When the National Federation of Homophile Organisations held its first annual general meeting on 9 December, one fact stood out very clearly: that unless the homophile movement speedily gets much more realistic about relating resources to objectives — and in particular about money — it might as well pack up shop in 1973.

The present situation is only too lamentably plain. Too many self-consciously overlapping groups are trying to do far too much with far too little. Unless this unreasonable competitiveness stops, and a greater willingness to pool scarce assets and work together for the common good emerges, we shall all get nowhere fast.

Much of the homophile movement, to my mind, is far too reminiscent of those children’s games of wish-think, where the more grandiose and fantastic your dreams of self-importance are and the more euphoric you become the more it is all a case of “if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”

Want a great big gay social club? An instant nationwide legal aid and counselling service? More law reforms? Bigger and better issues of ‘Gay News’ and other gay mags? Of course.

So you join CHE, GLF, Sappho, SMG, Challenge or one of the other homophile groups, and feel jolly virtuous and recklessly generous if you give them even a nominal quid above their slender subscription rate.

And then you grumble when the great big club and the bigger, better newspaper don’t materialise. Come off it. A collection of paupers in a workhouse planning to gut and refurnish Buckingham Palace would be as sensible.

But most gay people aren’t paupers. On the (not excessive) assumption that a high proportion of them earn average incomes of at least £1000 a year, the 18 member organisations of NFHO represent individuals worth £5 million. And if one considers that there are probably between 4 and 5 million British gays (and bis), the whole gay community – charitably assuming that there is such a thing – commands a formidable spending power. It would certainly seem so when one surveys the cash changing hands over the bars and counters of their favoured pubs and clubs every weekend!

So why is the homophile movement in danger of fading out for lack of cash? Maybe it’s because not enough people know the facts. Here are some of them.

To start with what you’re reading, ‘Gay News’ own economic problems are compounded by the refusal of the big monopolistic distributors to handle our only community paper – although despite this it has built up a circulation of several thousands in thirteen issues: a most creditable achievement. £1000 at least is urgently needed NOW to ensure ‘Gay News’s’ survival through 1973. Practical suggestion to everyone who reads this article: put £1 in an envelope and post it to ‘Gay News’ immediately!

No single homophile group is looking forward to a 1973 budgeting surplus on present membership levels and current subscription rates, and most have only enough cash in hand to look ahead on a month-by-month basis. This makes long-term development planning virtually impossible, and the sheer nitty-gritty of keeping the organisation going is a chronic worry for those responsible. (I know – I’ve talked to most of them).

The need tor centralised information services to deal with the ceaseless flow of personal enquiries and requests for help reaching all gay organisations and publications cannot be met without the necessary money to set it up and maintain it. NFHO and the Albany Trust have agreed in principle to do this – but the funds must first be found.

The Albany Trust, whose staff currently consists of myself, one secretary and a clerical assistant who gets only out-of-pocket expenses, is short of £5000 a year to ensure its survival even on this slender basis. Its recent appeal for new Deeds of Covenant has so far brought in only £300 instead of the £4000 £5000 hoped for, and we cannot go on living on “windfalls” in the shape of legacies for much longer. Unless more support is forthcoming from the gay world pretty quickly, the Trust – which was responsible for most of the positive work done for gay people between 1960 and 1970, and still has many valuable contacts in the political and social-work worlds – could have to close down during 1973. That would mean that NFHO’s plans for collective counselling and information services, and the Sexual Law Reform Society’s work on further law reform, will all be jeopardised.

As Chairman of NFHO, I have told all the member organisations that this movement is at a critical point where it must either go sharply uphill in terms of committed support and finance, or it will go down the drain. If the gay community of this country really wanted to, it would raise £50,000 a year for its own organisations and services with little difficulty. It all boils i down to this: do most gay people want a vigorous and effective homophile movement, and are they willing to support organisations and publications which work actively on their behalf – or are they contented with the present situation of lamentable public ignorance about, and discrimination against, homosexuality?

If the latter is the case, an increasing number of people will begin to wonder whether the gay minority is a minority worth working and fighting for. I hope it is, because I have spent the last ten years of my life doing just that.


I’m writing this near the end of one year; you’ll read it, of course (if Gay News prints it) soon after the start of another. In ’72, especially in recent months, I’ve known a happiness deeper than I’ve ever known before: much deeper and richer than, in the years when I was a hidden, isolated homosexual. I’d imagined as possible. ‘Imagined’ is the word: I elaborated fantasies and daydreams about a happy state of life which I wanted to exist for lonely me: but they were ignorant as I didn’t, by definition, know the reality. The main reason why I feel so thrilled to have broken with my former wav of life is the actual discovery-by-experiencing of the richness which homosexual love can bring. I hadn’t known it could be this good.

