tists, ministers, lawyers, and judges than from homosexuals and that these groups have often helped the homosexual and society to understand each other better than homosexuals themselves.
The examples the committee cited to show who homosexuals are and what they do were deliberately chosen for emotional and propagandistic purposes. Any serious consideration of the great bulk of homosexuals is excluded except for a grudging and low-key statement that some are "constructive and contributing members of their communities.'
1
The committee's report unfairly and incorrectly implies that homosexuals spend all their free time frequenting special hangouts where repeated and/or unending sexual acts are committed, devote the major portion of their energies to "bringing out" the young, spreading venereal.disease like wildfire, etc. Actually, most homosexuals are just as responsible and moral as anyone else. Most of them live quiet lives and are circumspect in their activities. It is doubtful than homosexuals have any greater interest inyouth than others in our youth-centered culture; it has not been proved that one or more homosexual acts converts a normal male into a homosexual though the opposite has been proved time and again; it is pure fantasy to say that a homosexual gets "more stimulation" from pictures in physique magazines than a heterosexual male gets from the fold-out of Playboy; and it is not quite the proper chronological designation to describe high school boys as "extremely young. Nor is it justifiable to use quotations which are incomplete and taken out of context as was done when just as the reverse is true in some cases" was omitted after the words," "The for a urge younger companion is almost basic to the gay life.
"
11
Especially distressing was the committee's failure to quote the "authorities" (except for Kinsey, Bergler, and Guttmacher) by name. The use of "faceless" and nameless men in a supposedly serious study raises doubts about the data and the sources as well as the purpose for which they are used. This uncertainty is further reinforced when extreme statements are not balanced by moderate ones. People today are becoming more and more knowledgeable on many subjects. It behooves legislators and public officials to recognize this crucial fact, Ignorance and prejudice, as reçent activities in this country show, are not so easily fostered as they once were.
It is a bit surprising to a thinking person to observe what strong, condemnatory, and self-righteous views are expressed when homosexuals do wrong, but what total lack of concern when homosexuals become victims of blackmail, assault, battery, and the like. Somehow or other, Christian morality and a sense of decency seem to be lacking herecausing some suspicion as to the sincerity of those who so loudly profess their principles. The report again manifests irresponsibility in its charges that homosexuality is a factor in other forms of sexual deviations, in major crime occurrences, and in security matters. Each of these allegations is serious enough to warrant careful documentation and discussion. Yet, as before, the committee runs away from important and difficult matters which do not lend themselves to gross oversimplification or to popular and emotional treatment and limits itself to those lesser and isolated bits of information which do,
-2
}
Noteworthy, after pages of hellfire and brimstone, is the climax of the report. Out of 40, 000 teachers in Florida we learn that so far 54 have lost their teaching certificates (with 83 cases pending) for "morals" charges. For some odd reason, the report deliberately
mattachine REVIEW
·
chooses to omit any figures on the number of those teachers who were dropped for the commission of homosexual acts. One wonders how many were guilty of adultery, fornication, drunkenness, forgery, lewd and lascivious acts with women, etc. We know that two of these teachers, as the newspaper clipping reveals, were specifically charged with misconduct against six high school girls. What about the rest of them?
The committee's recommendations are open to considerable doubt as to actual intent. Under the guise of protecting young people-most states already have plenty of laws to do thisthe committee proposes to deny certain basic rights, to harass homosexuals because they are different, and to deny them the possibility of employment at other than menial jobs. The use of psychiatric examinations and outpatient treatment for persons convicted of homosexual acts with minors seem reasonable enough recommendations. The implication of the proposal to keep a first arrest confidential until the individual has pleaded guilty or has been convicted and the automatic elevation of a second homosexual offense to a felony causes consternation, There is, for example, no indication what the specific nature of the offense might be. It would seem that any homosexual act, even one engaged in by consenting adults in private, would fall within the language of the committee's recommendations. If the committee had really wanted to show its sincere and enlightened concern, it would have come out firmly for the recommendations of the Wolfenden Committee, the American Law Institute, and a number of church groups. But this the committee most assuredly did not do. The proposal to create a central records repository for all homosexuals arrested and convicted in Florida and to make these records available to public employing agencies smacks of the police state, of self-incrimination, and of denial of an individual of a right to earn a living in accordance with his interests and abilities, The result of such a policy would be a further stigmatization of an individual whose homosexual offense may not have involved acts committed against a minor, by force, or in public. I am confident the good people of Florida will not permit the committee's rash measures to be enacted into law or to create a new group of "second class" citizens,
The Appendices are as irresponsible and out of focus as the body of the report and the tasteless photographs. Only about one-third of the material in the section on Florida laws has anything whatsoever to do with homosexuality. One can only conclude the remaining two-thirds was included in order to associate homosexuality with everything else that is considered abnormal or arouses emptional responses. The glossary of terms is so written up and arranged (inconveniently in non-alphabetical order) as to shock and provide very little that is constructively pertinent or informative. Its approximately 120 terms include 14 which appear twice and 47 which are either neutral or have no special association with homosexuality-e.g., complex, creep, cute, fetish, flagellation, libido, nymphomania, pyromania, sadism, etc, Worst of all, because it cannot be seen through as readily as the other appendices, the bibliography is anything but as "complete and responsible" a list as can be compiled on the subject. It is limited for some reason to an incomplete coverage of material published between 1933 and 1959. Perhaps the list was thrown together at the request of the committee back in 1959 and has never been altered since. Its 338 items include 43 books (only 5 specifically on homosexuality), 20 reports (only 6