case, "Although these decisions technically are confined to issues involving the revocation of a liquor license, indirectly they have established the existence and scope and nature of the civil rights of homo sexuals, under the Civil Rights Statute of California, and the line of reasoning adopted in these decisions may very well be picked up in later cases that are not related to liquor license matters."

However, the battle is not yet over. The State Attorney General's office indicated utter dismay at the outcome of the Vallerga case and announced plans to carry the issue to the State Supreme Court. Civil rights for homosexuals are not easily won, however justified they may be.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

It would seem to us that the California Supreme Court would again be forced to reiterate its pronouncement in all "gay" bar cases pending that homosexuals have a right to go into public restaurants and bars and be served, and further that they havo a right to moot cocially or congregate. If such is the case, Seotion 24200(e) would necessarily be ruled unconstitutional, and tho Legislature and the Alcoholic Beverage Control administration would be forced to realize that in order to persecute the hoCosexual further, "good cause" must be proved.

But the answer doesn't rest there. For then we have visions of the ABC continuing to spend the taxpayers' hard-earned money just to prove the point of "good cause" to the satisfaction of the courts. This could result in an endless round of bar closings and court debates without actually solving the problem as we have witnessed in the past.

May we suggest that all those concerne d bar managers, state legislators and ABC administrators, and homosexuals themselves tako a realistic look at the situati on?

'GAY' BARS WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST

Our first premise would be that the "gay" bar por so cannot be legislated out of existence. Closing of bars on grounds that they cater to homosexuals is unconstitutional