three attorneys representing the Council and one woman member who was on duty at the door. Subsequently all four of those arrested pleaded not guilty to "interfering with police in the performance of their duty," and at their jury trial were found not guilty.

Now we are confronted with new and more serious problems. Can we continue what we have begun? Can we do anything constructive without provoking further hostile reactions from the police and perhaps even from the general community? Our answer: We know that we cannot accept quietly the unexpected pressures to which persons of homosexual orientation are being subjected.

I

During many discussions with lawyers, including those involved in the court cases which followed the dance, we have discovered that there is very little justice for the homosexual. The reasons for this are disturbing. For instance, we were surprised to discover that while it is not against the law to be homosexual, the law forbids specific acts which are illegal whether performed by homosexuals, heterosexuals, or presumably even by children. We question whether such laws are either just or reasonable. Sexual acts are among the most private areas of human expression. As private acts, they should not be the subject of law. We also believe that law should sustain the right of each individual to engage in private sexual activity. Most sex laws are unjust, vague, unenforceable or unrealistic. Such laws serve best to open up avenues for blackmail, police brutality, and the violation of civil rights.

The fact that the adult homosexual bears the brunt of a sporadic and prejudicial enforcement of such laws seems to be the choice of the law enforcement agencies themselves. In recent years there has been an increase in arrests for violations of these laws, but the enforcement has been directed al-

8

most exclusively against male homosexuals. If capricious enforcement of unjust laws continues, the day will soon arrive when irritated or overzealous police officers may, at their own discretion, impose their own prejudices on some of the most intimate and private concerns of human life.

This, then, is the first great injustice: Homosexuals are being prosecuted under laws which cannot be enforced equitably.

II

When we consider the effect of the moral standards of the community, we find that there are even greater inequities. In the Bay Area a sixteen year old boy attempted suicide and subsequently it was discovered that he was driven to this extreme by the brutal abuse of his schoolmates who found him to be bookish, a bit different, and therefore implicitly "queer." We have observed situations where parents have disowned their children when they discovered they were homosexuals. When a homosexual's sexual orientation is exposed the result usually is instant and overwhelming social condemnation, public shame and ridicule, the loss of employment, friends and church affiliation. As a result, dread of exposure has made many homosexuals fearful, guilt-ridden and secretive. Such citizens are easily intimidated by the public, the police, the courts and the unscrupulous lawyers to lawyers to whom they sometimes have to turn.

Lawyers who have represented homosexuals have told us that most homosexuals, even if not guilty, will not fight their cases through the courts. They decide it is better to plead guilty and hope for the court's mercy. They are so suspicious and fearful of exposure and publicity they usually prefer to forego trial by jury, feeling certain other citizens will consider them guilty despite all contrary evidence. While still in the hands of the police many