Oasis Links:

Join the Oasis Group on

Oasis Allies

The San Francisco Council on Religion and the Homosexual grew out of a political climate of legal reform and struggle for liberation by oppressed groups. The social climate of America in the 1960s fostered the re-evaluation of morality and the continued rejection of Victorian sexual mores. The Church had begun to be influenced by the growing field of Moral Theology and to identify itself with God's people in their pluralistic form. It began to adapt its ecclesial structure to emphasize lay leadership and participation, all of which brought about a spiritual climate in which Christians saw themselves as having a mission in the world to the poor and disenfranchised.

In 1948, Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin had published their conclusions from more than 15 years of research in human sexuality. Their findings, entitled Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, served to make homosexuality more visible and began to normalize it in the mind of Americans. The Kinsey report altered public discourse towards sexual freedom. Based on interviews with approximately 5,300 American males, the report estimated that 18 million Americans were homosexuals, and that 50% of men had experienced an erotic response to another man. It claimed that everyone has a physiological capacity for homosexuality and that homosexuality crosses all ethnic, class, racial, and age groups. It also suggested that discrimination against homosexuals is socially destructive. Five years after the report on male sexual behavior, the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Female was published. Its findings were based on personal interviews with nearly 6,000 women, and suggested that 28% of women had experienced erotic response to other women.¹ These conclusions may have been even more shocking to the American public than those of the earlier report.

In a 1950 landmark victory, the California State Supreme Court ruled that bars cannot be discriminated against on the basis that they cater to gays or lesbians. The ruling ended attempts by the California Alcoholic Beverage Commission to close down the Black Cat, a San Francisco gay bar owned by Sol Stuman.² The ruling, however, did not end police harassment of gay bars or their patrons.

Throughout the decade, a series of well publicized prosecutions in England led the Moral Welfare Council of the Church of England to issue an interim report on the subject. "Sexual Offenses and Social Punishment" proposed that private homosexual acts between consenting adults, though sinful, should not be crimes. The Roman Catholic Church was also in favor of changing such sexual codes. Church groups in England, Sweden, and the United States became increasingly aware of the injustice done the lesbigay community by penal laws regarding sexual behavior. These laws were debated in Parliament during 1957-58, but criminal proceedings for such acts were not abolished until July of 1967. In 1962, the American Law Institute established a "Model Penal Code" with the recommendation that private homosexual acts should only be considered crimes when force or fraud was used or a minor was involved. It stated that private morals are the concern of spiritual authorities, not the law.³

The continued harassment of gays necessitated the formation of underground homophile organizations, and minor legal victories may have provided the impetus. In 1951, the first national homophile organization was formed. The Mattachine Society sponsored social events and, in its magazine, monitored legal and social issues of interest to gay men. In 1955, the Daughters of Bilitis became the first homophile organization for women.⁴ San Francisco's lesbigay population was estimated at 50,000, and sex laws were still being enforced selectively.⁵

In 1963, civil rights proponents marched on Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech.⁶ The lesbigay community and other oppressed groups undoubtedly found encouragement in the concerns raised and strides made by African Americans.

Animosity between the lesbigay community and the Church is evident in a 1951 quote by gay historian Edward Sagarin, "Homosexuality is not an antireligious force, although religion is antihomosexual."⁷ The Friends Home Committee was one of the first religious organizations to speak out in support of the lesbigay community. In 1964, it published Towards a Quaker View of Sex stating: "It is the nature and quality of a relationship that matters: one must not judge it by its outward appearance but by its inner worth. Homosexual affection can be as selfless as heterosexual affection, and therefore we cannot see that it is in some way morally worse. Neither are we happy with the thought that all homosexual behavior is sinful: motive and circumstances degrade or ennoble any act, and we feel that to list sexual acts as sins is to follow the letter rather than the spirit, to kill rather than to give life.⁸

