|Introduction: oppressing the undefined
When Lord Alfred Douglas wrote the phrase the “love that dare not speak its name”1 he was describing the legal and social position of a rising gay consciousness in the late Victorian era. This leads to the question of how laws that never mentioned the word homosexual nor identified those people specifically, came to oppress and persecute that group which we now know by this name; namely gay men?
The law defined homosexuals almost exclusively by the sex that they engaged in until the 2003 Act2, when the ancient terms of Buggery and Sodomy were removed from the law, and soliciting was redrafted into purely acts of prostitution, regardless of gender.
The peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum3 (that horrible crime, not to be named amongst Christians) traces its roots through legislation, developed by case law – this work will follow the ancient roots of the prohibitions and develop theories as to why this legislation was created, and how this became a legalised oppressive measure against homosexuals; tracing the liberation of gay men through the sex crime legislation. The period of most interest and the major focus of this work shall be the “Victorian” era of the Nineteenth Century, although some background in the Roman Law4 of Justinian is necessary, as is tracing developments from the Tudor legislation through to the Wolfenden Report5.
The love that by Law shall not speak its name
Some writers6 on the subject speak of silence; on the same theme as Lord Alfred (supra) they equate the apparent non-existence of homosexuals as an individual group to silence – this work goes beyond that; since both Kinsey7 and “Little Kinsey”8 found roughly the same proportion of homosexual behaviour (as expressed through sexual acts; hereinafter to refer to this aspect) and Jeremy Bentham9, although using the language of the 17th Century (paederastes) was obviously talking about something that existed, the word silence does not go far enough – it covers the lack of texts about the subject in historic times, it does not cover the legislative mechanisms. Thus the word invisibility is better; it denies the homosexual behaviour any legitimacy (by criminalising it) and ensures that any group that comes into existence will perforce hide from attention, seeking nothing more than to express themselves without drawing notice from the authorities.
Post-Wolfenden and the 1967 Act10 it is indeed silence that becomes a key issue, since silence was demanded by the terms of the legislation; but before the word Homosexual entered the law the issue was invisibility – not ‘dare not’ as Lord Alfred wrote, but ‘shall not’ as demanded by the law (non nominandum).
1. Ancient origins and the Biblical justification
Athens and Rome were remarkably tolerant societies; whilst no evidence for overtly homosexual lifestyles or identities can be deduced from the evidence11 it is certainly true that homosexual behaviour was tolerated, if not endorsed by society; the exception being the adoption of the ‘female role’ by an adult freedman or noster familias12 – at this time Leviticus was not used by any society except the Jews, since only the Jews followed the Torah.
It was after the Roman conversion to Christianity13 that Justinian began the work of codifying Roman Law, and it was this codification that took the justification of Leviticus14 to criminalise homosexual behaviour, however the reason for this law was plural; based both on Justinian’s personal belief, and on the need to raise revenue15. This was the first time such a justification was used for this law, although not the last as I shall describe later (infra, Henry VIII).
First it is necessary to examine Leviticus closer to see what was used for justifying this law (and others since).
Figure 1 – Penalties set out in Leviticus for ‘sex crimes’
Adultery (both) (L. 20:10)
Sex with Father’s wife (both) (L. 20:11)
Abominable deed (both) (L. 18:22 – 20:13)
Inter-generational incest (both) (L. 20:12; 20:14)
Bestiality (both) (L. 20:15; 20:16)
Same-generational incest (L. 20:17)
Sex during menses (both) (L. 20:18)
The emphasised ‘abominable deed’ is to “...lie[ing] with mankind as with womankind”, which has always been interpreted as homosexual behaviour, although in statute form it is almost always interpreted solely as buggery, although different jurisdictions have put their own interpretation on what the act of buggery actually entails.
