It's `Bill' Again...

It would be possible to deal with the very considerablo substance of the Henry Hay article (see 'Masculine Viewpoint,' THE LADDER, July 1961) at any one of several leels. Partly because it is so exceptionally difficult to grope one's way through the Hay prose and partly tapause the subject has been written, talked and fought over ad nauseam, I am myself inclined to give up for the time boing the attempt to do thorough justice to the article and instead will make scattered comments only.

The least important, probably, is the question of defending or further explaining the basis of the DOB anti-rights bill position. No, the DOBs are not "afraid to stand up for their rights." Many members who discussed the matter would, I think, be in complete harmony with Hay in opposing the bill idea primarily because it would favor a single minority. Hay's spelling out of this point would be seconded warmly by most DOB members.

It is true in important lement in the DOB position was a feeling that the rights bill was bad tactics. The value of discussing what it is we all want to aim for is beyond dispute; the value of putting such stątement into the form of a bill of rights was the matter of dispute. Hay's "Bill of Particulars" is not unrelated to the DOB proposal to substitute for a rights bill statement of the aims and goals of the homophile movement. But do not wish to put the stress on defining past actions or positions, or particuler groups against thers. The issues are what is important.

C

I personally would like to underline that paragraph in which Hay distinguishes between the political fiction of inalienable rights and the political entity of conferred privileges. The link between the former and "duties owed" was an important part of the DOB position. You can't demand inalienable rights, as Hay indicates, and I would add you can't even negotiate unless you are in a negotiating position.

Hay's hint that there may be a necessary morality to bo

16