In 1962, a minister and social worker named Ted McIlvenna was called to San Francisco's Glide United Methodist Church by the Rev. Cecil Williams. He was director of the Young Adult Project and found himself working in the Polk Gulch and Tenderloin neighborhoods with runaway teens who sustained themselves through prostitution. In addition, he met other persons for whom homosexuality created problems. He sought help for them through organizations such as Daughters of Bilitis, Mattachine Society, League for Civil Education, and the Tavern Guild. He learned that many lesbigays sensed a sharp division between themselves and Church.⁹ Through the Glide Urban Foundation and the Methodist Church, he and Lewis Durham organized the "Consultation on the Church and the Homosexual." This conference between gay activists (Daughters of Bilitis, Mattachine Society, League for Civil Education, Tavern Guild) and sixteen Protestant ministers (Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran, Quaker) was held May 30-June 2, 1964 at the United Church of Christ's White Memorial Retreat in Mill Valley.¹⁰ To kick off the conference, visiting clergy toured bars and other gay night spots including Precarious Vision, a Church-sponsored coffee house on Bush St. in San Francisco.¹¹

McIlvenna set the ground rules for the Consultation: no one had special access to truth or righteousness; mutual understanding was the goal.¹² He added that homosexuals are not a lesser order of being, not all unhappy, not all immature and infantile and not without God. Acceptance of homosexuals into the life of the Church would give depth and meaning to their relationships. He quoted the Gospel of Matthew 18:20, "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them," and Bonhoeffer, "So the Church is not a religious community of worshipers of Christ but is Christ himself, who has taken form among men." The mission of the Church, he said, is to be a servant-witness to all persons, organizations, structures, segments, and levels of society; to be an agent of reconciliation. "The Church must not only be in the world, but it must be of the world (worldly) in order to know the world, so that it may be a faithful servant of the world. The Church does not exist in the world simply as a servant, but as a means of understanding itself. The Church must concern itself with whole persons, in their totality (including sexuality)."¹³

The Rev. Canon Robert Cromey was at that time Executive Assistant to the Episcopal Bishop of California, The Rt. Rev. James Pike, and so represented Pike at the Consultation. Like Cromey, many of the clergy at the Consultation were involved in the civil rights movement, had marched in Selma, and had been arrested at sit-ins in the City. Cromey believes that "the Church's thrust to the urban areas, as opposed to the growing suburban flight, put us in the forefront of the civil rights movement. Some of us took seriously Isaiah's and Jesus' concern for the poor and disenfranchised. The established Church was bitterly opposed to our actions both for blacks and for lesbigays."¹⁴

The Rt. Rev. C. Kilmer Myers, Suffragan Bishop of Chicago (later to become Bishop of California), representing the Chicago Urban Training Center, spoke on the Church's views on homosexuals. He stated that clergy reflect a mass silence on the issue. The Church's attitude is not one that can be readily identified. It varies from utter rejection to acceptance. Dogma represents the essential beliefs of the Church, the truths in theological terms. Doctrine represents the acculturated pronouncements of the Church. There exists no dogmatic statement about homosexuality or about sexuality in general. On the other hand, doctrine against homosexuality was based upon fear of the unknown, lack of knowledge, and legalistic rejection.

Myers conveyed a sense of theological change, in the continuing revelation of Truth. The Church is a sociological entity and reacts to the culture in which it stands. The current revolution includes moral theology and continuous theological reflection. He stated that Christian doctrine is best understood in terms of symbols. Existential angst is separation of man from other, and this separation allows us to understand reunion. He quoted Martin Luther, "I the unjust am made to be just. I become that which I am not," and Paul Tillich, "I accept the fact that I am accepted." The problem of separation is sin. When we feel accepted, we are at one with everything. Acceptance of being accepted is St. Paul's doctrine of justification by faith. Justification has to come through a community of people, the Church, the community of memory. Present moments are the fulfillment and consummation of past and present. The Church is always in the process of becoming what it is, until the eschaton. Justification comes in the community of memory, the community of the moment, the community of the future, and is kept alive in the Church through the power of the symbols and the images of the Church which may well be universal symbols. When symbols become less than universal, they are parochial, denominational, acculturated. Justification (reaching out to the other, union with the other, moment of acceptance, accepting the fact that one is accepted) may also be found outside the Church. According to Tillich and other modern theologians, "the new being, the new humanity" is Jesus. This reflects a development of love united with justice and freedom united with commitment.