Given that Leviticus is the Torah (law of God) for the chosen people (Jews) even when used by Christian legislators it is clear that they are being highly selective – taking in the case of Justinian only the ‘abominable deed’ and adultery and fining those guilty of them, and in the case of the 1533 Act16 only the ‘abominable deed’ itself. Both Justinian and Henry VIII missed a point of principle; if Leviticus is the word of God (moral code) then it must be enacted in full. If it is merely the words of man then it is opinion and therefore not a moral code, and cannot be used in legal justification at all.
The story of Sodom17 is used to infer that the people of Sodom wanted ‘to know’ the angels who visited Lot – the Hebrew verb ‘to know’used here is translated as carnal knowledge and linked to the ‘abominable deed’ thereby. This is probably a distortion; the sin of the people of Sodom was inhospitality18 not sexual crimes, and the Hebrew verb ‘to know’ is used only 10 times out of 943 appearances in the King James translation to denote carnal knowledge. Statistically it can be said that those 10 translations may well be utterly wrong, and that outside of the Torah (Leviticus) the sins of people in the bible are not defined in those terms.
In the New Testament19 it is made clear that Jesus and his disciples translated the story of Sodom in such a way that the sin was inhospitality – the story of Sodom[y] therefore becomes a distortion of the middle-ages20.
Concluding this part is the Buggery Act itself – and if we discard the biblical origin of the ‘abominable deed’ as being a method purely of justifying the passage of this Act we are left with not moral outrage on the part of Henry VIII, but comparing this Act with the surrounding policy of ‘fiscal feudalism’21 and the Crown desire to take power into the hands of the executive and away from the Church (in 1532 an edict22 of the Roman Empire had decreed burning for homosexual behaviour).
The person perhaps most responsible for the Buggery Act was Thomas Cromwell, and we know him to have been a Puritan protestant – thus an enactment of this nature to evade the Catholic Church or Ecclesiastic Courts having jurisdiction over cases of this nature would serve a moral purpose; unfortunately any correspondence between the King and Cromwell on this topic was either censored or took place in private – no letters on this subject are in the collections of Cromwell23, either personal or parliamentary. In the absence of any contrary evidence some historians construct a moral objection on the part of Henry VIII leading to this enactment; my own view is that the possibility of dual accusations of Treason and Buggery/Sodomy24 were more fitting to the King’s purpose of reinstating fiscal feudalism25 than any other reason. This fits more with the actions of Justinian too; although he did not use the death penalty for his criminalisation of homosexual behaviour he did use fines. Further evidence of the secular non-moral basis of this Act comes from the Statute of Mary26 which was not ‘inadvertant’27 but in fact handed jurisdiction back to the Catholic Church; as Mary no doubt intended28.
Thus the two major sources of law; the Roman Codex of Justinian (Civil codes throughout Europe) and the Common Law (through interpreting the Buggery Act) came to force invisibility on homosexual behaviour even though they were enacted mainly as revenue generating statutes. It is this enforced legal invisibility that formed the opinion and course of homosexual behaviour until 2003 (in the UK), and any moral objectivity was lost in the process.
2. Emergent sexuality: the urban visibility factor
Prior to the Victorian codification of Offences Against the Person (hereinafter OATP) two cases stand out in the defining of Sodomy; Wiseman29, which held that sodomy of a female by a man was possible; which leads to the obvious conclusion that from 1533 until 1718 men had only been indicted of sodomy with other men (homosexual behaviour), and Jacobs30, holding that oral sex was not sodomy or buggery. This was however probably charged as sodomy rather than an attempt due to the youth (12) of the boy involved in the act with an adult male – for the majority of cases until this point any act that was discovered that was not provably sodomy (involving actual penetration, and an emission of seed) was usually charged as an attempt31, unfortunately very little written law about these attempts survives, since the 1861 OATP Act effectively incorporated them into legislation and only cases thereafter refined the concept as given in statute. The Return of 191532 lists attempts, showing 3 attempts and 2 acts of Buggery were charged on the Western Circuit in 1915 – these figures cannot be taken as a statistical starting point however, since investigation of the Returns shows that the Home Circuit did not list attempts at all, while the Lancaster Circuit in 180633 shows that more were charged on commitment with Buggery, but some of those charges were lessened to Attempting, although only one in six of the attempts resulted in a formal conviction.
To identify trends in the 18th Century then, social history is the main source of development, and Netta Murray Goldsmith34 outlines the pogroms against the rise of the Molly Houses and a viable homosexual sub-culture; although not a direct and concerted effort it is clear that the law was presenting a major obstacle to any attempt by those who engaged in homosexual behaviour to remove the veil of invisibility that the 1533 Act had forced upon them. Harvey35 outlines the position in the early 19th Century; there was a marked increase in convictions for Buggery and it is stated that it was “standard practise to prosecute lesser forms of statutory felonies as misdemeanours”.
Bentham36 appears to have been among the first to comment on this aspect of the criminal law from a utilitarian point of view, calling for decriminalisation, and as Goldsmith points out; “demolish[es] one by one all the objections...”37 to homosexual behaviour. The moral climate had already changed by the time Bentham completed this work however, and it was probably impossible for him to publish it if he wished to stay in England.
The major and lasting contribution of the various purges and attempts to eradicate homosexual behaviour in the 18th century and early 19th appears to have been a marked and radical increase in Blackmail attempts made against those accused, or suspected of being homosexual. This is another aspect of invisibility – individuals using the opprobrium of the law in order to exploit for themselves any attempt by homosexual individuals to become visible (or any mistaken revelation). The Act of 182538 finally legislated against extortion attempts made under an accusation of “the abominable Crimes of Sodomy or Buggery [...] and every Attempt or Endeavour to commit [...] said abominable Crimes”. Evidence from the trials of Oscar Wilde39 however show that this Act did not protect against blackmail under two conditions; where the crime had actually taken place, and where the crime was not mentioned in this Act (e.g. under s.11 of the 1885 Act40).
3. The consolidation and codification of Offences Against the Person
Graham Robb41 taking a historical look at law, states that homosexuals were more persecuted in the 20th Century than in the 19th. Looking purely at statistics, or comparing convictions in Europe in medieval times with those in England in a similar time period carries the same burden of error. The common law always valued the privacy of the individual; the abhorrence of judicial torture for pre-trial evidence gathering in England always reflects this fact, whereas the codified systems of Europe based on Roman Law allowed for torture and confessions gained thereby42. Misdemeanours usually only appeared on the Assizes roll, not on the Command papers, and it is therefore much harder to investigate all possible crimes of homosexual behaviour under English law, since the records are fragmented and inconsistent, and the common law was not applied evenly throughout the circuits.
The statistical fact of a relatively low rate of conviction does not mean that the 19th Century homosexual was an accepted part of society, or could risk any form of exposure; there was probably a great deal of homosexual behaviour that went unnoticed by the law – that does not mean that the persons engaging in it could be visible; they still risked the death penalty or a prison sentence up to ten years for an attempt if caught.
Consolidating – the Georgian OATP Act
The Buggery Act was repealed and replaced by s.15 of the 1828 Act43, restating the ‘abominable crime’ as a felony to which the death penalty applied. At this time s.18 also made conviction easier by omitting ‘emission of seed’ from the proof. This was criticised in some quarters44 as blurring the line between (especially) rape and assault with intent to commit rape, but in modern terms we can sympathise completely with section 18; requiring proof of ‘completion’ for each and every sexual assault would result in a massive reduction of the conviction rate – and historically the only crimes which had relatively high conviction rates (over half) were those relating to homosexual behaviour. Whilst this Act consolidated many minor statutes on OATP it did not apply a particular taxonomy to the crimes, and was unsatisfactory as an attempt at a criminal code.
Whilst the last recorded capital punishment for Sodomy was 1835, Robb45 notes that this apparent leniency coincided with an upturn in life sentences – this reflects the growing changes in the way the courts themselves worked; that clemency was not always the function of the Crown, but could be administered by the courts themselves in order to secure convictions. Invisibility was still expected however; the press reports of Sodomy trials were toned down46, cases were reserved or prosecutions slowed to allow prominent homosexuals to flee the country prior to being brought to trial, to limit publicity. The House of Lords rejected a Bill in 184147 that would have removed the death penalty from rape and buggery, and so the official recognition of the sentencing of the courts had to wait for another consolidating Act.
In Rowed48 ‘sodomitical practises’ was declared unknown to statute law, despite the general terms of the indictment having been used over a course of 20 years; the judges, including Lord Denman CJ, felt that no distinct act had been described. This was not an endorsement of open, lewd, and indecent display of diverse nasty, wicked, filthy, lewd acts however, but more a direction to the charging authorities to actually state clearly the offence(s) being charged.
Consolidating – the Victorian OATP Act
The consolidation of 186149 was in certain ways a miracle of modernisation; offences were subject to taxonomy, the offences relating to homosexual behaviour coming into ss.61-63, labelled ‘Unnatural Offences’. The death penalty was removed, and the new s.62 codified attempts and set out indecent assaults for the first time. However the medieval ‘abominable’ terminology was kept for Buggery.
Hyde50 is often quoted as stating that the 1885 Act (Labouchere amendment51) was the Act that made private acts between two men illegal, in fact s.62 had already achieved that; it was the following case law which muddied the legal waters and required further clarification in statute form.
If the earlier precedents prior to Wollaston52 on attempts had been followed then Wollaston would certainly have been guilty of an offence under s.62, however the charge was indecent assault, and the court held that the consent of the youths was enough that the conviction could not be upheld. The common law on attempts had never considered the issue of consent, since it was not necessary to the intention of the guilty party that the other had consented to the attempt. The very word assault did at that time imply that consent could negate the offence. It was Coney53 that found in a bare-knuckle fight that consent could not be given for assault occasioning actual bodily harm – had Wollaston been decided after Coney it is likely the charge of indecent assault would have succeeded and consent would have been held irrelevant.
That further clarification was required at all was not the fault of the legislators or the courts, it was inefficient prosecutions and indictments; despite the changes made by the judicature acts, the principle of stare decisis and Wollaston stood to effectively block the operation of s.62 except where a conspiracy could be proved, or an actual violent assault (or threat of violence) had taken place.
Further regulation – gross indecency; a blackmailers’ charter?
Some commentators have, in addition to Hyde’s misstatement of fact, used emotive language to describe Mr Labouchere – stating he was puritanical, or had in mind certain people who would be charged under what became s.11. The Hansard records, and indeed the language of the Pall Mall Gazette and the Times for the Committee session of the full house during the reading of the Bill indicate nothing of the kind; no moral crusade was in progress, except to protect the daughters of the poor. No debate at all was held on the amendment as submitted in either House. No private papers exist giving an ulterior motive, no dark secrets have been unearthed about Mr Labouchere. He may have been reacting to Wollaston to ensure that s.62 was replaced in law by something that actually worked – from the perspective of the 21st Century legal historian it actually doesn’t matter. The amendment clarified the existing law, and as stated by Robb54 it was the biggest legal non-event as far as the conviction rate was concerned.
If the amendment achieved anything, it was that which was dismissed before s.11 was added to the Bill in its third stage – it created a new offence for homosexual behaviour that was not covered by the 1825 Act with regards to blackmail. Although the fears of blackmail from poor girls to rich men never materialised in fact, the blackmail of men of means by poor men or groups of criminals continued to be a reality that many homosexual men faced. The 1916 Act55 failed to address the problem, continuing to apply only to felonies and ‘the abominable crime’ itself.
The most public victim of blackmail, and a major part of the evidence leading to the Marquis of Queensbury being found innocent of libel was Oscar Wilde. The accusation by the Marquis of ‘posing as Somdomite [sic]’56 whilst not enough to secure a conviction for Sodomy, was enough, given anecdotal evidence and evidence of blackmail payments that Wilde had made, to convict him (on the second attempt) of an offence under s.11. This notorious case was enough to secure Oscar Wilde a place in history as a ‘martyr’ for gay rights; and enough to send a message to homosexuals that they were only safe when no-one knew what they were and the abominable things they did.
4. The 1950s: invisibility to silence through Sexual Offences.
Wolfenden recapped the legal history of homosexual behaviour, and it is in the 1950s that this work concludes; by examining four areas where legislation forced invisibility on homosexuals and arguing that Wolfenden was very much a product of its time and based on appallingly bad legal science. “...We are not charged to enter into matters of private moral conduct except in so far as they directly affect the public good”57, a statement that demands moral relativity.
Anomalies occur throughout the report, for example “the amount of blackmail which takes place has been considerably exaggerated”58 in the same paragraph as the figures proving that blackmail occurred in 32 out of 71 cases (nearly half; an immense figure) before stating that “social exposure is...” the biggest fear of homosexuals59
Bad legal science - Hart/Devlin debate
Morality and aetiology appear in Wolfenden – a rehash of the classic Hart/Devlin debate. The criminal law (in particular) should deal entirely with effects, not cause; the reasons for homosexuality and homosexual behaviour are no nearer being explained now than they were 2,000 years ago, for this reason and where an act is totally consensual there is absolutely no reason for the criminal law to punish homosexual behaviour. Nor, given the substantial financial reasons for the two main sources of such laws in Europe and colonies was there ever a legitimate legal reason. The argument became a moral one purely because of the Leviticus language used by the originators of the 1533 Act; had Henry VIII had the moral courage to set out in the preamble the true reasoning there would never have been a moral argument. If the moral argument had existed and been the true foundation of the 1533 Act, there is no reason that this moral reason would be identical one or two centuries later – indeed between the 1967 Act and full true legal equality was only four decades.
Bad legal science - The Age of "Reason" revisited
In keeping with the triumph of science in the age of reason several ‘facts’ make an appearance in the report in paras. 53-5; that being homosexuality is a menace to health, that it damages families, and that it leads to paedophilia. Facts given here are effects, not causes – observably, and throughout the report many things that happen as direct consequences of the forced invisibility of homosexual behaviour because of the criminalisation of it are stated as causes of homosexuality. For example, para.99 states that frequently homosexuals claim childhood abuse ‘led’ to their behaviour (perhaps misplaced attempts at mitigation, given all acts were illegal at this time). Para.98 states that the police witnesses claim in evidence that seduction in youth leads to homosexuality. Put those two paragraphs together and a classic circular argument appears; there is no cause at all here, just effects from the fact that homosexual behaviour is illegal. Dr Whitby60 states that it would be hard to believe that a 16 year old boy requires more protection than a 16 year old girl.
Bad legal science – Tradition (static)
Long-standing tradition is no reason to keep a law enacted; Mr Adair61 reserves against the overall findings, but clearly states 400 years of legal history. Four members reserve62 and state that they do not believe that legal tradition is enough reason to keep homosexual behaviour illegal, or indeed to justify the separation of Buggery from other offences. I would add that just because a bad law has been in place for 400 years makes it no less a piece of bad legislation; especially given the doubtful ‘moral’ origin of this particular law.
The 1956 Act63 removed the language of Leviticus from the statute book, but not the medieval term Buggery. ‘Abominable crime’ remained on the books; in the 1916 Act until that was repealed by the Theft Act, 1968. This was a major step forward, although the reworking of the former Vagrancy Act provision into s.32 (soliciting) became after 196764 the most charged homosexual behaviour in legal history65.
