The Supreme Court was asked yesterday to take a more tolerant view toward sex. The request was contained in an exhaustive treatise on the subject filed with the court here by Morris Lowenthal, a lawyer who has championed such varied causes as San Francisco’s truncated cable car service and the rights of homosexuals to patronize taverns of their choosing. In an 88-page “friend of the court” petition, Lowenthal argued that the Supreme Court should strike part of a December decision because it empowers the State to dictate the morals of almost every Californian.

PROTESTS SCOPE

The big question: What arouses sexual desire? The lawyer said the high tribunal went too far in the disputed opinion when it declared: “Any public display which manifests sexual desires, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual in nature may, and historically have been, suppressed and regulated in a moral society.” This could even include a boy and girl holding hands, the attorney said. Associate Justice Thomas White wrote the opinion in a case involving the First and Last Chance Bar at 2277 Telegraph Ave., Oakland. The bistro went out of business two years ago after the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control lifted its license for catering to lesbians.

WIDER APPROACH

The Supreme Court said the license had been revoked unlawfully, The tribunal, at the same time, opened a new avenue for the ABC to approach such problems. could shut down the spas in which sexual deviates congregate merely by showing that the places operate “contrary to the public welfare and morals.” Lowenthal noted this and then quoted from the passage on “sexual desires.” He declared every bar and place of entertainment in the State could be closed. He also saw the spectre of censorship.

CITES DANCING

He went on to philosophize on’ what constitutes a public display of sexual urge. Certainly, he says, it must take in such modern dance forms as rock ‘n’ roll; also man staring at an attractive woman, or a well endowed female in a low cut dress with or without bra, or a properly proportioned young lady in tight gown. The lawyer said such legal position “flies in the face” of modern thinking. He suggested, therefore, that the court either grant a rehearing, or modify its opinion.

PAYOFF HINTS

Lowenthal’s petition also contained a vague charge of “requests for police payoffs” which he said have been made to operators of bars catering to homosexuals. “The bulk of his paper, however, is devoted to the interpretation of the ruling on sex.. “Hogwash,” commented Deputy Attorney General Wilev Manuel, who argued the State’s case. ‘The language of the Supreme Court opinion, said Manuel, is meant to apply specifically to such acts as those witnessed in the Oakland tavern. In the broad application, Lowenthal “is vastly overstating the case,” Manuel said..