=

After the Fact

Jarlier this year, a legislative committee in Florida issued a scathing denunciation of the homosexual. It was called, "Homosexuality and Citizenship in Florida," and because it contained some far-out photos allegedly depicting homosexual activities in public places, the report was quickly declared obscene by the Prosecuting Attorney of Miami (Dade County), and circulation of the booklet halted.

Obtaining copies was next to impossible. Assemblyman Johns (who headed the committee until he was succeeded by Assemblyman Mitchell) and John E. Evans, staff director, evaded every request for a copy. But finally some copies leaked out, and one of them got reprinted in the East.

Reaction to the report in Florida itself was such that the committee was severely chastized by the press and other responsible spokesmen in the state. This criticism mounted throughout the summer until the committee chairman and the working staff all reṣigned recently. Another report indicates that the remaining appropriation of the committee not expended was withdrawn from the project of investigating homosexuality in the state.

Following is a copy of a letter sent to the committee earlier from Mattachine Society, after the report had been studied and its biased bibliography had been checked with a fine comb. Needless to say, Florida taxpayers got one of the biggest gyps ever handed out anywhere when the so-called "Johns Committee" turned in its handiwork.

4

mattachine REVIEW

+

OPEN LETTER TO THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE'S "JOHNS COMMITTEE"

As president of the Mattachine Society, Inc., I would like to join. with other responsible Americans in expressing my shock and concern at the report on homosexuality recently issued by the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee. No wonder that I was unable to obtain a copy of the report from the office of the staff director or that the committee seems now-despite its original intent to do precisely the opposite-to be doing everything in its power to prevent further circulation and discussion of its notorious masterpiece. Rarely do legislative bodies come up with material that is so irresponsible, innaccurate, inflammatory or obviously biased.

The committee did not perform its appointed task of presenting evidence on the "extent" that homosexuals have "infiltrated" agencies supported by public funds, the effect of this infiltration, or the policies of various state agencies (except for the State Department of Education) in dealing with this infiltration, Instead, it came up with a report which is naive and recommendations which are unjustified. The committee affirms the necessity of understanding homosexuality, but its own efforts have only contributed to a further confusion and misunderstanding of the subject. The committee's criticism of others for "a serious lack of responsible research" are words which can best describe its own efforts. Recent articles on homosexuality to be found in Harper's, Greater Philadelphia Magazine, Maclean's, and Life reveal how feeble and irresponsible in comparison was the committee's undertaking. And those magazines did not spend five years and heaven only knows how many tax payers' dollars in doing their studies either. The colossal abdication of responsibility by the committee is most blatantly revealed in its statement that it would not study or weigh the conflicting theories, contentions, or claims regarding homosexuality, but would rather let each individual "choose" that view which best "jibes" with his own. This is the height of legislativė irresponsibility. But then, to compound that irresponsibility, the committee emotionally suggests the Biblical term "abomination" has stood well the test of time, I submit that such an approach would not be tolerated on any other important issue reflects an inadequate knowledge of the religious position, and makes more difficult an effective treatment of the problem. Any responsible treatment of the subject of homosexuality must involve a scientific rather than an overly moral or religious approach if it is to have any meaning.

I was quite disappointed in the incompleteness, misinterpretation, and emotional slanting of the material in the article as a whole. If only the "homosexual" organizations had but a small portion of the power and influence attributed to them, we would be able to do a better job in educating the public, in reaching large numbers of homosexuals so as to help them live more satisfactory lives, and in creating a better atmosphere between all elements in society, I fear the truth is we get more support from scientists, social scien-

5