The Episcopal Church, according to Myers, was interested in the study of various levels of cultural life in the city, in having future ministers get exposure in community organizations, with reflection of the experience theologically in an effort to create new forms of metropolitan ministry. The Church was beginning to recognize a new pluralism, identifying itself with God's people, regardless of how society identified them or how they identified themselves. Myers viewed the Church as pastor. "There is no relationship between the biblical and the theological and the homosexual -- between the church and the homosexual -- unless somehow the church is able to reassess its view of sexuality -- not simply the problem of homosexuality. We see little evidence of any attempt on the part of the Church to readjust itself using the insights of modern psychology or even sociology. There can be no significantly real and human relationship between the Church and the homosexual unless change occurs."

Myers stated that all relationships are valid providing they are informed by love and involve commitment which includes responsibility. No matter what the gender of lovers are, the test of which this general direction of Christianity would seek to apply is this principle of being informed by love and involving commitment. That is, relationships are relationships in love, but that love is informed by justice.¹⁵

Don Lucas spoke to the male homosexual position. Lucas stated that by failing to recognize the gay man and serve him, the church was failing to serve the community. The Church was perceived as antisexual, and should recognize that sex has meanings and values other than that of procreation alone. According to Lucas, 35 percent of those who belong to a church experience a great desire for the comfort and spiritual nourishment that a church can offer and the anticipated attitude of rejection by the church if it would learn about his homosexuality. Roman Catholics, he said, have the most conflict. Lucas proclaimed that the Church didn't understand homosexuality and was afraid to delve into the subject. The Church should look into the matter of sin and redefine this concept. Sexuality should be part of Sunday school teaching. If the church came to its senses and stopped condemning, said Lucas, then likewise, so would the majority of society. Thus, any heterosexual that tortured or persecuted a lesbigay person would have to confess it in a confessional. Lucas saw the problem that many lesbigays faced as feeling rejected, not being understood. Church and religion should understand, he said. "If the churchman is truly to serve God and his fellow human beings, he and his congregation must be prepared to deal compassionately and dispassionately with all who seek his counsel. The homosexual is a human being. He has a soul and Christ consciousness just as do all other human beings. He loves, lives, and has feelings and emotions which are really no different from those of his so-called heterosexual counterpart. Most homosexuals are very sensitive by nature, are creative, and basically have rather high moral standards and principles. Conflict occurs when religion presents to them a picture which represents them as perverse."

Billie Tallmij represented the Daughters of Bilitis. She stated that most lesbigays have had to resolve the conflicts stemming from the Church and their way of life. "No one can survive such a schism and remain sane. To retain sanity, he must forego the organized approach to God. He can do this and still maintain an individual approach to spiritual things and live in a semblance of wholeness." She identified Original Sin as ignorance and inflexibility, which was experienced by many women in the Church long before they were aware of their homosexual tendencies. "Sex is a God-given force. To repress it or to deny it is an affront to a gift of God. Is this being Christian? What of the 'voice in the wilderness' which belongs to a homosexual? Must his anguish be denied or his tears ignored? Must he be 'saved' from his 'sexual sin' before he is counted among 'God's children'? Are only the 'sinless' to be considered as 'children of God'?"

