of the homo, the privileges of free assemblago and torritorially-unrestricted association, the privilege of socially-acceptable free speech, that without the privilege of being able to freely assert ourselves as a group and boing socially received with the same dignified and decont hospitality extended to any and all other minorities, WE HAVE NOTHING! And until we have begun to consolidato around such a conceptual program, as a minority, wo have accomplished nothing!

It is on this latter point whore our success or failure swings; it is on this latter point that all the Wolfenden woll-meaningism failed, and most surely will founder again. A general bill of "mutual consent when privately enjoyed" is neither gain nor security for us if, at the same time, we are forbidden to seek or associate beyond our front doors. Franco had just such an unspecified "mutual consent when privately onjoyed" clause for 150 years, generally. And for the samo longth of time the French homophile lolled in the ennervating illusion that the "double standards" of the bourgeoise-formulated marriage contract applied to him also. So that when, in the last two years, De Gaulle tacked on a specific homophile exclusion clause to cortain libertios in this catogory our minority was not prepared to receive, let alone socially resist, such an onslaught.

A full BILL OF PARTICULARS upon which to negotiate a general liberalization of our national social code, and to amend local or regional "prejudices" currently lodged in criminal equities, reflects no more than the traditional bargaining position of demanding two loaves with the firm conviction to accept no less than one. Although (in small print) half a loaf could be entertained as a "good faith" commitment at the armed truce concluding a first ongagoment.

But however half-loafoy our first temporizings may bo, even those initial small gains MUST BE FIRMLY ROOTED, AND COUCHED, IN TERMS OF ACCEPTABLE HOMOPHILE VALUES or we've achieved NO THING!

Henry Hay

23