all,

riage astounds me. This concept, which has has always depended upon the individual been forced upon the unwilling heterohimself, hetero or homo. Individual morality sexuals for the protection of women and is not law enforceable. Outlawed as we are children is even less applicable to the situa(and I can only speak for the women) I do tion of the homosexual. What, precisely, is so not believe that the majority of us are irrelevant about the fact that homosexuals do promiscuous. We have generally the same not reproduce? Marriage as an institution concepts of decency and fidelity to our is mostly for the protection and rearing of "spouses" as the heterosexuals. (After children and the protection and consolidathey raised us). I do not agree with the imtion of property. To homosexuals who have plicit assumption in the article that because no children, marriage can only have the we are sexual deviants that we are per se same meaning as it does to childless heteropromiscuous. What kind of homosexual peosexual couples: namely the emotional ple does E.B.S. know? I know two pairs and spiritual satisfaction that it gives them of Lesbians who have been "married" for to be recognized and accepted as a unitfifteen years, and at least six pairs who ("for richer or and the economic advantages that marriage have been "married" has. E.B.S. has a fine point that legalized poorer, in sickness and in health-") for marriage should be a primary aim of the periods ranging from three to ten years. Society-but, what's wrong with it's being What is E.B.S.'s definition of promiscuous? on a "for-those-who-want-it" basis? Even Two to infinity? If the sex laws against us the heterosexuals don't have a law which were all wiped off the books tomorrow, we says they must get married one and all! would not become a promiscuous people by reason of that fact. Just as, conversely, centuries of sex laws against the heterosexuals have not stopped a certain amount of promiscuity, adultery, and prostitution.

With the recognition of homosexuals, there need be no "legalizing of promiscuity". This

The marriage problems E.B.S. brings up are interesting, even though they do seem to be predicated upon a static view of the

functions of husbands and wives. You will

undoubtedly receive a flood of mail on this

one paragraph alone. One thing is for sure

A confusion, evident in the letters we receive, makes it necessary again to make clear the relationship of ONE and the Mattachine Society. These are two entirely separate corporations which function independently. While they naturally share basic principles, their differences as a Society and a magazine though-E.B.S. has given us food for months are clear in both type of activity and manner of approach. ONE heartily commends the work of the Society and hopes the feeling is mutual, but insists upon being recognized as a separate entity.

one

of thought.

Dear One:

Los Angeles

We in America need a deuteronomy, a return to the law. All our troubles can be

traced to our violations of the constitution;

page 22