After listening to the plenary speakers, discussion groups were formed. Del Martin summarized one group's discussion: "We must slay the monster called 'crime against nature.'" Homosexuality is not unnatural. The homosexual is a human being who is not excluded from God and is entitled to the same rights and freedoms as other citizens. The Church needs to exercise more influence on society's attitudes. Homosexuality as an expression of love, with all the implications of commitment and responsibility, is acceptable, though this does not mean endorsement or encouragement of homosexual behavior. Martin noted that those representing the Church at the conference were not truly representative of the power structure of the Church. Her group recommended more local conferences with leadership from the National Council of Churches. The Church should push for penal code reforms, taking sexual behavior out of the realm of law and regarding it as a matter of moral conscience. There was concern for teenagers: a recognition of the need for education at the parish level and for pastoral care for teenagers to find their true identity. This group also saw a need for alternatives to gay bars. Clergy should preach acceptance to congregations to stop persecution and condemnation, so that no action by a human being could separate him from the Christian fellowship.

Don Kuhn of the Glide Foundation offered another group's report: "man has an infinite capacity to love; all men are under judgment of moral law; all men are their own ministers."

To conclude the conference, McIlvenna offered his own food for thought: "Both churchmen and homosexuals use people. This is an admission which needs to be made. In listing sins, we need to include the Church's penchant for separating 'the good' from 'the bad' in a way that neither the experience of history nor the data of the behavioral sciences support." He stressed the need for the Church to be up front in confessing our common humanity. The Church needs to speak from its traditional position as 'keeper of morality' as to whether homosexual acts are 'natural' or 'unnatural.' The Church needs to discuss the nature of marriage and to acknowledge every man's need for intimacy. "The church needs to remind herself, to tell homosexuals, and to acknowledge to all mankind that being or not being a homosexual is not salvifically important."¹⁶

From this Consultation grew a commitment on the part of ministers to work with local homophile groups and to initiate dialogue in their denominations on the Church's stand toward same-gender sexuality. Soon after the consultation, the San Francisco participants established themselves as the Council on Religion and the Homosexual (CRH). The CRH took advantage of the theological ferment and social activism that infected American religion in the 1960s, and sponsored other national symposia on homosexuality. Both the United Church of Christ and Episcopal Diocese of California gave financial support.¹⁷

On December 7 of that year, the Rev. Canon Robert Cromey issued a press release declaring that the CRH had been formed to meet a "great need for a better understanding of human sexuality" and its "broad variations and manifestations." The Board of Trustees included Methodist, Lutheran, UCC, and Episcopal clergy, with Baptists, Roman Catholics, and Presbyterians also participating in many discussions.

The CRH stated as its primary objective: "To promote continuing dialogue between the Church and the homosexual". Plans for meeting this objective included:

orienting members of religious communities on aspects of homosexuality in accordance with homosexual testimony and scientific data; providing opportunities for homosexuals to present their views to religious organizations; promoting dialogue and deeper understanding of sexuality, morality, ethical behavior, and life of religious faith; studying dynamics of authentic human relationships from biblical, theological, and social science perspectives; researching further understanding within the larger framework of sexual revolution; encouraging a broadened editorial policy and objectivity of religious publications and other media; becoming a national voice on law, policies, and penal reform; helping professionals deal with issues of human sexuality, especially with young people; encouraging other such councils; promoting thorough and objective consideration of human sexual behavior from all points of view and with deep concern for the human beings and values involved in such sensitive, personal matters.

An event at the end of that month was a major turning point in San Francisco lesbigay history. The CRH sponsored a New Year's Eve dance fundraiser at California Hall. Police were still in the habit of making arrests for same-sex touching in bars and urged cancellation of the dance. The ministers of the CRH met with police and secured their assurance that the event would not be harassed. In spite of this assurance, police arrived at the dance and demanded entrance but were blocked by lawyers for CRH. Three lawyers and a ticket taker were arrested, and all 600 guests were photographed upon entering or leaving.¹⁸ The Rev. Canon Robert Cromey and the Rev. Cecil Williams tried to get arrested, but the police refused to take them into custody.¹⁹ On January 2, 1965, the ministers of CRH held a press conference at Glide to publicize the police department's regular harassment of the lesbigay community. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) agreed to defend those arrested at the dance, but the judge directed a "not guilty" verdict before the defense had presented its case.²⁰

