our struggle. But they will fail, because ulti- mately, our numbers aren’t important. Although they are quite wrong, we should avoid the temp- tation to argue with them endlessly about num- bers. [don’t care whether we’ re ten percent, five percent, or one percent. The percentage of gay people in this society who deserve fair treatment is one hundred percent. If there were only two gay people in this society, we would be no less right. If itis acceptable for our opponents to get up on their high horses, it is certainly acceptable for us to do so. If gay rights is just a matter of different viewpoints, none right and none wrong, for what do we fight? We fight because ignorance is inher- ——— = ently immoral. We fight be- Planet of the Arts Volume 7 wrote: “A ready-made morality, putup for public show on platforms, stands between us and hon- esty.” We break that down. But we don’t break down the concept of morality - we simply force morality to have meaning. Morality is simply the responsibility to take an accounting of truth, and act onit. Itis not an accounting of prejudice. The legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart put it this way: “What is shocking and wrong is not the idea that thecommunity’s morality counts, but what counts as the community’s morality.” Are our opponents all wrong? My political science professor in college had a phrase he would always use when a student gave an answer cause human dignity is not open for debate. Martin Luther King spoke a very meaningful truth when he said:” Our posi- tion has always been that there isnota wrong andright side to the question of full freedom and equality for millions of Negro Americans.” It’s all right for us to say that those who oppose us don’t merely have another “perspective” on homosexuality. They’re wrong. “The real impurity”, as Robert Alan Nicol said to Edward Carpenter, “is in knowingly abandoning reality for illusion.” The reality is that gay people exist, love, and deserve respect. The illusion is that proclaiming who we are honestly somehow represents self-indulgence and immorality. Homo-sexuality, as we can all testify, is no illusion. Tradition isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But those who would favor tradition over truth are slaves to tradition. They prostitute themselves in blind obedience to what is, merely because itis. And so, what we do bothers them, deeply. As in the case of eighteenth century seditious libel, the fact that we speak the truth is nodefense as far as they’re concerned; it only heightens the enor- mity of the “crime”. We’renot just right by a little bit; we’re right by a lot. Ninety percent of the arguments for gay rights could be totally bogus, and by a mile, we would still be right. It’s that compelling. We are, literally, truth marching on. And so we ask the question: Who will march with us, on the right side of history? We could not tell the truth about homosexual- ity. Our silence might save others from the shin- ing illumination of truths which might be diffi- cult, and might save me from the dangers that uncompromising honesty often entails. But in the end, no one can be rescued from the truth. And no one should be. As the psychiatrist Walter Reich once wrote: “Maybe the universe can be ab- solved from evil, but not man. So long as he has the capacity to see evil in himself, he cannot be allowed to deny it forever. He has to be told it’s there. And if he fails to listen, he must be con- demned.” We know that we must seek justice all the days of our lives, and take the heat that we must surely get for it. We walk head first, face into the wind. But that’s all right, because at least that way, we can breathe. In 1920, an early British gay rights group Issue 6 page 5 ity should be encouraged to think again, because those aren’t values; they’re de values. No doubt those who would lecture us on the so-called “immorality” of our lives would be shocked to hear that we are so impolite as to call teachings immoral. H.L.A. Hart fully understood the nature of what we seek when he said: “No doubt it is true that if deviations from conventional sexual morality are tolerated by the law and come to be known, the conventional sexual morality might change in a more permis- sive direction. But even if the conventional mo- Another feeling! Oh! ’tis hard to trace The line where love usurps tame friendship’ s place. So questioned I myself: What lights this fire? Maids and not boys are wont to move desire; Whence spring these inclinations, rank and strong? And harming no one, wherefore call themwrong? / love a youth; but Horace did the same; If he’s absolved, say, why am I to blame? When young Alexis claimed a Virgil's sigh, He told the world his choice; and may not I? Then be consistent; and, at once confess If man’s pursuit through life is happiness, that was factually correct, butcompletely missed the point he was driving at. He would say:” True, but irrelevant.” It’s true that a few of our oppo- nents have afew of the facts right; occasionally, their criticisms hold some validity. But they so strip them of human feeling and meaning that even those few are largely irrelevant. Are our enemies right about some things? Yes. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Ihe philosopher Bertrand Russell once wrote: “Conventional morality has erred, not in de- manding self-control, but in demanding it in the wrong place.” Immorality is, in some sense, a lack of self control; but not a lack of control over whom we do and do not love. By definition, love cannot be controlled. That’s not to say that mo- rality has nothing do with sexuality. Just like anything else, it can be expressed responsibly or irresponsibly. If it makes us more fully human, it’s moral. If it doesn’t, it’s not. But it’s not a question of whom we love. It’s how. Those who oppose us have led us to believe that morality is dirty word. That couldn’t be more false, especially for us. Without morality, there is no compelling basis for responsibility towards others. Without it, nothing seems worth fighting for, and in fact, nothing is. Gay rights is the purest morality play of our time. In no other modern day arenas does one find almost pure good, locked in heated battle with almost total evil. It’s not that our opponents are evil; their ideas are evil. They claim to hold “traditional values.” But they are “traditional values” that devalue love. These are “traditional values” that devalue human dignity. These are “traditional values” that devalue coherent, caring families. People who think these sorts of things constitute moral- tality did so change, the society in question would not have been destroyed or “subverted”. We should compare such a development not to the violent overthrow of a government but to a peaceful Constitutional change in its form, con- sistent not only to the preservation of society, but with its advance.” What we're talking aboutis good for America. Because their mis-understandings about us are dangerous and deep-seated, the reactionaries can- not see that. The problem is that they don’t just have just a little bit wrong - they have almost everything wrong - about issues that couldn’t be more important. An anonymous poet of a hundred years ago wrote: “Of priest and laymen, who have shared his guilt (If guilt it be) then slumber if thou wilt; And watch the prickings of his morbid lust, To wring his neck, and call thy doings just. And thus in man some inborn passions reign Which, spite of careful pruning, sprout again. Then, say, was I or nature in the wrong, If, yet a boy, one inclination, strong In wayward fancies, domineered my soul, And bade complete defiance to control? My bubbling passions found another vent, Taking about black civil rights thirty years ago, John F. Kennedy said that the country was "confronting a moral issue as old as the scriptures, and as clear as the constitution." Indeed, our struggle, too, is the very definition ofa morality play . The object changed, but not the sentiment. Such were my notions ere my teens began, And such their progress till I grew a man. Among the yeoman’s sons on my estate A gentle boy would at my mansion wait: Love, love it was that made my eyes delight To have his person ever in my sight. Another feeling borrowed friendship’ s name, And took its mantle to conceal my shame. ———— Wade Thomas But tell us casuists, were statutes meant To scourge the wicked or the innocent? I stand a monument, whereby to learn That reason’ s light can never strongly burn Where blear eyed prejudice erects her throne, And has no scale for prejudice but her own. Can never reason’ s fabric overthrow, And make a crime what is not really so.” We ask America - both our enemies and those who are yet unsure about us - to be merely consistent. If morality and truth are to be our guides, that’s fine. We'll win more quickly that way. But it must be a morality that means some- thing; it must be a total truth. Talking about black civil rights thirty years ago, John F. Kennedy said that the country was “confronting a moral issue as old as the scrip- tures, and as clear as the constitution.” Indeed, our struggle, too, is the very definition of a morality play, good arrayed against evil in a series of stark tableaus. We are fortunate enough to be involved in one of the few purely good causes left. It is precisely because of the necessity for absolute standards of morality that we are right .Inorder to let our opponents know that we aren’t impressed with their