to his society led us to consider the socalled "gay bars." For the harassed homosexual there hardly seems to be any place other than the gay bar in which he may freely associate without baleful scrutiny and the need to wear a mask.

We investigated heterosexual bars and gay bars impartially, and at no time did we observe in gay bars any actions we might deem shocking or immoral. In most cases our arrival was not particularly noticed. We doubt that the patrons in the bars could have known that we were ministers.

It can be said that in appearance, atmosphere, deportment of clientele, and the nature of any sexuality which might inadvertently find expression, the average gay bar is forced to be

well above its heterosexual counterpart.

After a thorough investigation of bars we met with various bartenders, managers and others who were familiar with the problems faced by the bar owner and his patrons. This led to a confrontation with the Alcoholic Beverage Control in a meeting we held with its regional director. Unsatisfied with what we had been told there, we examined court records of such famous litigations as "Stoumen vs. Reilly," or what is popularly known as "The Black Cat Case;" "Mary's First and Last Chance," a bar which was located in Oakland; and some more recent closures affecting "Jack's Waterfront," "The D'Oak Room" and "The Jumpin' Frog" bars which we had inspected prior to their closing. Legal matters were reviewed with several lawyers, and in some cases we talked with some of the patrons who had been arrested by ABC agents or city police in attempts to gather sufficient evidence to justify closing the bars.

At first we did not realize the full implications of our investigations. Basically what we found was that an agency of government, in this case the ABC, was using prejudicial enforce-

12

ment of a questionable law to justify the closing of homosexual bars under legal provisions it used much less frequently in cases involving heterosexual bars. Since the average life span of a gay bar seems to be something short of two years, while heterosexual bars usually remain open almost indefinitely, it appears that the degree of scrutiny which homosexual bars receive may greatly exceed that accorded heterosexual bars. Apparently they are usually closed usually closed on several grounds which may be summed up in this way: the licensee is running a disorderly house injurious to the public decency or morals, because within the premises and with his full knowledge he permitted lewd or lascivious acts, a public display or manifestation of aberrant sexual urges or desires, verbal solicitations indicating the intent to perform such acts, or that he allowed his bar to become a resort for dope pushers or addicts, prostitutes, pimps, panderers or sexual perverts.

It is very misleading to consider sexual pervert and homosexual as synonymous. For instance, some authorities consider the use of contraceptives as a practice of sexual perversion-the perverting of sexual intimacies from the intended purpose of procreation. The disagreements which exist between scientists, sociologists, physicians, lawyers and even the clergy about the etiology of homosexuality, its nature and manifestations, preclude such a connection between homosexuality and sexual perversion.

In addition, persons with homosexual inclinations have not been scientifically proven to be ipso facto criminals, intrinsically detrimental to civilization or infected with disease. Neither do they comprise a small element in the population which can be isolated, incarcerated or eradicated by repressive measures. Therefore, to close bars just because they are patronized by homosexuals, on the basis of the incorrect