In June of 1965, the CRH published "A Brief of Injustices: An Indictment of Our Society in Its Treatment of the Homosexual" to implement the challenge of change. It was signed by the CRH board, including the Rev. Canon Robert W. Cromey. It stated that the ministers had discovered that a majority of lesbigays are productive members of society, doing excellent work in many fields of art, business, industry, and the professions. Most were normal in appearance and fully capable of deep, lasting, and moral relationships. The lesbigays were not inherently more criminal in intent or actions and no better or worse than their heterosexual counterparts. The ministers were aware of the following injustices to the lesbigay community:

I. Homosexuals are being prosecuted under laws which cannot be enforced equitably. There is little justice for the homosexual. The law forbids certain sexual acts. As private acts, they should not be the subject of law. Such laws serve best to open up avenues for blackmail, police brutality, and violation of civil rights. Enforcement is sporadic and prejudicial. There has been an increase in arrests in recent years of male homosexuals.

II. Homosexuals are being socially ostracized to the extent that they are often unable to avail themselves of effective legal counsel and unwilling to risk fighting for their legitimate rights in courts. Abuse by schoolmates; parents' disowning their children; social condemnation; public shame and ridicule; loss of employment, friends, and church affiliation have made homosexuals fearful, guilt-ridden, and secretive. They are often intimidated by law enforcement and unwilling to fight in court.

III. Individuals who publicly assist persons perceived by others as homosexuals face attempted intimidation by police as well as other negative sanctions. The attitude of police is that they are enforcing "God's Law." Police say, "Leave morals and law enforcement to us."

IV. Enforcement officers use methods of enticement and entrapment to develop grounds for arrest and conviction of persons presumed to be homosexual. Police use entrapment or enticement and deny it. Courts believe police.

V. Persons perceived to be homosexuals are subjected to unreasonable and unfair discriminatory practices in employment based on the unfounded belief of employers that homosexuals are unstable or untrustworthy. Arrest records are maintained and revealed to employers and to the press. In military and government, homosexuals are ferreted out and discharged dishonorably.

VI. Persons presumed to be homosexuals, on suspicion alone, are being willfully, publicly, and illegally harassed by police in injurious ways. Police harassment occurs in bars, on streets, or in other public places. People are questioned because of dress, manner, place of assembly, choice of associates. Members of CRH and their wives have been verbally abused.

VII. Criminals who attack citizens often go free because too much police manpower is used to harass, entice, and entrap suspected homosexuals. Homosexuals become fair game for all forms of criminality,  submitting to beatings, extortion, and robbery. They are distrustful of police and courts.

VIII. Licensed public premises, such as bars, are subject to prosecution because they provide services to homosexuals or persons presumed to be homosexuals. Conversely, homosexuals and persons presumed to be homosexuals are deprived of access to such licensed public premises which are available to other people. Gay bars are places where people may freely associate. Most hold higher standards than straight bars. There have been many confrontations with the Alcoholic Beverage Commission, and many bars closed. The average lifespan of a gay bar is less than two years. The charges filed against such establishments generally are: "licensee is running a disorderly house injurious to the public decency or morals, because within the premises and with his full knowledge he permitted lewd or lascivious acts, a public display or manifestation of aberrant sexual urges or desires, verbal solicitations indicating the intent to perform such acts, or that he allowed his bar to become a resort for dope pushers or addicts, prostitutes, pimps, panderers, or sexual perverts." Usually something like a man putting his arm around the waist of another man is interpreted as intent to commit an illegal sex act.

IX. In order to make a case against a licensed public place believed to serve homosexuals or persons presumed to be homosexuals, plainclothes investigators employ methods of enticement and entrapment to secure "evidence" which is often proved false or irrelevant. ABC undercover agents solicit sex acts. Almost any act or conversation in a gay bar is sufficient for arrest and for use as data in revoking a license.

X. Private acts of unsuspecting persons which result from the deceitful enticement of undercover agents are used to suspend or revoke the license of public places, even though neither the enticement nor the private acts have ever been reported to the licensee. Dates of incidents used to suspend licenses are often far back in the bar's history. There must be secret files. Licenses are suspended pending appeal and lack due process. Bar owners cannot afford the legal appeal process, so they go out of business. Almost all gay bars are closed. Police harass patrons entering and leaving.

Some of these social problems stem from misconceptions about theology and the interpretation of the Bible. Churches perpetuate this injustice. The law should be concerned with protection of youth and guarding the public against force or predatory conduct. Otherwise sex should be a personal liberty.

The chief goal in dealing with homosexuals should not be to try to reorient their sexual propensities through punishment and intimidation but rather to help them attain a satisfactory self-image and a meaningful relationship to society. No one should be forced to suffer in silence or live in fear. The only sensible criteria for judging human relationships is the maturity, necessity, and justice inherent in each relationship. Social and legal justice is essential. The homosexual is forced to perpetrate the last great injustice upon himself, that of failing to realize the best in himself and his part in cultivating the best in his society. Fear is the greatest obstacle which man must overcome.

Throughout the year, a great deal of media attention was focused on the CRH and on the issue of homosexuality, in such venues as CBS television, Look Magazine, and Harper's.²¹ The CRH and Glide Urban Center cosponsored a special radio broadcast: "The Homosexual: A New Minority?" One speaker was the Rev. Donald Stuart, San Francisco Night Minister.²² The CRH supported gay organizations candidates' nights, where audiences repeatedly demanded that San Francisco politicians endorse a civilian review board. The CRH supported formation of Citizens Alert, a 24-hour hotline that provided lawyers, photographers, and other assistance to victims of brutality. Four years before the Stonewall riots in New York City, usually cited as the birth of the Gay Liberation Movement, the police had greatly curtailed harassment of gay bars in San Francisco and had begun meeting with homophile groups.²³ The CRH added credibility to the plight of the lesbigay community, which gave it a voice with the media and the establishments of societal authority. Throughout the 1967-68 local elections, the CRH held candidates' nights and endorsed gay-friendly candidates.²⁴

The CRH published a pamphlet entitled Every Tenth Person Is a Homosexual for distribution at the California State Fair Education Booth #19, which it cosponsored with the Association for Responsible Citizenship, Citizens News, Daughters of Bilitis, Society for Individual Rights, and the Tavern Guild of San Francisco. The pamphlet stated, "homosexuality does not denote a course of conduct, but a state of affairs, the state of loving your own, not the opposite sex; it is a state of affairs in nature. One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness." It also stated that lesbigays are no more necessarily promiscuous than heterosexuals are necessarily chaste. It quoted the ACLU of Southern California's statement of December 1965 that the right to privacy in sexual relations is a basic constitutional right and that much of sex law is taken from religious law. The pamphlet also quoted the Joint Committee on Homosexuality of the Diocesan Council of the Episcopal Diocese of California, which called for equal opportunity in federal employment and security clearances, as well as military service. "It is time that the American public re-examine its attitudes and its laws concerning the homosexual."

In 1966, Christianity Today ran articles on CRH, and the National Council of Churches met with gay activists.²⁵ The CRH continued to sponsor symposiums on homosexuality. One such conference may have been held at Grace Cathedral, with its keynote speaker the Rev. W. L. D. Morgan, author of The Homosexual and the Church: An Historical Survey and Assessment.²⁶ Another was October 24-27, 1968, entitled "Symposium on the Life and Style of the Homosexual," cosponsored with the Glide Foundation, the Daughters of Bilitis, the Mattachine Society, the Society for Individual Rights (SIR), and the Tavern Guild.