To destroy a way of life is justified if the destroyer means to, and can, build another which is better. I wasn’t sure I could be that constructive, and often had cold feet in the early stages. The construction now achieved (though as it’s living, it isn’t static or fixed) is therefore surprisingly good — and is due more to several much-loved friends than it is to me. (Must get that in, as I don’t want to sound too self-congratulatory!) Although ’72 has been the peak of life so far, I’m hoping that ’73 will even outdo (outsoar?) it.

You’re probably wondering what the hell I’m going on about – so some personal details may make sense of what I’ve just written. First, though, I realise that this reflective contribution may sound very self-centred. I’ll try to justify it by saying that it’s written in a spirit of encouragement/concern/love for the readers of Gay News, to show that happiness is within our reach. (Some of you, I realise, have overcome or are facing difficulties beside which those I’ve got rid of must seem very petty.) It would be nice to think that the majority of homosexuals, even the majority of Gay News readers, are perfectly used to being happy-to-be-gay; but surely that’s very doubtful. We’re in a society which still, very largely, thinks that homosexuals live a life which is squalid, disgusting, furtive, sad – and so on. Of course, most books and plays about homosexuals still see us like this – as men and women to be pitied when not condemned, receiving at the best the ‘compassion’ of ‘enlightened’ straights.

I’ve found all that, in my own life, to be a lot of rubbish; my own positive, pulsing happiness, for which I’m so grateful, seems pretty exceptional when I look around at straight life. So if you’re feeling sad, bewildered, hesitant, resolve to be happy this year: it can be done.

Now the personal details, with apologies – but nobody can be someone else; we must each speak for ourselves.

For years I tried, for long stretches, largely successfully, at least as far as the surface of life went, to ignore my homosexuality. I was a schoolteacher in Cornwall, and tried to direct my love, with painfully inadequate, though not contemptible results, into my work which I did moderately well. I tried in short to be a loving person. Not surprisingly, this proved an unsatisfactory way to give, and an even more unsatisfactory way to receive, love. I showed a concern for the pupils (especially for the diffident; those who struggled to gain an exam pass which mattered to their future), but came to realise clearly that all this conscientiousness, this patience, simply amounted to an attempt to love abstractions. In trying to meet the inescapable human need to love and be loved, I was living in a vacuum and not even coping with the secondary relationships of life which a person sexually at ease can quite readily deal with. I needed to love real, live people; as a male homosexual, I needed other men’s bodies – not ideals of service to the community (which I can now serve better because I’m happy and outward-looking, not shrivelled up inside.)

So, feeling rather weak and unsure, I threw up this respectable/secure job and came to London to meet other homosexuals – at the start not knowing where they could be found, except in the cottages at Piccadilly Circus and Leicester Square, and in the Salisbury. I’d like to say I was brave enough to come out in Cornwall (though my friends there know now) and nonetheless refused to give up my job, but at that time I wasn’t able to feel like that; in fact, I felt desperate, still duped into thinking of my homosexuality as a burden. Whatever else this article is, it isn’t boastful; I’ve felt embarrassed – and miserable. I lived on the edge of a breakdown and would have fallen over if I hadn’t had enough self-knowledge to realise that I wasn’t in the least wicked/evil because I was gay.

I was interested to read Jim Scott in GN 12 attacking what he sees as the GLF ethos of dispensing “love … equally and indiscriminately to all men and women of all ages everywhere”, a wish “to spiritualise physical sex out of existence and refuse to acknowledge its less ideal aspects”. I see what he means and don’t want to take issue with him; indeed, what I most needed to put me right was another man in my bed. But I can only say that I am able to dispense this pervading and pervasive love now: that it too is a reality for me. I’ve never been to bed with some of my dearest friends, probably never will go – and, honestly, don’t particularly want to. But my love for them isn’t any less satisfying. (We do give each other a hug and a kiss!) I must say too that my present happiness has come about because of my involvement with GLF and CHE (I went to GLF first). There’s so much to love and be thankful for in them both, and I only wish that more homosexuals would support them both. I was getting desperate, before I went to GLF, from standing in the Coleherne, appraising and being appraised, a calculating business on both sides, trying to go down to the he in sips – and, brother, did I once go down! (Still, that was months and months ago; least said, soonest mended.)

