an approach, it is unfeasible and psychiatrically unsupportable. Psychiatrists have about as much success in "treating" homophile preferences as they might expect in "treating" a preference for Picasso rather than Van Gogh.

Despite the abundance of information available concerning the efficacy of treating homophile activity as a sickness, psychiatrists continue to treat. Despite legal opinions that the homophile personal morality "is a question for his own conscience," district attorneys continue to prosecute, juries continue to convict, and judges continue to sentence. The resistance of lawyers to legalizing homosexuality may best be shown through the words of Judge Samuel H. Hofstadter, Justice of the Supreme Court of New York State:

"Legitimizing what for centuries has been regarded as an abomination is wholly outside the proper objectives of criminal law to reaffirm societal norms. . . To legalize homosexual conduct, however practiced, is an injustice to society's future."

In the last few years, the clash over homophile morality has involved diverse groups, and produced curious confrontations. For example, in 1965 a group of clergymen in San Francisco protested police abuses in enforcing sex laws. The police reaction was unique: they accused the group of ministers of violating God's law. This group of clergymen is still the exception. Commenting on the Wolfenden Report, a writer in America, a Roman Catholic publication, stated that homosexuals were trying to have public opion accept homosexuality and to have the public see homosexuals as "just another minority that is being deprived of civil rights." The writer asked if the public should be encouraged to this view. He replied to his own question with the words: "The answer, of course, is: No."

Understanding the variations within and between public morality and legal morality, those who accept homophile morality still are faced with the question of what to do. Should they continue to supress their feelings and preferences? Should they go or stay underground, where, incidentally, the nation's gangsters especially prefer to have them (rather like prohibition)? Should they defy the law, much as the civil rights advocates, especially Blacks, have done to gain their rights?

The answer is related to the price homophiles are willing

to pay.

At present homophiles lack any real unity across the country and there are few citizens' groups working in their behalf. To a great extent, everyone has to decide for himself, despite the increase in numbers of homophile organizations.

The price of personal suppression is to increase internally the tensions, neuroses, and psychological hangups that everyone faces. It is to face the fear of the slip; the terror of being found out; the self-reproach of living a lie. To some, such a life is unliveable. To others, it is safety. No one does everything he wants to do and the temptation to do many things which offend public morality is repressed. This may be the

best course of action for some. It may be the cheapest price. The internal tensions arising from practicing in secret are similar to repression, but much more intense. A person following this path is fair game for every extortionist, bunco artist, and strong-arm thief. Such a person lives his life on the edge of catastrophe, trying to inhabit two worlds which reject each other. A few years ago, the New York police broke up one extortion ring that was blackmailing at least 700 homophiles, including deans of universities, professors, busines executives, physicians, a general, an admiral, a Congressman and others of equal importance. The Walter Jenkins case of the Johnson administration and the resignations from Governor Reagan's staff showed the risks of trying to have it both ways. It's possible, but the dues are high.

The price of open advocacy and civil disobedience is clear from the civil rights movement. The Gay Liberation movement is a courageous, honest, open move in a positive direction, but it is a long way from establishing the sort of legitimacy which the civil rights and women's lib groups have won. The public imagination might be caught by the direction of groups like the Gay Activist Alliance but the path to social justice is never smooth. Police harassment will increase, public reation generally will become more intense and/or disdainful, and violence committed on the homophile, not by him may go far beyond any present practice. The hope of such direct action advocacy will rest with the young, who are producing a revolution in public morality a revolution aimed at letting people alone, rather than saving, counseling or rehabilitating them.

In making a personal decision, the homophile has to decide how much pressure he can stand and what values are most important to him. In any case, the path is likely to be lonely and dangerous for several years to come. If maximum security is his chief value, he will have to go underground, leave his organizations and take his lumps whenever he is found out. If his values lie in being an authentic person, free, independent and sure that his cause is right, he should recognize at least that the strength comes from unity and consolidated action.

The times are changing. The courts may be ready to acknowledge individual rights long abused. Such courts will not be trial courts. They will be state appellate courts or the U.S. Supreme Court. Civil Liberties groups have looked for a good test case for some time. Whoever agrees to test our immoral morality laws may lose and be for years disgraced; if he wins, he will be one of the heroes of the century. Whoever he is, he will need all the help he can get. He will learn that public exposure means public abuse and publice censure and public ridicule. The only way to avoid it is not to get seen. He will learn that the path to social justice for the homophile is not a road of glory, but a rough, rocky and thorny one. But in the struggle for the acceptance of homophile morality within public morality and legal morality, there is no other route.

Charles Guzzetta, Ed. D., is Professor of Social Welfare, State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has edited the following article from a lecture of the same title which he gave for the May 5, 1968, ONE Institute Lecture in Los Angeles. He was at that time Associate Professor of Social Work, San Diego State College, and President of the San

Diego Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. His active connection with the ACLU began when he was 17 years of age. He says, "I have a deep and abiding suspicion of all who would force their views on others, even for their own good. In the area of personal freedom, my homage is paid to Mill and to Jefferson."

5