Following one of the CRH consultations, a priest in the Episcopal Diocese of California wrote to Don Lucas:

Dear Mr. Lucas: A short note of appreciation for the seminar on the Church and the homosexual at Holy Trinity, Richmond, this week. I regret that more clergy did not attend. Two years ago, I never would have thought much about this matter, but I ran into a homophile Episcopal priest who was and is literally torn apart within himself. He lives in two worlds, one a pretense in his church, and the other of reality by night in San Francisco. Anyhow, it made me do a great deal of thinking about this matter examining my own reasons for distaste, etc. Ultimately I was able to try to tell him that I could take him for what he was. However, he was too badly frightened and just could not talk about it. So I'm just waiting for him. But I enjoyed the conference, and I think that you are right when you say that the problem is essentially a theological problem for the Church and we don't really know the answer. Thanks for your participation.²⁷

Many mainline denominations were beginning to discuss the issue of homosexuality. In November of 1966, Charles Stephan gave a sermon at the Unitarian church of Lincoln, Nebraska, entitled "The Homosexual American." He proclaimed, "Society's reaction to the homosexual is one of suppression, of fear of the unknown, of constant harassment. Our laws are far more severe in dealing with sexual inversion than they are in dealing with other types of personal sexual behavior. The homosexual lives in constant fear of public exposure and of legal accusations against him. Police entrapment is widespread." The Archbishop of Canterbury stated that sexuality falls within a sacred realm of privacy into which the law must not intrude. The Committee on Homosexual Offenses of Dublin is quoted, "Penal sanctions are not justified for the purpose of attempting to restrain sins against sexual morality committed in private by responsible adults." According to The Christian Century: An Ecumenical Weekly's article entitled "Reappraising Laws on Homosexuality," "Laws that are fashioned by ignorant, frightened men to crush and torment people who do not fit accepted molds of morality but whose crime against society cannot be proved should be removed from the books. The law should not condone homosexual acts, but neither should it penalize private immoralities which cannot be proved contrary to the public good." A document entitled "Towards a Christian Understanding of the Homosexual" calls for humane treatment of homosexuals in society and states that the Christian should be a leader in responsible social reform. It calls for objective reporting by media, justice in law enforcement, re-evaluation of legislation, and employers' alleviating discrimination. The Episcopal Diocese of California's Committee on Human Sexuality reportedly stated that sex between consenting adults in private should be free of state control and criminal sanctions; police should end entrapment and harsh treatment; gay bars should not be discriminated against in liquor licensing; a sex education program for clergy and laity should be established in the diocese; and seminaries should include study in human sexuality, taking into account homosexual testimony and scientific data.²⁸ In a lecture at Duke University, Bishop James Pike called for separation of morality and law. He urged the repeal of laws against sexual behavior of consenting adults and of statutes restricting access to abortions.²⁹ For many in the lesbigay community, the Church was not progressing quickly enough, or the wounds inflicted by its ignorance could not be healed. The response was the founding of a gay church, the Metropolitan Community Church, in Los Angeles in October of 1968.³⁰

The Council on Religion and the Homosexual helped immensely to bring the plight of the lesbigay community into public view in the 1960s and to foster dialogue within mainline Protestant churches. It was instrumental in ending harassment by police and in bringing about legal reform. However, it made much greater strides in the political/legal arena and in society at large, than in the churches it represented. Much of the theological reflection proposed by the Rt. Rev. C. Kilmer Myers and others at the original consultation still waits to be accomplished by mainline denominations. More than 30 years later, most denominations have still not arrived at doctrine which embraces lesbigay people as full members of the Body of Christ, with comprehensive access to all its sacraments and vocations.

Endnotes

1. University of California at Riverside - John Master - Women's Studies Department: www.ucr.edu/history/wmst/LecJun09/sld017.htm,  www.ucr.edu/history/wmst/LecJun09/sld018.htm,  www.ucr.edu/history/wmst/LecJun09/sld019.htm. 