You may be thinking, bloody fool; probably are, if you met your great love in the Coleherne. But this is just my point: I’m not saying you ought, or need to, live exactly as I do and hold my exact views if you’re going to be happy. Of course some gays find their height of happiness in the Coleherne; probably some find it by loitering in cottages – though that, I must feel, isn’t usually a happy life. All I want to say is that I’ve found happiness in the way I’ve described. Unless I continue as I live now – being pleased for others to know I’m gay ; at least trying to spread love, to be peaceful and (without apologies for the word) a good person – I couldn’t continue happy.

To express myself as a homosexual means to express myself as a person, and I wouldn’t be a person if I hid away as I used to; what goodness I have derives from my gayness. ’72 is the first year in which I’ve been a person.

So really “How to be Happy …” isn’t quite the right title; I’m not so arrogant as to presume to dictate a course for your life. But if you are “sad, bewildered, hesitant”, then I can recommend, and say that I honestly believe to be happy is possible to you, in your particular circumstances. If you aren’t already, do be unashamed, proud and glad this year; do consider supporting GLF and CHE; do try to dispense love “equally and indiscriminately”. Above all, determined to be happy.

With love to everybody; special love to the GN Editorial Collective for bearing with all this — not forgetting Julian who writes such lovely reviews. Why do people slate you, Julian? I love you ducky. Let’s have a “be-kind-to-Julian” year. That’s one way of spreading love – yes, seriously.


In your No 11 editorial, you commented that very little seemed to be happening on reform of the age of consent. While agreeing that nothing very tangible has been achieved as yet, I would like to take the opportunity of sketching CHE’s position, and level of activity on this vital issue.

CHE’s objective is simply to remove from the statute book discrimination between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. On the age of consent, this currently means a reduction of the age for consenting males from 21 to 16; the position for females also needs clarification to ensure their rights are as extensive, the current situation being somewhat confused (at least in my mind).

But of course by the time this topic receives serious parliamentary consideration we may be talking in the context of a lower heterosexual age of consent anyway. The Sexual Law Reform Society, sponsored by the Albany Trust and due to report shortly on the whole spectrum of sexual law reform, will probably recommend an overall reduction, with no distinction between straight and gay. One of its members, Dr. John Robinson (a CHE Vice President) has suggested a case could be made for a homosexual age of consent lower than the heterosexual one, since the former cannot give rise to unwanted pregnancies; a mischievous idea perhaps, but one that helps to redress the perspective.

Then there’s the question of tactics. Some might say that the objective should be no age of consent at all, and the tactic a compromise of 14, or whatever. There is much to be said for this view, but it seems to me to be an ideal so far from the realms of reality that to make it our declared objective would provoke derision and get us no nearer solving the dilemma of the under 21’s. The more difficult tactical question, which will become progressively more controversial as we get nearer to parliamentary reform, is the compromise of 18. I hope CHE will remain absolutely opposed to this line; the relevant criterion is the age of heterosexual consent, not the age of majority, etc. But I can see that 18 has more attraction to SMG, who are of course arguing from the position of there being no homosexual age of consent at all in Scotland.

So what is CHE doing about it? The issue is only one aspect, albeit an important one, of our overall parliamentary reform platform. Our objective in 1972 has been to overcome the profound lack of interest, compounded by political fear and emotional claptrap, which our first parliamentary ovetures encountered. To do this we must be seen to be more than a few isolated voices crying in the wilderness. We have recently:

(a) Held fringe meetings at each of the three political party conferences, including the Tory one, where we had the backing of the London YCs

(b) Canvassed MPs from their constituencies via local CHE groups.

(c) Solicited the support of prospective MPs at by-elections, both as to law reform and the activities of CHE groups in their constituencies.

(d) Explained our cause to tomorrow’s political leaders (Young Liberals etc) who are rather more open minded than today’s and enlisted their support.

(e) Submitted evidence to a House of Lords Select Committee considering the bill outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sex, arguing that the scope should be widened to include sexual preference.

The first breakthrough will be the creation of a committed parliamentary lobby; we now have a number of members of both Houses whom we hope will form the nucleus of such a lobby. But we are convinced that further reform requires much more than a self-appointed pressure group; the impetus must come from a massive civil rights movement, active in all constituencies. The expansion of CHE as a national organisation based on local groups thus has a political purpose as well as the not to be denigrated social one. And the need for close contact and co-operation with other gay groups is clear. After all we are not working for a reduction in the age of consent for CHE members only!