preachings, we must be arrogantly confident of that fact. We must not be afraid to speak aloud in the dark. -Subscriptions to Christopher Street are available from: Christopher Street PO Box 1475 Church St. N.Y.NY 10008 tel. (212) 627-2120 Also available from Little Sisters Books our struggle. But they will fail, because uli- mately, ournumbersaren'timportant. Although they are quite wrong, we should avoid the temp- tation to argue with them endlessly about num- bers. [don't care whether we're ten percent, ive Percent, or one percent. The percentage of gay people in this society who deserve fair treatment is one hundred percent. If there were only two say people in this society, we would be no less right Ifitis acceptable for our opponents to get upon their high horses, itis certainly acceptable forus todo so. If gay rights is just a matter of different viewpoints, none right and none wrong, for what do we fight? We fight Planet of the Arts Volune 7 wrote:"Aready-mademoralty.putupforpublic | show on platforms, stands between us and hon ‘esty.” We break that down. But we don't break | down the concept of morality - we simply force | morality iohave meaning. Moral issimplythe | responsibility to take an accounting of uth and sctonit tisnor an accounting of prejudice. The legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart put it this way: | ““Whatis shocking and wrongisnotthe dea that | thecommunity’smorality counts,butwhatcounts | as the community's morality.” ‘Are our opponens all_ wrong? My political ! science professor in college hada phrase he ‘wouldalways use when astudent gavean answer Issue 6 page 5. ity should be encouraged to think again, because those aren't values; they're de values. No doubt those who would lecture us on the so-called “immorality” of our lives would be shocked to hear that we are so impolite as to call teachings immoral HLA. Han fully understood the nature of ‘what we seek when he sad: “ No doubt it is true that if deviations from | conventional sexual morality are tolerated by the Taw and come to be known, the conventional sexual morality might change in a more permis sive direction. But even ifthe conventional mo- Another feeling! Oh! tis hard to trace ‘The line where love usurps tame friendship’ place. So questioned I myself: What lights ths fire? ‘Maids and not boys are wont 10 move desire; Whence spring these inclinations, rank and strong? ‘Andharming no one, wherefore allthemwrong? love a youth; but Horace did the same: If he's absolved, say, why am I 10 blame? When young Alexis claimed a Virgil's sigh, He told the world his choice; and may not I? Then be consistent; and, at once confess If man’s pursuit through life is happiness, because ignorance is inher- cently immoral. We fight be- ‘cause: human dignity is not open for debate. Martin Luther King spoke avery meaningful truth whenhe sid:” Ourposi- tionhas always been thatthere isnotawrong andrightsideto the question of full freedom and equality for millions of Negro Americans.” It's all right for us to say that those who oppose us don’t merely haveanother"perspective”on homosexuality. They're wrong. “The real impurity”, as Robert Alan Nicol said 10 Edward Carpenter, “is inknowingly abandoning realty forillusion.” Therealty isthat gay people exist, love, and deserve respect. The illusion is that proclaiming who we are honestly somehow represents self-indulgence and immorality. Homo-sexuality, as we can all testify is no illusion. ‘Tradition isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But those who would favor tradition over truth are slaves to tradition. They prostitute themselvesin blind obedience to whats, merely because iti. ‘And so, what we do bothers them, deeply. As in thease of eighteenth century seditious libel, the factthat we speak the rth is nodefense as far as they're concemed; it only heightens the enor- rity of the “crime”. We'renotjustrightby lite bit; we'erightby lot, Ninety percent ofthe arguments for gay rights could be totally bogus, and by a mile, we ‘wouldstil beright. I's that compelling. Weare, literally, trath marching on. And so we ask the question: Who will march with us, on the right side of history? ‘Weecould not tell the truth about homosexual- ity. Oursilence might save others from the sin- ing illumination of truths which might be difi- cal, and might save me from the dangers that uncompromising honesty often entails. But in the end, no one can be rescued from the truth ‘And no one should be. As the psychiatrist Walter Reich once wrote: “Maybe, the universe can be ab- solved from evil, but not ‘man, So long as he has the capacity to see evil in himself, he cannot be allowed to deny it forever. He as tobe told it's there. And if he fails to listen, he must be-con-