Embedded Files
Baker Street
Baker Street
In late February 1918, the people of San Francisco learned, for the first time, that their city was home to a community of men who desired other men in all relationships, including sexual intimacy. During the next six months they would discover that these individuals came together from many of the different ethnic, religious, and cultural groups that formed the mosaic of the urban life they knew. They seemed like all men in the city in every way except one: they sought other men for sex.
What became the Baker Street vice scandal initially had nothing to do with such “shocking revelations.” It began with a local resident posing as an officer of the United States Army, a violation of federal law. On February 16, 1918, the military police found him at one of the two residential flats at 2525 and 2527 Baker Street. Taken back to the Presidio for questioning, he admitted that civilians and soldiers were meeting at the flats, less than two blocks from the Presidio’s western wall, for sex.
The military, without legal jurisdiction in the city, called the San Francisco police, and then returned with them to Baker Street. For the next 10 days, they brought both soldiers and civilians to the residences for questioning, keeping them there while they completed their investigation. Eventually some two-dozen men “in various walks of life” and from all parts of the country were indicted by the Grand Jury for “immoral practices,” “unspeakable felonies,” and “violating the statutes that govern morality;” many more were named, but not charged.
When the daily newspapers began reporting about what they termed the “Baker Street vice ring,” they could not tastefully include information regarding the sexual acts or even the statutes the men were accused of violating. The San Francisco Examiner stated simply that they “are alleged to be members of a ‘club,’ the character of which, the authorities state, justified the drastic action taken.” In the San Francisco Chronicle, the “club” was “a rendezvous for a large number of vicious men.”
There is no question that nearly all of these men were gay in almost every modern sense of the term except their use of the term itself. They knew they were sexually attracted to other men–not only physically, but also intimately and emotionally–and they were aware that their sexuality was inherent and instinctive. Although the concept of sexual orientation did not yet exist, the men believed their feelings were natural and normal, at least for them, whatever the reason. They dated, became roommates, entered into long-term relationships. Only two of the two dozen ever married.
“We are all of a temperamental nature,” Clarence Thompson told investigators at Baker Street, using the term then in use. When they questioned Austin Tobin, “Have [your] affairs always been of that sort? You are temperamental in that particular way?” he replied simply, “Yes.” During his interrogation, Laurel Yeamans admitted he had been temperamental “ever since I can remember.” John Bosworth also knew about himself from childhood, stating, “This temperamental character is or was very largely something natural, a condition of mine of which I was in nowise responsible, something born.”
The men’s sexual awareness shaped their lives: how they saw themselves and others; whom they knew; and what they did in friendship and intimacy. They formed overlapping circles of community, fraternized across class lines, gathered at each other’s homes, shared interests, and spent time together that was not sexual.
Source: Bill Lipsky, Ph.D., author of “Gay and Lesbian San Francisco” (2006), is a member of the Rainbow Honor Walk board of directors.
gay men have always been in the military
gay men have always been in the military
Like gay men before and since, the men of the Baker Street scandal knew where and how to find each other. Many met through mutual friends. Others met riding on a trolley, looking in a shop window, strolling along the street, sitting in a hotel bar, browsing in a store, attending the theater, or visiting downtown alleys, bath houses, and other places known for casual, often anonymous sexual encounters. As one explained, “It was a natural consequence that I come in contact with men who were congenial.”
Such understanding escaped the authorities. The Army court-martialed and dishonorably discharged six soldiers for “unnatural copulation;” four, including Yeaman and Bosworth, received prison terms of five or ten years at hard labor. Two civilians, including Tobin, were convicted of sodomy and sentenced to “five years to life” in San Quentin. Those indicted for sexual “penetration of the mouth” were more fortunate. They had their cases dropped in 1919 when the state Supreme Court ruled that the statute making fellatio illegal four years earlier was unconstitutional; the legislature quickly corrected the “flaw in the law.”
The Baker Street scandal affected “temperamentals” in San Francisco for decades to come. Since the Gold Rush, law enforcement generally had ignored them unless someone complained. During the 1920s, for the first time, the police deliberately began to seek them out, using decoys and undercover officers to provide their own complainants and their own witnesses—sometimes the same individuals—who were immediately credible in court.
