SEQUEL TO 'GAY' BAR PROBLEM

OH, BITTER DICTA!

A CASE WON AND LOST

Announcements in California Newspapers on December 25, 1959, indicated that old St. Nick (in the guise of the State Supreme Court) had not forgotten the homophile. The Court had rendered a favorable decision in the Vallerga case (s00 (soe THE LADDER, December, 1959: The 'Gay' Ber Whose Problem Is It?), decla ing that Section 24200(e) of the California Business and Professional Code "purports to authorize revocation of a license without requiring anything more to be shown than that the premises are a resort for certain classes of persons, and as such is unconstitutional for the reasons set forth in the Stoumen case. case." (The 1951 opinion in the Stoumen case held that the mere congregation of homosexuals in a tavern did not warrant disciplinary action in the absence of illegal or immoral acts.)

The newspapers reported that agents of the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Department must prove there have been "immoral acts" on the premises before revoking bar licenses and that Norbert Falvey, supervising control officer in the Bay Area, said that the court decision meant the department henceforth "cannot touch" a number of San Francisco taverns popular with male and female homosexuals.

But

The rejoicing was short lived. The opinion proved to be a bitter victory. For the Supreme Court in its decision went on to say:

"It is suggested that the record in the present caso justified a conclusion that the continuance of the license will be 'contrary to public welfare and morals' and that the revocation thereof can be justified on constitutional grounds. Conduct which may fall short of aggressive and uninhi-

5.