Incoming letters at ONE daily bring at least a few in which we are asked to pass along a message to some other reader of ONE Magazine, or inquiring about our "Pen-Pal club," the existence of which we are unacquainted with, or even asking us to make contact with someone for the writer of the letter. ONE Magazine has discussed the problem of meeting people in its pages many times before; Dr. Baker has attempted to answer the questions of the lonely ones in her column.

From a legal standpoint our attorney has advised us against putting one reader in touch with another. We have always promised our readers. complete anonymity. Many of the European organizations take another view and include "Pen-Pal" clubs as part of their programs.

The problem of meeting people is a big one, not just for the homosexual. Here are two forceful views expressed by our Associate Editors Lyn Pedersen and Wm. Lambert on this growing problem.

WHY NOT A PEN PAL CLUB?

by lyn pedersen

ONE's editors, respecting our attorney's advice, have always refused the requests readers constantly make for us to transmit personal letters or to give out readers' addresses-to "make an exception, just in my case.

99

We have argued endlessly about the very good reasons for this. Good reasons though I have always unhappily felt they are just the same reasons advanced against starting ONE in the first place: "It isn't safe," "You might get into legal trouble." The founders of ONE wisely by-passed those arguments then. Whether they should do so now that ONE is a going concern, now that we have something to lose, is another question. Perhaps it wouldn't be wise to risk the continued existence of ONE just to add a new service of questionable value.

But I feel the risks have been exaggerated, and the need for such a service to our faithful supporters has been underestimated. What is wrong with introducing homosexuals to one another? Or with doing it via Pen Pal arrangements?

Do homosexuals have a right to meet one another? Of course they do. And is the person or group which innocently introduces them responsible for later sex acts? The California Supreme Court has held that homosexuals have full rights to meet; that it cannot be assumed without proof that such meetings are for immoral purposes; and that a bar owner who operates a meeting place

1 Stoumen v. Reilly. See also report on Vallerga case, ONE, March, 1959.

5