support coming in the mail every day. Then in the January number of The Ladder, Editor Del Martin wrote a surprising editorial entitled "How Far Out Can We Go?" Taking the idea of "rights" for the homosexual to task she began, "How ludicrous can we get? Such a 'Bill of Rights' is unnecessary, irrelevant and likely to set the homophile movement back into oblivion.' ... such a 'Bill of Rights, if drawn up, would leave us wide open as a target of ridicule from those who already dislike us and would make it much harder for our friends to continue helping us." Del Martin's remarks reminded yours truly of what D. J. West in his book The Other Man had to say about "magazines for homosexuals" which "rather pathetically address. . . clergymen and others begging for sympathetic understanding and deploring the condemnation of homosexuals . .

but yet doing nothing about it. Is Bergler right? Is the homosexual sick? Does he have no guts? The planners of the Institute did not think so.

The attitude that where homosexuals are concerned "any reference to 'rights' should be regarded as 'out'," was carried into the program of the BILL OF RIGHTS DAY by those who felt this way, and they never were disabused of their opinion.

Saturday, Jan. 28th was BILL OF RIGHTS DAY. Members of HS-260 had prepared careful outlines of duties and suggested topics for the Drafting Committees to guide their efforts. Each person present chose one of five committees to work in: Committee I, on Preamble and Definitions; Committee II, Social Rights; III, Religious Rights; IV, Scientific Questions and Overpopulation; V, Legal Rights. The participants were about 1/3 female. After a brief wel-

coming talk by Sten Russell, Associate Editor, ONE Magazine, the Drafting Committees set to work reading and analyzing response to the questionnaires, in order to work the opinions of those unable to attend the Institute into the final Bill.

At lunch time the Institute heard progress reports from the chairmen of the 5 committees. At this point Del Martin of DOB and "participant in the Preamble Committee asked for a change in the program saying that the Daughters present had been polled and the majority found the word "rights" unreasonable and even untenable. The Scientific Committee found the term difficult to work with as did the Social Rights Committee. Others felt that they had come there to do a job and that everyone should get on with it doing the best they could no matter what the result-even failure. The afternoon sessions saw the completion, for most Committees, of their outlines of the Bill. Scientific and Religion Committees found themselves cracking up slightly, while Legal, taking the bull by the horns. and a few arbitrary short cuts, announced its completed draft, to the envy and distress of other Committees. Everyone was ready for the evening party Saturday night where "rights" were taken for granted as moods mellowed-with music and dancing the whole night through.

Sunday, ADOPTION DAY, got started with a continental breakfast and free-for-all discussion. Drafting and polishing the five sections of the Bill for later presentation at the Annual Banquet occupied the afternoon Committees. Committees. Each Drafting Committee was charged with preparing and executing its own section of the final document. But by 4:00 P.M. it became clear that Committees for Social Rights and Scientific Questions and Overpopulation

19