Dishonor. Your research will have revealed the age old names associated with homosexuality-the Socrates, the Michaelangelos, the Oscar Wildes. They have also, probably revealed the modern government officials, the professionals, the entertainment

greats. Dishonor?

Yes, with the "fairy" flaunting his femininity on the street corner. But give equal time to the not so dishonorable. In Los Angeles there are homosexual organizations powerful ones. Powerful because their membership is made up of doctors and lawyers and stock brokers and insurance men and politicians and movie moguls and printers and ad men and businessmen up to and including presidents and owners of firms.

They are not trying to overtake the government. They are not trying to convert great masses of people to their way of thinking. What are they doing? Exchanging views. Entertaining themselves with a staggering array of talent. Two of them donate heavily to charity. One of them claims to have a voice in Sacramento. It is even possible that the mayor of Los Angeles, Samuel Yorty, was elected by the enormous homosexual support he enjoyed. There is no proof, of course, but homosexuals were solidly behind him-an unsolicited endorsement, I am certain-when neither party particularly was.

So your "dishonor" is only partly true-partly because you have not recognized the honorable and potentially honorable sector.

Disease. Unfortunately VD is rampant in the homosexual society. But I have already commented on that.

Death. This reference puts me completely at a loss. I can't find any reference to it in your articles.

one

It's rather like putting an outrageously lurid cover on the paperback edition of "The Scarlet Letter," if you know the motivation to which I refer.

I guess I'd better call it quits before I really get on a soap box.

What I've tried to say here is that I agree that the overt, disgusting display of homosexuality should be limited and discouraged. But I feel you have been unfair to your readers in your neglecting to recognize that homosexuality will never be dead and while it is alive, and particularly alive in Los Angeles, responsible officials, and people like yourself, who have the ear of the public, must at least try to understand, tolerate, and regulate as nearly as possible to everyone's satisfaction its existence.

The most sane comments in your series have been those of the judges who deal with these cases. But you have not echoed their almost unanimous concern with understanding more clearly the whys and wherefores of homosexuality.

And I have not even mentioned civil rights. I hope you have not created a situation by your biased and vitriolic attack that might prompt this society to exercise their right to lobby-as a group they can, you know.

I, Mr. Public, don't want to sweep the question of what to do under a rug. But you-you have a responsibility not to, and a great deal of your responsibility lies in dealing rationally and unemotionally, and objectively with the subject.

And this, I am so, so sorry to see, you have not done.

Mr. M.

Los Angeles, Calif.

32