framed for the homophile minority is a Yaluable ones. Such a morality may indeed differ from heterosexual morality in important details but common principles might be found. For instance (to make a quick stab) "Provided that setting which permits a maximum productive contribution from oqch individual." Definitions and details are of course open

to debate.

I am not at this point prepared to comment on the ultimate adequacy of a "mutual. consent" bill for private homosexual behavior, in substance. As to tactics, this raises Hay's question of asking for two loaves when you expect only one or half. Bargaining tactics between equals in the politi. cal process might call for asking for two. But we are not equals in the bargaining process – we are a stigmatized minority, only just now, here and there, beginning to dispel some of the stigma. We will not be given a hearing unless we display those traits of moderation and balance which we are supposed not to have, Whether to call those who now cooperate with us friends or temporary allies, I think, is not too important; the point is that they will continue to cooperate with us only so long as they remain convinced that on the whole we are sane. Some of the suggested content for the rights bill, as originally advertised, would, I think, cast real doubts on this point.

In further regard to tactics, I differ from Hay in his view that a homosexual minority code must be concerned with no other form of sexual behavior (prostitution, adultery, etc.). At least I differ if he means by this to exclude any cooperation on the part of homosexuals with other groups working for general law reform in the area of "sexual offenses." To work, as Hay auggests, for Constitutional change in place of changes in state laws seems to mo not only an impossibly big order, but it also raises other questions. If Constitutional privileges are to be sought which "State their premises in primal homophile values" (quoting Hay), what becomes of his view that civil privileges are indigisible? I am also at a loss to know what forms of Constitutional amendment could be sought. Perhaps what is nooded here is clarification.

I have not studied the Wolfenden experience as closely as Hay, but my view is that the Wolfenden failure does not counsel' us to shoot for still more than they failed