Concise and tightly argued, the chief points of emphasis were:
¶ That a person is not responsible for the fact that he may be homosexual, but is responsible for sinful sex acts;
That the present law unjustly persecutes the homosexual, and actually seems to encourage child-molesting, blackmail and suicide;
That society must protect children from attack, but has no clear right to interfere with the private activities of consenting adults, so long as those acts are not demonstrably anti-social;
That the subject has not yet received the deserved and proper scientific study, and hardly can until the onus of fear has been removed-and that the state should commission such a study;
That homosexuals ought to be encouraged to face their condition frankly, avoiding paths of self-justification, and seeking Divine help.
"It is a matter of Christian experience that faithful acceptance of a difficult way of life in response to a moral demand always finds reinforcement in a powerful movement from God toward man. To this fact the life of many a homosexual testifies today, who has found that his condition has become a mainspring of socially acceptable service to the community, e.g., in art, literature, drama, music, teaching, welfare services, the ministry, etc."
[Appended to the report were charts detailing the phenomenal annual increase in arrests for "indecency" and "unnatural offenses" from less than 200 in 1926 to almost 1,300 in 1952.]
NEWS FROM ENGLAND APRIL, 1954. . . .
The British Home Secretary has announced, in reply to questions in the House of Commons from Members Sir Robert Boothby and Mr. Desmond Donelly, that he is to appoint a parliamentary committee to examine the law relating to homosexual offenses. According to "THE OBSERVER" a parliamentary committee would be preferable to a more slow-moving Royal Commission.
The inquiry will study the probable effects of so changing the law as to protect minors and uphold public decency but discontinue the penalizing of private actions by consenting adults.
one
page 18