GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR . . .

Dear Lyn Pedersen:

You say truly (July, 1960) that the time is not ripe for us to plump for either of the existing political parties. Nevertheless, the time is ripe and rotten ripe for us to study government, confer among ourselves and organize to make our political strength felt. ONE and its friends have been, for some years now, drawing the line between the gutless and the self-respecting.

It has been true all through history and is liable to be true for the indefinite future that there is a throng of servile people who are disposed to submit to the officer's fist, whip or knife and there are those who feel like taking a hand in the shaping of their destiny. Among homosexuals the dichotomy is clearly apparent, and homosexuals are at the vortex of government. For them politics is urgent and perplexing.

ONE can be politically effective in the 1960 campaign in this way: It can point out that wherever a politician or a bureaucrat rants about obscenity, 'morality" and homosexuality he is diverting the public's attention from something rotten in his own political position or his past. The effect of such disclosures will be wholesome and it is likely to be palpable.

If homosexuals vote at cross purposes it is only natural: few are the clear choices. that have been afforded them. They face a choice among unsatisfactory proposals and personnel. Commonly homosexuals' political enemies have affronted the voters and drawn rebuke because their characters were just generally bad-and their objectionableness to homosexuals was incidental. It happens that there is a correlation here: if anyone prates against homosexuals you may depend upon it that he is a scoundrel. He must be a sorry specimen who has to cite his antihomosexuality as a virtue.

I ponder thousands of shifts and expedients. How can some of us who wish to organize get together for a conference?

Dear Mr. Pedersen:

Mr. B.

Los Angeles, California

It is interesting to speculate, as you did in your editorial, on the ability of a minority to elect a candidate. In doing so, you were close to the inherent difficulty of a group's pleading for itself, something which must limit your organization's effectiveness.

one

To argue that homosexuals hurt no one and should, therefore, be allowed to enjoy themselves in their own manner is weak, indicating that only homosexuals suffer from the prejudice. How much more effective to point out the harm done to careers and productivity, the invitation to blackmail, and so on-all injuries which are borne by the entire community. To be fully effective, of course, this argument should be advanced by a disinterested group of men and women of all sexual persuasions.

ONE now boasts "The Homosexual Viewpoint." If, instead, it aimed to achieve a non-sectarian point of view on sexual matters, it seems to me that it could gain far wider support, both moral and financial, for this support could no longer bear the suspicion of a tacit confession.

It would probably, also, give a better perspective on certain news items, which are now reported with an aroma of bias and a tinge of self-pity. Cries of persecution go up with the closing of the gay bars in New York. There was a verbal cry of persecution over police raids on the boys' outdoor, evening activities on Fire Island. While it may be true these activities hurt no one, they are certainly not in accord with the customs of our sex-repressive society.

I fully appreciate the difficulties of the step. My purpose in writing is not to criticize, but to suggest that you thus broaden your base of support.

Dear Bill:

Mr. S. Chappaqua, New York

Either the Wolfenden Report has set off a greater witch hunt than anything in Cromwell's Day, or else it's "holiday time." The tight little isle jumps with vulgar tourists this year, so I am off to Rome and Naples. Pompeii ought to have something to offer, at least the "new city."

However, I would recommend that anyone visiting London et. al., bring his own entertainment. The law frowns on one's speaking to a stranger. Times have changed.

Dear ONE:

Mr. P.

London, England

I have not appreciated some of your remarks about the candidates. I am going to vote for Nixon, but I happen to like Kennedy a great deal. Please don't let religion become an issue. Who knows how much of one's religion one does or does not believe in or follow, and who are we to ask anyone to tell us?

30