force—because we opposed anyone having to tell the government about their private sex lives, pointing out that non-homosexuals were using the gay factor to avoid the draft, and that based on Kinsey and common sense, the could eliminate about a third of available men from the draft, since many non-homosexuals had had an act and what proof is there if someone has a “tendency” and that we were not a blackmail threat, etc. There was and is NO way to prove someone is homosexual. That is what we told the court in the few cases that actually got to court, and we won every time.
 
Of course this involved our very basic beliefs: In a sense (a message to Sen. Craig) the only authority as to whether someone is homosexual or not is that person’s word. Homosexuality is a sex act, which can be performed by many different kinds of people. (Remember, at this time the sodomy laws were still in effect so admitting you were homosexual, and having to prove it by or through an act, made you a criminal.) The question should be eliminated.  Of course, today we have no draft.
 
Then in the news section I read the following:

Berkeley, Calif.—“Homosexuality is a natural style of life, not an abnormality, sin or perversion. Only fascists call it ‘queer.’ Homosexuals are making major contributions to our society, and to the revolution, but history books and the press ignore it...The homosexual revolution is part of the whole street revolution fighting fascism in the U.S. By locking arms with our brothers and sisters in the movement, we will ALL win our freedom...”

So began the text of a leaflet by Leo Laurence, which he and his lover, Don Burton, distributed at a Black Panther rally in Bobby Hutton Park. In the new underground paper, The Berkeley Tribe, Laurence writes, “The Panther official who okayed distribution of our leaflets said, ‘Our board of Control hasn’t endorsed this, but we’re for anyone who wants freedom, so go ahead.’”

 
The next item in the issue may have been our first discussion of Stonewall. Laurence’s leaflet had reported, “The first gay riots in the history of man turned New York City streets into a bloody confrontation between pigs and thousands of gays and hypothesizers last month...” In our news item, we covered words of Jerry Lisker of the New York Daily News about police saying things were thrown and calling the Inn “a mecca for the homosexual element.”
 
And the Gene Damon (Barbara Grier) column on books was good—I wonder if people today have heard of the hundreds of books that had a gay element that she covered? And of course the letters to the editor were always a great part of Tangents that readers liked.

NOT a good example....

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

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

Later in that day, Aristie Laurent replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Death of Elvis and TV This Month

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

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

On hearing of the Death of Yolanda Retter

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

To Jim Schneider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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