By the time persecution of gay men in California peaked in the 1960s, the Baker Street “vice club” scandal had been mostly forgotten, apart from the men once caught up in it. A few, by good fortune, were still living when the laws telling them whom they could love, and whom they could finally be, were repealed in 1975.
Source: Bill Lipsky, Ph.D., author of “Gay and Lesbian San Francisco” (2006), is a member of the Rainbow Honor Walk board of directors.
The newport incident
The newport incident
The Newport sex scandal of 1919 unfolded as an investigation by the United States Navy into allegations of illicit sexual behavior among Navy personnel in Newport, Rhode Island. Primarily targeting homosexual contacts between Navy personnel and civilians, the scandal initially attracted minimal public attention. However, the investigation's methods, including the use of enlisted personnel, and the subsequent trial garnered national news coverage and sparked a Congressional inquiry, resulting in rebukes for Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels and future President Franklin D. Roosevelt, then Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
The scandal originated from disclosures made by Thomas Brunelle and Chief Machinist's Mate Ervin Arnold, who were both patients at the Naval Training Station Hospital in Newport. Arnold's personal investigation, prompted by Brunelle's accounts of a subculture involving homosexual encounters at local establishments like the Army and Navy YMCA and the Newport Art Club, led to detailed reports of such activities.
Admiral Spencer S. Wood ordered a thorough investigation, which was approved by Roosevelt. Arnold, a former detective, spearheaded the investigation, employing young and attractive agents to infiltrate the subculture. This included having allegedly straight men approach gay members of the Navy and to engage in sexual acts with them. Arrests began in April 1919, with fifteen sailors charged with sodomy and scandalous conduct. The trial, covered extensively by the Providence Journal, ended with seventeen sailors facing court-martial, most being sent to naval prison.
Criticism of the Navy's methods and treatment of the accused arose, prompting a Newport clergy-led denouncement of the Navy's actions in a letter to President Woodrow Wilson. The scandal further escalated with a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs condemning Daniels and Roosevelt for their roles.
Despite Roosevelt's rejection of the committee's report, the scandal exposed a deep-rooted issue within the Navy and sparked discussions about morality, ethics, and the treatment of enlisted personnel. The aftermath underscored the complexities of addressing such matters within a military institution and highlighted the need for reforms to safeguard the rights and dignity of all service members.
military's history of prohibiting homosexuality
military's history of prohibiting homosexuality
March 11, 1778 – Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin becomes the first documented service member to be dismissed from the U.S. military for homosexuality. Under an order from General George Washington which states "abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes," Lt. Enslin is drummed out of the Continental Army after being found guilty of sodomy.
March 1, 1917 – The Articles of War of 1916 are implemented. A revision of the Articles of War of 1806, the new regulations detail statutes governing U.S. military discipline and justice. Under the category Miscellaneous Crimes and Offences, Article 93 states that any person subject to military law who commits "assault with intent to commit sodomy" shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
June 4, 1920 – Congress approves modified Articles of War. Article 93 is changed to make the act of sodomy a crime in itself, separate from the offense of assault with intent to commit sodomy.
1921 –The U.S. Army issues standards in which "stigmata of degeneration" such as feminine characteristics and "sexual perversion" can result in a male being declared unfit for service.
1941 – The U. S. Selective Service System includes "homosexual proclivities" as a disqualifying condition for inclusion in the military draft.
1942 - Military psychiatrists warn that "psychopathic personality disorders" make homosexual individuals unfit to fight. The military issues the first formal regulations to list homosexuality as an excludable characteristic. Those in the military identified as homosexuals can be discharged and denied veterans benefits.
January 20, 1950 – Army Regulation 600-443 is published, identifying three categories of homosexuals. Those deemed to be aggressive are placed in Class I and are subjected to general court-martial. Homosexuals considered active but non-aggressive are placed in Class II and can avoid a court-martial by accepting a dishonorable discharge – or resigning, if they are officers. Personnel professing or exhibiting homosexual tendencies without committing a violation of the sodomy statute are designated "Class III," and can be removed from service under general or honorable discharge.
May 31, 1951 – The Uniform Code of Military Conduct is adopted. Article 125 forbids sodomy among all military personnel, defining it as "any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offence." The 1951 Manual for Courts-Martial provides an even more explicit description of acts considered sodomy under military law.
Source: United States Naval Institute
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse