Box Turtle Bulletin

Sarah McBride Becomes First Transgender Person To Address a National Convention

Chad Griffin To DNC: “Donald Trump Strutted Before the Cameras and Exploited Our National Tragedy”

The HRC came out early with its endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President in January.

Orlando Victim’s Mother Addresses DNC

This happened yesterday. I meant to get around to posting it but I got wrapped up in other things. I’ve been told that Fox News cut away when Christine Leinonen took to the podium, so if you’re a Fox News watcher, you missed this. And if you missed my memorial to Chrisopher and his partner, Juan Ramón Guerrero, I’ve reposted it below.

Read the rest of this entry »

The USNS Harvey Milk Will Join the Navy Fleet

Ensign Harvey Milk

USNI News, from the U.S. Naval Institute, is reporting that the U.S. Navy is set to name a ship after gay rights activist Harvey Milk:

The July 14, 2016 notification, signed by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, indicated he intended to name a planned Military Sealift Command fleet oiler USNS Harvey Milk (T-AO-206). The ship would be the second of the John Lewis-class oilers being built by General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego, Calif.

…The Secretary of the Navy’s office is deferring additional information until the naming announcement, a Navy official told USNI News on Thursday.

Mabus has said the John Lewis-class – named after civil rights activist and congressman Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) – would be named after civil rights leaders.

Other names in the class include former Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren whose court ruled to desegregate U.S. schools, former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, women’s right activist Lucy Stone and abolitionist and women’s rights activist Sojourner Truth.

Mabus has also named ships in the past for other civil rights icons, including the Lewis and Clark-class dry cargo ships USNS Medgar Evers (T-AKE-13) and USNS Cesar Chavez (T-AKE-14).

Milk entered the Navy in 1951 and served on the submarine rescue ship Kittiwake, which was based in San Diego. He was honorably discharged in 1955 as a lieutenant junior grade. Both of his parents had also served in the Navy. Huffington Post reports that Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) organized a letter writing campaign to push for naming a ship after Milk:

“This action would be a fitting tribute to Mr. Milk’s support for equality, an ideal exemplified in the military’s recent repeal of its former Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy,” said Filner in a statement. The southern California legislator is the Democrats’ ranking member on the House Veterans Affairs Committee and is also in the process of running for mayor of San Diego.

…“This action by the US Secretary of the Navy will further send a green light to all the brave men and women who serve our nation that honesty, acceptance and authenticity are held up among the highest ideals of our military,” said Milk’s nephew Stuart Milk in a statement to San Diego LGBT Weekly.

Twelve States File Brief Supporting Transgender Coverage Under Civil Rights Laws

Notes: In states other than Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee, local jurisdictions may provide additional anti-discrimination protections beyond those provided by state law. On June 30, a federal judge issued an injunction preventing Mississippi’s so-called “religious freedom” law from going into effect. (Click to enlarge.)

Twelve states, led by Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, have filed a brief in federal court supporting the Obama Administration’s policies to include non-discrimination protections for transgender students and employees under current civil rights laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender. The brief was filed in the Northern District of Texas, where Texas is the lead plaintiff on behalf of thirteen states in a lawsuit seeking to block the Obama Administration’s policies.

According to Dominic Holden at Buzzfeed:

“The bottom line is that the federal guidance at issue here threatens no imminent harm,” reads a draft of the brief provided to BuzzFeed News.

The filing is led by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, whose brief adds that federal protections for transgender people are “strongly in the public interest.”

Ferguson elaborated on getting involved in the litigation in an interview with BuzzFeed News, explaining, “I think this case could go all the way to the Supreme Court, and I want to make sure the trial court has our perspective and the perspective of like-minded states.”

I haven’t seen a copy of the brief. Buzzfeed reports that the brief argues, “Contrary to Plaintiffs’ claims, our shared experience demonstrates that protecting the civil rights of our transgender friends, relatives, classmates, and colleagues creates no public safety threat and imposes no meaningful financial burden.”

States joining Washington’s brief are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, as well as Washington, DC. All but New Hampshire and New York cover gender identity in addition to sexual orientation under their non-discrimination laws. New York has recently extended gender identity protections under regulations implemented by the state’s Division of Human Rights, which enforces the state’s non-discrimination laws.

(Click to enlarge.)

Twelve other states have joined Texas in its federal lawsuit, and nine others have joined a a similar lawsuit being led by Nebraska. Two lawsuits in North Carolina seek to enjoin the Obama Administration from implementing its transgender protection policies.

Two others lawsuits have been lodged against North Carolina over HB2, which prohibits municipalities from enacting local non-discrimination ordinances based on either sexual orientation or gender identity, and which requires transgender people to use the rest room based on the gender listed on their birth certificates.

On Tuesdsay, Federal District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder set a November 14 trial date to consider whether the four North Carolina lawsuits should be tried jointly or organized in a different manner. But moments ago, the ACLU, which joined with Lambda Legal to represent plaintiffs in one of those lawsuits challenging HB2 has sent out a press release saying that Judge Schroeder will hear arguments on Monday, August 1, on a motion for a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing its anti-transgender provisions.

By The Way…

Those obnoxious, petulant “Bernie Bros” have seriously made me re-think my loathing of Hillary Clinton. Just FYI.

Today’s Agenda Is Brought To You By…

From Michael’s Thing (New York, NY), February 2, 1976, page 50.

Harry’s Back East was a longtime gay bar whose origins went back to at least 1968. In 1971, the weekly newsmagazine GAY called it “the busiest bar in New York any night.” It probably owed its popularity to its reputation as a simple, laid-back and friendly establishment. At least one story has it that Judy Garland paid a visit there in 1969 shortly before she died. The front bar area was a narrow space, with a very long bar in front that ran the length of the front room and just about every item imaginable hanging from its ceiling — toys, dolls, musical instruments, you name it. The dance floor was in the back, adorned with a disco ball and a large red light connected to a light switch at the front bar that the bartender could flip whenever the cops came in. When the red light came on, that was everyone’s signal to stop dancing together and act innocent — whatever that meant — lest the cops start arresting them for “lewd” conduct. If the owners were current on their bribes, then the cops would leave, the red light would go out, and everyone would go back to doing whatever they were doing before they were so rudely interrupted. But if the bribes had gone unpaid, the cops would stay and become a general nuisance, making everyone uncomfortable until either all the patrons left or the owner arrived and paid up. Harry’s survived that era and soldiered on until 1982 when it finally closed. The location in 2011 held a restaurant that later closed. Now it’s a retail store that sells fancy frozen foods that Manhattanites can re-heat in their gourmet kitchens.

Today In History, 1961: Illinois Becomes First State to Rescind Sodomy Law

In 1955, the Illinois General Assembly inaugurated the gargantuan task of overhauling its criminal code. Since its last major revision in 1874, the code had accumulated a patchwork of conflicting and confusing statues, some of which made no sense in the 20th century. Horse thieves, for example, were punished with a minimum penalty of three years in prison, but the maximum penalty for auto theft was only one year.

Over the ensuing six years, an eighteen-member joint committee of the Chicago and Illinois Bar Associations combed through the 148 chapters and 832 sections of the old statute books, using the American Law Institute’s 1956 Model Penal Code as a guide. The ALI had put together its Model Penal Code because a number of states were planning to revise their criminal codes over the next decade, and the 1956 Model Code was intended to guide them through the process. Among its many recommendations included the elimination of all prohibitions against consensual sexual activity between consenting adults, including those laws which criminalized homosexual activity and relationships. Because the Model Penal Code also touched on a plethora of other criminal statues, it’s likely that most Illinois lawmakers didn’t realize that they were repealing their anti-sodomy law by adopting the omnibus legislation. Nevertheless, the code was adopted and signed into law by Gov. Otto Kerner, and the anti-sodomy law’s repeal became effective on January 1, 1962.

That didn’t mean however that eliminating the state’s anti-sodomy law was entirely by mistake. A booklet describing the new code prepared for Chicago Police by Claude R. Sowele, assistant professor at Northwestern University’s law school, commented, “The Law should not be cluttered with matters of morality so long as they do not endanger the community. Morality should be left to the church, community and the individual’s own conscience.” While Illinois became the first state to legalize consensual adult same-sex relationships, the change in the state’s criminal code had few practical benefits for the state’s LGBT population, as police raids and harassment on other pretexts (or no pretext even, other than the opportunity to milk the gay community of more bribes) would continue without letup for another two decades.

For the next ten years, Illinois would remain the only state in the union to legalize consensual adult same-sex relationships. In 1971, Connecticut finally rescinded its sodomy law, followed by Colorado and Oregon (1972), Hawaii and North Dakota (1973), Ohio (1974), New Hampshire and New Mexico (1975). The big year was 1976, when California, Indiana, Maine, Washington and West Virginia stopped criminalizing homosexuality. By the time Lawrence v. Texas struck down all sodomy laws nationwide in 2003, thirty-six states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had eliminated their anti-gay statutes, either by legislative action or by state court decisions. Progress towards equality in the U.S. has only accelerated since then. It took forty-two years to get rid of all of the sodomy laws across America. But it only took us eleven years from the time Massachusetts instituted marriage equality in 2004 (May 17) until all Americans gained the right to marry the person they love in 2015 (Jun 26).

Today In History, 1967: England, Wales Rescinds Gross Indecency Law

On July 28, 1967, Queen Elizabeth II gave her Royal Assent to the Sexual Offenses Bill, which marked a significant overhaul of Britain’s laws regulating sexual practices between consenting adults. The Royal Assent was the last act in a long, tortuous path toward finally getting rid of the Gross Indecency statute that had ensnared so many victims like the famous playwright Oscar Wilde (May 25) and WWII code-breaker and computer pioneer Alan Turing (Jun 23). The law penalized male homosexuality with up to two years in prison. (Consensual sexual acts between lesbians was not illegal, largely because the phenomenon was unknown when the Gross Indecency statute was last amended in the nineteenth century.)

Efforts to repeal the Gross Indecency law had been ongoing for well more than a decade. It began soon after a a string of arrests of very prominent and well-known men in Britain in the early 1950s, including Lord Montagu (Oct 20), his cousin, Maj. Michael Pitt-Rivers, and journalist Peter Wildeblood (May 19), all of whom had been charged and convicted under the same law that put Wilde away for two years. The resulting debate over whether homosexual acts between consenting adults should remain criminalized let Home Secretary David Maxwell-Fyfe in 1954 to convened a committee to study the issue under the leadership of Lord John Wolfenden. After three years of study, the committee issued what became known as the Wolfenden Report in 1957. The report recommended that “homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private should no longer be a criminal offence” (Sep 4). Parliament shelved the report a year later (Nov 26). Efforts to revive the the report’s recommendations followed in subsequent years, but backers of repeal were dealt a severe setback after the John Vassal spy scandal in 1962 (Sep 12).

MP Leo Abse

In 1965,  Welsh Labour MP Leo Abse, and the Conservative Whip in the House of Lords Arthur Gore, 8th Earl of Arran, put forward the Sexual Offenses Bill as a private member’s bill, meaning that the bill was not an official part of the government’s legislative agenda. But the Labour Government signaled its support in 1967 and allowed a free non-party vote on July 4. Home Secretary Roy Jenkins took pains to reassure members that “this is not a vote of confidence in, or congratulations for, homosexuality.” Instead, he said, “those who suffer from this disability carry a great weight of shame all their lives.” Supporters said that the bill would eliminate one of the most frequent causes of espionage: blackmail of gay diplomats and other officials.

But Labor member Peter Mahon summed up the feelings of those who opposed repeal. “It is by no means unnatural to have a feeling of absolute revulsion against a bill of this kind. Without any lack of charity I say without equivocation it was a bad bill to begin with, it is a bad bill now and will be a bad bill until the end of time. It will be a bad bill throughout eternity because homosexual acts are a perversion of natural function.” Conservative member Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles warned darkly that “decent and reasonable” people of Britain would react violently when they realized what Parliament had done. “It will only encourage our enemies and those who disparage us, and it can only dismay our friends,” he declared. Another Tory MP, Sir Cyril Osborne, said that many people were tired of democracy being made safe for “pimps, prostitutes, spivs and pansies — and now for queers.”

Arthur Gore, 8th Earl of Arran

After an acrimonious eight-hour debate, Parliament approved the Sexual Offenses Bill in a rather minuscule 99-14 vote, with most of the 600-member chamber not taking an official position. It then went to the House of Lords, which gave its approval to the measure on July 21. Lord Arran quoted Oscar Wilde in closing the debate. “We shall win in the end, but the road will be long and red with monstrous martyrdoms.” Lord Arran’s subsequent statement then reflected the ambiguity most politicians felt who supported the bill: “I ask one thing. I ask those who have, as it were, been in bondage for whom the prison doors are now opened to show their thanks by comporting themselves quietly and with dignity. This is no occasion for jubilation and certainly not for celebrations. Homosexuals must continue to remember that while there may be nothing bad in being homosexual, there is certainly nothing good.”

Emphasis Mine

Wikipedia has this anecdote about Arthur Gore, the 8th Earl of Arran and Conservative Whip in the House of Lord, who strongly supported the repeal of Britain’s sodomy law:

Arran was the sponsor in the House of Lords of Leo Abse’s 1967 private member’s bill which decriminalised homosexuality between two consenting adult males. He also sponsored a bill for the protection of badgers. He was once asked why the badger bill had not received enough support to pass whereas decriminalising homosexuality had. “Not many badgers in the House of Lords,” he replied.

Today In History, 1977: Gays Zap Straight Bar Over “Fairies Swatter” Sign

Harry’s Back East was a popular gay bar in New York’s Upper East Side. Next door to Harry’s was Geordie’s, a popular straight bar which didn’t take kindly to its neighbors. Hanging right there behind the middle of Geordie’s bar was a large, three-foot-long ax, with an elaborately-designed sign hanging from it reading “FAIRY SWATTER.”

When the Gay Activists Alliance learned about the sign, they sent a delegation to meet with Geordie’s owner to request the sign’s removal. The owner protested that he wasn’t bigoted, that some of his best friends were gay, and blah blah blah. He claimed, with a reportedly straight face, that the sign and ax had nothing to do with gay people. It had something to do with leprechauns or something. The GAA pointed out that Geordie’s customers might not see the sign the same way the owner claimed to see it, and instead take it as an invitation to violence if any stray gay patrons were found inside of Geordie’s. Remember, this was in 1977, when the Anita Bryant-inspired anti-gay backlash (Jun 7) had already inspired at least one murder in San Francisco (Jun 22). The GAA insisted that one way or another, the sign was coming down. According to one former GAA member:

Geordie’s owner got belligerent and made the mistake of belittling GAA’s ability to deliver on the guarantee that the ax/swatter sign would come down. “Go ahead, throw a picket line up in front if you want to! It won’t change anything,” he taunted. He raised his voice: “You can picket till you’re blue in the face. The ax and sign stay up. Nothing you do will make me take it down! It will never come down! Never!” With that, he walked away ending the discussion, and the GAA delegation left Geordie’s.

When the GAA delegation reported back to the organization’s membership, the reaction was summed up by a member who said: “If he thinks the worst gays and lesbians can do to him is march around on a futile picket line in front of his bar, we’ll have to show him how wrong he is! We won’t be laughingstocks any more!”

Geordie had apparently assumed that GAA just picketed people they didn’t like. In fact, the GAA rarely picketed. Instead, they were known for their “zaps,” a kind of a direct action that was carefully planned and executed with military-like precision. The zap was a GAA invention, and they were very good at it (Jun 4, Jun 24, Oct 27).

At 10:45 p.m. on Thursday, July 28, the GAA conducted a three-prong zap on Geordie’s. The first contingent went in first. Their purpose was to get all of the bar’s employees all in one place. To do that, they rushed straight for the ax. Right on cue, the bouncer, bartenders, and Geordie’s owner rushed behind the bar to defend the ax. That’s when the second contingent came in. Armed with “bigot swatters” — fly swatters and toy tomahawks with labels neatly attached — they harangued the 35 or so customers until they left. A few of the more resistant customers, they physically shoved out of the bar. One group of customers complained that they hadn’t settled their tab. GAA members shouted, “It’s on the house!” The two contingents inside the bar was made up of around 65 GAA members, demanding the sign come down, but otherwise calmly occupying the bar. Meanwhile a third contingent of about 70 more activists arrived outside and they threw up a more traditionally loud picket, I guess as a present to the bar owner.

Seven police cars arrived, sirens wailing and lights flashing. What they saw was this: a very large picket outside, bar employees inside behind the bar, gay patrons who weren’t being served, and a bar owner furiously demanding police arrest everyone in sight. A dozen police officers, surrounded by more than a hundred gay protesters, must have had quite a few flashbacks to another dicey situation with gay bar patrons seven years earlier. Police refused to make any arrests and reminded the bar owner that he could diffuse the situation quite easily on his own. Defeated, the owner took the sign down. The GAA pressed him to promise it would never go back up. He promised, and the GAA erupted in celebration:

The 65 triumphant GAA invaders left the bar and held an emotional victory rally with the 70 gays and lesbians who had been picketing and leafleting outside, as dozens of cops and many hundreds of other people looked on. Chanting, “If it goes up, we’ll be back!” as a parting shot, the jubilant gays and lesbians then dispersed among whoops of victory and yelps of conquest. Their delirious hooting and hollering echoed up and down the canyon of Third Avenue.

A headline in the next issue of New York magazine proclaimed, “Militant Gays Aren’t Kidding Around Anymore,” and wrote: “In the old days, police raided gay bars. Last week, it was a group of whistle-blowing, militant gay activists who raided a straight singles bar.” The ax never went back up, but the adverse publicity kept customers away and Geordie’s went broke soon after.

Marco Rubio Announced As Featured Speaker At Anti-Gay Event In Orlando

Liberty Counsel Action, the political action arm of the Liberty Counsel, and the Florida Renewal Project, an affiliate of the American Renewal Project, have announced that Sen. Marco Rubio will be speaking at its “Rediscovering God In America Renewal Project“on August 11 and 12 in Orlando. The conference will take place exactly two months after the Pulse gay night club massacre in which 49 people were killed and 53 injured. According to Right Wing Watch, Rubio will be speaking alongside anti-gay extremists like Mat Staver, David Barton, Bill Federer, David Lane, and Maine pastor Ken Graves.

Last week, Rubio was confronted by angry protesters when he made a media appearance just a short walk down the street from the now-shuttered Pulse night club. Protesters were angered by Rubio’s statement in which he said he was “honored to receive John Stemberger’s endorsement.” John Stemberger is Florida’s leading and best-known anti-LGBT activist as head of Florida Family Action. Rubio will now be sharing the platform with some of the country’s more extremist anti-gay activists. Here’s a brief refresher:

• Mat Staver: He is head of the Liberty Counsel and Liberty Counsel Action. Liberty Counsel defended Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. When Staver was dean of Liberty University’s law school, he taught his law students that they should counsel their clients to break the law in favor of “God’s Law.” And according to a RICO lawsuit connecting his law school to the Miller-Jenkins kidnapping case, his law school apparently practices what he taught. Last month, he denounced Orlando area churches for participating in “homosexual love feasts” by offering prayer services and open channels of prayer, and dialogue with the grieving community.
• David Barton: He is a Texas-based fake historian who has said that God was preventing the medical profession from finding a cure for AIDS because it was “the penalty due them.” He has also repeated the false claim that gay people die decades earlier than straight people. In 2011 when Democrats still held the majority in the Senate, Baron claimed that prayers from the Senate side of the U.S. Capital can’t get through to God because “they get delayed twenty-one days because the principalities are up there fighting in the Heavenlies.”
• David Lane: I haven’t been following him, except for this post where he organized a trip to Israel for sixty Republican Party leaders which was paid for by the American Family Association. Right Wing Watch has this rundown, which included his 2013 statement that we would see “car bombs in Los Angeles, Washington D.C. and Des Moines, Iowa,” because of “homosexuals praying at the Inauguration.”

Today’s Agenda Is Brought To You By…

From The Bay Area Reporter, July 15, 1971, page 13.

I don’t know much about either of these two bars. The Corner Longhorn Saloon, which got top billing in this paring, is now a parking lot. But the building that housed the Cow Palace had been a long succession of gay bars going back to the 1960s. Before the Cow Palace, it was the In Between. After the Cow Palace, it became the Bolt, the Brig, and finally, the Power House.

Today In History, 1854: The Surprising Twists and Turns of a Cross-Dressing Case In London

This odd case began as yet another police round-up of cross-dressing men at a drag ball off of Farringdon Street just a little to the northwest of St. Paul’s Cathedral. Before this story was over, the drag ball would become a masquerade ball, but as you will see, at least one masquerade continued for several days after the ball had been put to an end. We’ll get to that in a moment, but first, let’s start at the beginning: The Times of London reported the following small item on July 27 1854:

GUILDHALL – John Challis, an old man about 60 years of age, dressed in the pastoral garb of a shepherdess of the golden age, and George Campbell, aged 35, who described himself as a lawyer, and appeared completely equipped in female attire of the present day, were placed at the bar before Sir R.W.CARDEN charged with being found disguised as women in the Druids’-hall, in Turnagain-lane, an unlicensed dancing-room, for the purpose of exciting others to commit an unnatural offence.

Inspector Teague said, — From information I received relative to the frequent congregation of certain persons for immoral practices at the Druids’-hall, I proceeded thither in company with Sergeant Goodeve about 2 o’clock this morning. I saw a great many persons dancing there, and among the number were the prisoners, who rendered themselves very conspicuous by their disgusting and filthy conduct. I suspected that the prisoners and several others who were present in female attire were of the male sex, and I left the room for the purpose of obtaining further assistance, so as to secure the whole of the parties, but when we got outside Campbell came out after us, and, taking us by the arms, was about to speak, when I exclaimed, “That is a man,” upon which he turned round and ran back immediately to the Druids’-hall. I returned and took Campbell into custody and observing Challis, whom I have frequently seen there before, behaving with two men as if he were a common prostitute, I took charge of him also.

When Campbell was brought before the three magistrates empaneled for Guoldhall, a baker came forward to accuse Campbell of pickpocketing:

Isaac Somers said, — I am a journeyman baker, and have used the White Hart, in Giltspur-Street, for the last 20 years. About seven weeks ago I met a woman dressed in muslin, and wearing a white veil. She took me to the Druids’-hall, and I had a glass of brandy-and-water and a cigar, for which I paid 1s. I changed a sovereign, and while in the company of that woman I felt her arms close round my waist, and shortly afterwards I missed the 19s. I had received in change. I believe that person, whom I took for a woman, was the prisoner Campbell, in women’s clothing.

Campbell denied the charge, but the lead magistrate ordered him held for further investigation. Challis was offered bail in two sureties of 25 shillings each and his own recognizance at 50 shillings.

Campbell and Challis were called before the magistrates five days later for further examination. With Campbell being charged with the more serious crime of theft, the proceedings that day focused mainly on him. This is where the first surprise comes in: it turns out that Campbell was no ordinary pervert, but was a trained lawyer from Scotland. And his performance in court impressed the lead magistrate who, it appears, had taken a rather dim view of the police officers’ performance in the case. According to The Times:

The prisoner Campbell cross-examined the inspector and sergeant with great adroitness with the view to shake their evidence, and succeeded in showing a discrepancy in their statements with regard to certain portions of the disguise he had on at a particular hour in the evening, and which he urged was an important point established in his favour, as he should prove that the inspector was mistaken in his identity.

Sir R.W. CARDEN.– After all, Campbell, it is entirely a question of character, and if you can show me that you are a respectable person, it will have more weight in my mind than anything you can elicit from the officers.

Campbell.– I wish to ask the inspector another question. Was I dancing when you entered the hall?

Inspector Teague.– You were not; but I afterwards saw you dancing with a man.

Campbell.– How do you know it was a man?

Inspector Teague.– Because he had a beard and whiskers.

Sir R.W. CARDEN.– That is no criterion, for Campbell has ringlets, and yet he is not a woman. (Laughter.)

