the effect upon society of his acceptance such marriages highly unlikely. Yet one as a valuable citizen.

This effect would be one of immense consternation for it would be a legalizing of promiscuity for a special section of the population-which, incidentally, now begs for its rights on the very grounds that it desires the respectability and dignity of all other citizens. It is not likely that either of these would be attained by a lifting of legal sex restraints for this group alone. Actually such a change would loosen heterosexual marriage'ties, too, and make even shallower the meaning of marriage as we know it. It cannot be seriously claimed that this would be a good thing. The problem of marriage versus promiscuity is an old one, still moot and fondly dwelt upon by the dissatisfied. Yet for heterosexuals, at least, there yet has not been found a better arrangement on which to base the family unit. Heterosexual marriage must be protected. The acceptance of homosexuality without homosexual marriage ties would be an attack upon it.

Then let us look at homosexual marriage. Here indeed is a dubious proposition. Available statistics do not indicate that most or even a large percentage of deviates want a binding and legal marriage. Undoubtedly if it were possible there would be more who attempted it and many who might make it work. Yet today, even among the most stable and respectable of homosexuals, there are very few who have lived together an appreciable time. It is true It is true that social pressure makes success in

would think that in a movement demanding acceptance for this group, legalized marriage would be one of its primary issues. What a logical and convincing means of assuring society that they are sincere in wanting respect and dignity! But nowhere do we see this idea prominently displayed in either Society publications or the magazine ONE. It is dealt with in passing and dismissed as all-right-for-those-who-wantit. But it is not incorporated as a keystone in Society aims-which it must be before such a movement can hope for any success.

Yet even were homosexuals generally eager for legalized marriage there would appear many, many very human problems which only generations of living would effectively resolve. For instance, should the Mr. and Mrs. idea be retained? If so, what legal developments would come of the objection by the "Mr." that "Mrs." doesn't contribute equally? In heterosexual marriage, the wife has the general drop on the husband in that she bears children hence needn't punch a timeclock as nature apparently decrees he must. Will there be a new law forbidding one person to be "kept" by another then? And what of adoptions? Must the State be forced to give over a child to a pair of Lesbians merely because they are a legally married couple and have identical rights to childless heterosexual couples? What effect would a home with both parents of the same sex have upon masses of children? Or would the time

page 11