From the inception in English law in 1533, Buggery and other homosexual behaviours have been used to create an invisible underclass – the fact of this invisibility made any attempt to form a valid homosexual sub-culture difficult; the law was able through the existing legislation to strike against any such movement immediately it became visible. Invisibility also made individuals subject to their own internalised silence; the actions of blackmailers and the publicity of various prosecutions such as the Oscar Wilde or the Montagu trials66 served to remind individual homosexuals what happened when the veil of invisibility was lifted.
1 Douglas, Lord Alfred, The Chameleon, 1896: Two Loves (poem)
2 Sexual Offences Act 2003
3 e.g. R v Rowed & Another (1842) 3 QB 179, at 182
4 Justinian, Institutes IV. xviii .4
5 1956-57 Cmnd. 247 - Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution, hereinafter Wolfenden.
6 e.g. Moran, Leslie (1996) at p.41
7 Kinsey, Alfred C, W. B. Pomeroy and S. E. Martin, Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 29:182-183 (1948)
8 BBC, Britain’s secret sex survey.
9 Bentham, Jeremy (c. 1785).
10 Sexual Offences Act 1967
11 Boswell, John (1980) at p.35
12 Boswell, John (1980) at p.69 op.cit. Cicero
13 Borris, Keith (ed.) (2004) at p.75; Boswell, John (1980) at p.38
14 Bible, King James. Leviticus, from The holy Bible.
15 Boswell, John (1980) at p.170-1
16 Buggery Act, 1533
17 Bible: Genesis 13:1-18; Genesis 18:20-21; Genesis 19:5; Rictor, Norton (2002) The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
18 See also Bentham, Jeremy (c. 1785). In Journal of Homosexuality, v3:4 (1978), p.389-405
19 Matthew 10:14-15
20 Boswell, John (1980) at p.295
21 Baker, J. H (2002) at p. 254; Statute of Uses, 1536
22 Borris, Keith (2004) at p.76
23 Merriman, Roger (1902); Parliamentary Papers of Thomas Cromwell (Hansard).
24 e.g. Borris, Keith (2004) at p.77
25 Borris, Keith (2004) at p.86
26 Anno primo Mariae
, Sessio Prima (AD 1553) c.1 – An Act repealing certain Treasons, Felonies and Premunire.
27 Borris, Keith (2004) at p.79
28 Cook, Matt (ed.) (2007) at p.50; Norton, Rictor (2002), The Medieval Basis of Modern Law.
29 R v Wiseman (1718) Fortes. Rep. 91
30 R v Jacobs (1817) Russ. & Ry. 331
31 Harvey, A.D. The Historical Journal, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Dec., 1978) p.945; Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 1, No.3 (1981), p.331; Goldsmith, Netta Murray (1998) at p.195
32 1816 (269) Return of Number of Persons committed, tried and convicted for Criminal Offences in England and Wales, 1815.
33 1810-11 (23) (71) Return of Number of Persons committed, tried and convicted for Criminal Offences in England and Wales, 1805-09.
34 Goldsmith, Netta Murray (1998) at pp.8-9
35 Harvey, A.D. The Historical Journal, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Dec., 1978)
36 Bentham, Jeremy (c. 1785)
37 Goldsmith, Netta Murray (1998) at p.19
38 The Threatening Letters Act, 1825
39 Holland, Merlin (2003) at p. 31 and endnote 75
41 Robb, Graham (2003) Chap. 2 In The Shadows.
42 Borris, Keith (2004) at pp. 81-2
43 Offences Against the Person Act, 1828
44 1 Law Mag. Quart. Rev. Juris. 129 (1828-1829). Lord Lansdowne’s Act at pp.135-6
45 Robb, Graham (2003) at p.24
46 Robb, Graham (2003) at p.26
47 (41) 1841 Session 1 – Bill for taking away Punishments of Death in certain Cases, and substituting other Punishments.
