our people will soon be a thing of the past. I believe that no nobler bond of affection exists than that love which unites the hearts of two men. With these ideals I know that I can be a happy, satisfied, well-integrated individual whose life will merit the respect of mankind.

Gentlemen:

Tulsa, Okla.

E. B. Saunders has managed to drag an eye-catching red herring across the pages of ONE. I refer, of course, to the verbage on Homosexual Marriages.

His entire argument rests upon this statement culled from the second paragraph, second column, page 10 August issue of ONE. "... why should he (the homosexual) be permitted promiscuity when those heterosexuals who people the earth must be married to enjoy sexual intercourse?"

Ignoring the misunderstanding of who people the earth, let us look at two things: what are we trying to do in Mattachine and is marriage our answer?

What are we trying to do in Mattachine? At the risk of prolonging this foolishness I will try to answer. The American homosexual should be working for acceptance of social valuable sex deviates, not only his sex pattern. In short, the Mattachine should be eager to secure at first a sex law fair to all people. France, Switzerland and Scandinavia have done this.

The Kinsey studies are not alone in showing that sexual matters inside or outside the marriage institution are personal matters, one which can not be solved by a pragmatic approach alone. There is no sexual right, wrong or normal. There are, of course, unsocial sex acts.

Under the present legal sex restrictions homosexuals are not the only criminals. Even man and wife, in many instances, violate the sex code. Under sensible sex laws which protect the young, the unwilling, and the public sense of decency, personal sex matters will be placed in their proper place. At that time the deviate may be able to evolve institutions which suit his needs. I doubt if marriage will do that.

What is marriage? It is an heterosexual concept buttressed and blessed by the Church and State since man emerged out of the miasma of pre-history. It is based on protection of the young and the mate; it is based on the necessities of property inheritance; and it is founded in a mass of taboo which no one fully understands. Additional concepts of home, family, and mother support it.

In those countries where sex laws are sane, marriage still exists, home is sacred, and mother is honored. It is believed that sex deviates must be protected. Nothing could be more honorable, more sacred than the preservation of integrity.

One more matter before I close. The acts of promiscuity and adultery involve broken vows of faithfulness or celibacy. Here the crime is not against society necessarily. It is self failure. Strict marriage laws do not contain the answer. Help and understanding are needed in this matter.

Berkeley, Calif.

page 11