2. Stryker, Susan; Van Buskirk, Jim; Maupin, Armistead, Gay By the Bay, San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1996.

3. "A Compendium of Opinions of Churchmen and Church Organizations," prepared by CRH, 1967.

4. Class handout: "Voices from the Margins," Rev. Dr. Jay Johnson, CDSP.

5. "Report from the Consultation on the Church and the Homosexual," sponsored by Glide Foundation of San Francisco and the Board of Christian Social Concerns of the Methodist Church, May 30-June 2, 1964.

6. Class handout: "Voices from the Margins," Rev. Dr. Jay Johnson, CDSP.

7. Kaiser, Charles, The Gay Metropolis 1940-1996, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997, p. 143.

8. "A Compendium of Opinions of Churchmen and Church Organizations," prepared by CRH, 1967.

9. "Report from the Consultation on the Church and the Homosexual," sponsored by Glide Foundation of San Francisco and the Board of Christian Social Concerns of the Methodist Church, May 30-June 2, 1964.

10. Don Lucas interview, vol. 2 - Gay and Lesbian Historical Society Oral History Project 97-32 "Shedding a Straight Jacket," 3/7/98-6/7/98, p.94.

11. "Report from the Consultation on the Church and the Homosexual," sponsored by Glide Foundation of San Francisco and the Board of Christian Social Concerns of the Methodist Church, May 30-June 2, 1964.

12. "The Church and the Homosexual: A Report on a Consultation," prepared by Donald Kuhn.

13. "Report from the Consultation on the Church and the Homosexual," sponsored by Glide Foundation of San Francisco and the Board of Christian Social Concerns of the Methodist Church, May 30-June 2, 1964.

14. Interview with the Rev. Robert Cromey by electronic mail, December 18, 1998.

15. "Report from the Consultation on the Church and the Homosexual," sponsored by Glide Foundation of San Francisco and the Board of Christian Social concerns of the Methodist Church, May 30-June 2, 1964.

16. "Report from the Consultation on the Church and the Homosexual", sponsored by Glide Foundation of San Francisco and the Board of Christian Social Concerns of the Methodist Church, May 30-June 2, 1964.

17. Stryker, Susan; Van Buskirk, Jim; Maupin, Armistead, Gay By the Bay, San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1996.

18. Stryker, Susan; Van Buskirk, Jim; Maupin, Armistead, Gay By the Bay, San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1996.

19. Interview with the Rev. Robert Cromey by electronic mail, December 18, 1998.

20. Stryker, Susan; Van Buskirk, Jim; Maupin, Armistead, Gay By the Bay, San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1996.

21. Don Lucas interview, vol. 2 - Gay and Lesbian Historical Society Oral History Project 97-32 "Shedding a Straight Jacket," 3/7/98-6/7/98.

22. KXKX-FM press release, April 13, 1965.

23. Stryker, Susan; Van Buskirk, Jim; Maupin, Armistead, Gay By the Bay, San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1996.

24. CRH newsletter, August 1967.

25. Stryker, Susan; Van Buskirk, Jim; Maupin, Armistead, Gay By the Bay, San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1996.

26. Don Lucas interview, vol. 2 - Gay and Lesbian Historical Society Oral History Project 97-32 "Shedding a Straight Jacket," 3/7/98-6/7/98.

27. Don Lucas interview, vol. 2 - Gay and Lesbian Historical Society Oral History Project 97-32 "Shedding a Straight Jacket," 3/7/98-6/7/98, p. 276.

28. "A Compendium of Opinions of Churchmen and Church Organizations," prepared by CRH, 1967.

29. Stryker, Susan; Van Buskirk, Jim; Maupin, Armistead, Gay By the Bay, San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1996.

30. Kaiser, Charles, The Gay Metropolis 1940-1996, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997, p. 143.

Return to Oasis/California Home Page.

E-mail Oasis/California through our president, the Reverend John Kirkley: rector@saintjohnsf.org.