48 R v Rowed & Another (1842) 3 QB 179
49 Offences Against the Person Act, 1861
50 Hyde, H. Montgomery, The Love That Dared Not Speak Its Name: A Candid History of Homosexuality in Britain. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970)
51 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885. s.11
52 R v Wollaston (1872) 12 Cox C.C. 180
53 R v Coney (1882) 8 QBD 534
54 Robb, Graham (2003) at p.20
55 Larceny Act, 1916
56 Holland, Merlin (2003) at p.xiv
57 Wolfenden, para 12 (my emphasis)
58 Wolfenden, para 110
59 Wolfenden, para 112
60 Wolfenden, III. – Further Reservation by Dr. Whitby.
61 Wolfenden, I. – Reservation by Mr Adair, para.3
62 Wolfenden, II. – Reservation by Mrs Cohen, Dr Curran, Lady Stopford and Dr Whitby, para 4(a).
64 Sexual Offences Act, 1967
65 4 Australasian Gay & Lesbian LJ 50
66 Cook, Matt (ed.) (2007), pp.167-168
Acts of UK Parliament
Sexual Offences Act, 1956
4 & 5 Eliz. 2 c.69 – Sexual Offences Act, 1956
Sexual Offences Act 1967
15-16 Eliz. 2 c.60 - An Act to amend the law of England and Wales relating to homosexual acts.
Sexual Offences Act 2003
2003 c.42 - An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes.
Dudgeon v UK
Norris v Ireland
Modinas v Cyprus
Journals and other Articles (by date)
17 UCLR 162 (1949) Post-Kinsey: Voluntary Sex Relations as Criminal Offences.
25 Law & Contemporary Problems 244 (1960), Fletcher, Joseph. Sex Offences: An Ethical View.
25 Stanford LR 403 (1973), Graham, Kathleen M. Security Clearances for Homosexuals.
102 HLR 1508 (1989) Developments in the Law: Sexual Orientation and the Law.
4 Australasian Gay & Lesbian LJ 50 (1994), Waaldijk, Kees. Standard Sequences in the Legal Recognition of Homosexuality - Europe's Past, Present and Future.
96/7 Colombia Law Review 1753 (Nov 1996), Yoshino, Kenji. Suspect Symbols: The Literary Argument for Heightened Scrutiny for Gays.
49/1 Stanford Law Review 45 (Nov. 1996), Massaro, Toni M. Gay Rights, Thick and Thin.
108/3 Yale Law Journal 485 (Dec. 1998), Yoshino, Kenji. Assimilationist Bias in Equal Protection: The Visibility Presumption and the Case of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
Online Sources (Athens access)
Parliamentary Papers: visited 18 March 2008
1956-57 Cmnd. 247
Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution.
The Wolfenden Report.
Other Online Sources
BBC. Britain’s secret sex survey
, 30 September 2005. visited 20 March 2008
Bentham, Jeremy. Offences Against One’s Self. Unpublished. < http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eresources/exhibitions/sw25/bentham/index.html> visited 18 March 2008
Murdoch University Electronic Law Journal Vol.3 Issue 4 (Dec. 1996), McLoughlin, Michael T. Crystal or Glass?: A Review of Dudgeon v United Kingdom on the Fifteenth Anniversary of the Decision. visited 8 October 2008
Cook, Matt (Ed.) ; Robert Mills ; Randolph Trumbach ; H. G. Cocks. A Gay History of Britain : Love and Sex Between Men Since the Middle Ages
Oxford : Greenwood World Publishing, 2007 ISBN 978-1-84645-002-0
Goldsmith, Netta Murray. The Worst of Crimes : Homosexuality and the Law in Eighteenth Century London
Aldershot : Ashgate Publishing Company, 1998 ISBN: 978-1-84014-631-1
Hansard. Parliamentary Debates, 1st-4th series, 1803-1908
Exe Lib: GPS, Old Library
Honoré, Tony. Sex law
London : Duckworth, 1978 Exe Lib: KM 544 HON
Moran, Leslie J. The Homosexual(ity) of Law
New York : Routledge, 1996 ISBN: 978-0-415-07953-5