Campbell.– I had but one dance all evening, and that was with an elderly lady who knew what I was.

Sir R.W.Carden.– I should think it must have been an elderly lady, for no young man would have danced with you (Laughter) … It seems to me very extraordinary, if these immoral practices have been going on for some time as the inspector and sergeant intimated, that they should not have taken greater precautions to apprehend the parties before, or, at all events, to have come prepared with a clearer case. It does appear exceedingly improbable, if Campbell is what he has represented himself, and a clever fellow, that he should have been guilty of the conduct imputed to him in an assembly of 100 persons, and while aware that two policemen in uniform were present watching him. If the police suspected immoral practices were going on there, it was not the way to detect them by going in in full uniform.

The baker, Somers, was then called to the stand. This time, he couldn’t swear that Campbell was actually the one who robbed him. Based on this testimony, the charge of robbery was dismissed, and the rest of the proceedings were dedicated to exactly what on earth was going on at Druids’ Hall.

Unlike a number of other raids that took place in pubs and other public places, Druids’ Hall was a meeting house for the Ancient Order of Druids, a fraternal order in London much like the Oddfellows or the Elks in the U.S. The AOD supplemented their offers by renting out their hall for any number of occasions. There is on archive.org, for example, a report of an early Mormon meeting that took place at Druids’ Hall four years earlier. Undoubtedly, the Ancient Order must have found this kind of publicity deeply embarrassing. A representative from the Order also testified:

John Bestow said, he had the care of Druid’s-hall, (sic) for the Ancient Order of Druids, and he occasionally let it for meetings, lectures, and dancing. On the evening in question there was a bal masqué, and admission was given by tickets issued by Harris, who took the room.

Sir R.W. CARDEN.– Is not money taken at the doors?

Bestow.– I never saw any. I believe Harris gives the balls, and always loses by them.

Sir R.W. Carden.– There was music there on the night of the ball in question?

Bestow.– Yes, Sir. There were four musicians.

Skir R.W.Carden.– And the place is not licensed!

Bestow.– Certainly not, Sir.

Madeleine Vincent said, she attended to the refreshment department in the ballroom, and saw the prisoners there, but saw nothing disguting in their conduct, and never told the police that she had. She had said their conduct was disgraceful because they made such a noise, but that was the only impropriety she saw or complained of.

So now it’s a bal masqué, which, I suppose could be something different from a tawdry drag ball. But not necessarily. Another witness testified that he had seen “disgusting conduct” at these balls and had been complaining about it for the past eighteen months:

Joseph Brundell said, he was formerly in the city police and for 18 months he was on duty near Druids’-Hall. Harris had got up several of these balls and the prisoners frequently attended them dressed in female attire. Witness on such occasions had noticed disgusting conduct on the part of other men towards the prisoners while in their company.

Sir R.W.CARDEN.– Do you mean to say that you saw these things going on for 18 months and reported them to your sergeant.

Brundell.– I did, Sir, and he told me not to interfere unless I saw such conduct take place in the public street.

Sir R.W.CARDEN.– You are bringing a very serious charge against the sergeant, and one that ought to be investigated by the commissioner, for it is monstrous that a house of this character should be allowed to exist in the city of London for two years and no steps taken to suppress it.

Inspector Teague.– It is very difficult to catch them in the act, as they have men placed at every outlet to keep a lookout.

Sir R.W.CARDEN.– And so they have at the west-end gambling houses; but the police there always interfere.

Inspector Teague.– But the police go in with a force, and it is not safe to do so without proof.

Sir R.W.CARDEN.– And surely you can have force where it is required. If you always waited for direct proof, there would be very little chance of detecting or preventing crime.

After dismissing the robbery charge, Carden released Campbell on bail pending the disposition of the misdemeanor charge of cross-dressing. Campbell and Challis were called before magistrates again the next day, but only Campbell showed up. Challis had apparently skipped bail. If the previous day’s events were surprising, this day’s proceedings started with a bombshell: Campbell wasn’t the Scottish lawyer he claimed to be, but the Rev. Edward Holmes, a member of the Scottish Independent Church. Campbell maintained that he was a lawyer, but conceded this true identity as the Rev. Holmes, saying the only reason he had dressed as a woman and attended the ball was “to see vice in all its enormity” so he could “correct it from the pulpit.” For the past twelve to eighteen months! Surprisingly, the magistrates bought it:

Campbell.– It is a quite a mistake. I certainly did wish to see a little of London life without mixing with its abominations.

Sir R.W.CARDEN.– And you thought that dressing yourself in women’s attire was the best way of avoiding those abominations? I must say it was a very imprudent course.

Campbell.– I dare say it was, and I am extremely sorry for my folly…

Sir R.W.CARDEN– I certainly hope you now see the folly of indulging in such extraordinary freaks, as you term them, and that you deeply feel how degrading it is to a man of education — wehther you belong to the church or the law it matters not — to be placed in such a position. …However, under the circumstances, I am willing to believe it was nothing more than an act of the grossest folly, and that you now sincerely repent your imprudent conduct.

Alderman CARTER.– As the sitting magistrate, I can only express my utter disgust at the prisoner’s conduct in so attiring himself as a woman, and, had it not been for Sir F.W. Carden’s concluding remarks, I should have felt inclined to commit you to prison as a rogue and a vagabond. You may go now, and I hope I may never see your face here again.

…Campbell, alias Holmes, was then discharged.

[Sources: The Times (London, July 27, 1854): 12; The Times (London, August 1, 1854): 12; The Times (London, August 2, 1854): 12.]

Today In History, 1927: “The Well of Loneliness” Published

The lesbian love story was so controversial that three publishers turned it down. When it was finally published in England, it appeared in a plain, discreet black cover. It wasn’t particularly racy; the only sexual description consisted of the phrases, “she kissed her full on the lips,” and “that night, they were not divided.” By today’s standards, the book may seem tame, but in 1927 Radclyffe Hall’s novel caused a sensation in Britain. The publisher sent review copies to only a few select newspapers and magazines who he thought could handle the lesbian-themed content. Most reviewers praised the book for its courage or panned it for its dreariness. But only one found it objectionable. James Douglas at the Sunday Express responded by mounting a massive campaign against the novel. “I would rather give a healthy boy or a healthy girl a phial of prussic acid than this novel,” he wrote.

Despite most of the British press’s defending the book, the publisher soon landed in court on obscenity charges. Several authors came to his defense — E.M. Forster (Jan 1), Virginia Woolf, and James Melville among them — but the judge declared the novel obscene. It wasn’t the story line he found objectionable; it was the novel’s plea for tolerance and acceptance that made it “more subtle, demoralizing, corrosive and corruptive than anything ever written.” He warned that it would “deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences,” and ordered copies rounded up and burned.

A 1951 paperback edition.

The’s no such thing as bad publicity, though. The ban and the massive newspaper campaign against the book just made the public even more curious. Demand for the book soared. And wherever there’s a demand, there’s a supply.  The Well’s supply was met by a publisher in France who shipped copies surreptitiously to newsstands throughout Britain. That had the effect of lowering British officials’ enthusiasm for banning other lesbian-themed novels that followed. A Home Office memo observed, “It is notorious that the prosecution of the Well Of Loneliness resulted in infinitely greater publicity about lesbianism than if there had been no prosecution.” But it wouldn’t be until 1949 when The Well could be published in Britain again — not because any laws had changed, but because the Home Office simply decided to look the other way. It has remained in continuous publication since then.

Surprisingly, the book’s appearance in the U.S. generated a different reaction. Sure, there were attempts to ban it in the U.S. Customs Court and in New York City, where police seized 865 copies from its American publisher’s offices. But both attempts came to naught. When the court cleared the novel of obscenity, the publisher responded by putting out a “victory” edition, and the ensuing publicity raised demand for the book here as it did in England. And despite it’s high price of $5 ($70 today, costing more than than twice as much as an average hardback novel), The Well would go through six printings and sell over 100,00 copies by the time it was cleared by the courts. The Well of Loneliness has been in continuous American publication since its 1928 debut, and it served as an inspiration and comfort for countless women over the next five decades.