dence that the acts of affection between these two men were or should have been observed by the licensees or their employees."

Summing up, along the lines of Mr. Lowenthal's argument, what does this opinion mean?

The fact that the bar was established for homosexuals was held immaterial. The court by implication confirmed the advice given Vallerga by his attorney that since the bar was a public place the bar owner was under a duty and had a right to serve his customers, as long as they behaved themselves.

The court further held that mannish attire worn by the female patrons, and the habit of men pairing off with men and women with women did not per se amount to immoral, indecent, disgusting or improper acts. Nor did the court consider women dancing with, or kissing. other women to be offensive, illegal or improper. Even where there was evidence of acts of affection between homosexuals. in the absence of evidence that these acts "were or should have been observed by the licensees or their employees," this was held not to be grounds for the revocation of a license. Nor was a bar's reputation as a gathering place for homosexuals considered material. Likewise, for the evidence regarding the displays of affection between two men-such evidence was considered as having no legal significance except as demonstrating what was already admitted, that at least some of the patrons were homosexual.

Further, there were two chief points: first, that revocation of a license must be supported by evidence of misconduct, acts which are clearly "disgusting, immoral and illegal" and by evidence that "the continuance of the license would be contrary to public welfare." Second and most important the court

clearly nipped in the bud any further legislative attempts to outlaw homosexual bars, and left a considerable opening for the general establishment of a claim by homosexuals to equal rights in other areas.

The case, however, is not quite finished. Early in February, the new Attorney General of California, Stanley Mosk, along with Charles A. Barrett and Wiley W. Manuel, presented a "Respondent's Petition for Rehearing" angrily attacking the court for ignoring the obvious intent of section 24200 (e), demanding that the court either hew to the letter of the law or declare the law unconstitutional (Mr. Lowenthal had argued strongly that the court could not rightly escape finding 24200 (e) unconstitutional). They also protested that if the court's opinion stood, the term "pervert" in the law would be left without meaning.

"In passing," they said, "it should be noted that it is not one of the. prohibited classes which has challenged the constitutionality of the code section involved, but, rather, persons who are not in the prohibited classes, as far as the record shows, raise constitutional issues [sic]. It appears that in reality the appellants in this matter have no standing to raise the constitutional issue."

And this strikes at the crux of the issue: homosexuals must stop standing by while their rights are trampled. They must stop waiting for someone else to fight their fights for them. They must begin to stand up, like other minorities, and exercize their muscle, and make politicians like Pat Brown feel it. The attorneys handling these present cases will probably push through to victory-but it is time for us to begin making our own victories, to begin establishing our own rights.

Lyn Pederson

9