Posted on 08/02/2005 1:24:02 PM PDT by dmanLA
In country club case, court says domestic partners deserve same the benefits given married couples. By John Spano Times Staff Writer
August 1, 2005, 1:01 PM PDT
A country club that granted married couples benefits it denied to gay couples registered as domestic partners was in violation of California civil rights laws, the California Supreme Court ruled this morning.
The wide-ranging ruling means that any benefits that California businesses provide to married couples must be offered to registered domestic partners.
The court struck down a policy by the Bernardo Heights Country Club in San Diego against admitting gay couples as members.
In the 5 to 1 decision, written by Justice Carlos R. Moreno, the court ruled that California's "policy favoring marriage is not served by denying registered domestic partners protection from discrimination under the Unruh Act," the state anti-discrimination law.
The ruling was a victory for Birgit Koebke and Kendall French. The two have been partners since 1993 and registered in California since 2000, according to the opinion.
Moreno wrote that "permitting a business to discriminate against registered domestic partners by denying them benefits or services it extends to spouses violates the comparable public policy favoring domestic partnership."
Under country club rules, members and spouses play golf for free. Others are charged as guests, and guests are allowed to play a maximum of six times a year, paying $50 to $70 green fees each time.
Koebke bought her Bernardo Heights Country Club membership in 1991 for $18,000.
"For registered domestic partners, it means when they walk into a business, they are entitled to be treated the same way as spouses are," said Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal Defense Fund, which argued the case.
The decision applies only in California. Davidson pointed out that only a few states — such as Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and Maine — recognize domestic partnerships.
"Businesses can't give discounts to married couples — banks, health clubs or automobile clubs — unless they also give them to registered domestic partners," Davidson said.
"It's moving us toward a situation where people in same sex relationships will be treated the same as people in different sex relationships," Davidson said.
John Shiner, who represented the country club, said the state's registered domestic partner law, which went into effect in January, had a big impact on the ruling. The Supreme Court opinion today, Shiner said, simply affirms what the law says.
"The limited impact is simply the court's declaration that same sex couples who have registered must be accorded the same rights as legally married heterosexual couples," said Shiner. "That is no surprise, because that's essentially what the act provides."
Shiner cited the court's finding that the country club had not violated the law before the act went into effect.
Davidson said his group continues to push for recognition of same-sex marriages in California. He said most businesses in the state extend equal treatment to registered domestic partners because they recognize it's the right thing to do.
The finding that the Unruh Act was violated carries an automatic penalty of $4,000, Davidson said.
Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar filed a dissenting opinion. Joining Moreno were Chief Justice Ronald George, and Justices Joyce Kennard, Marvin Baxter and Ming W. Chin.
http://www.gaywired.com/print_this_article.cfm?section=9&id=6786
I guess that applies to the tax code too! Make them pay the marriage penalty now!
Unless the club extended "married" benefits to unmarried, cohabitating heterosexuals, there was no basis for this ruling to force them to treat gay couples the same as married couples.
Whatever happened to our "right of association?"
Here Here! If they want equality, make them liable and responsible just like the married.
I wish a majority of businesses would. Then here the screams.
That would be "hear"...
you could not pay me enough to live there
Except for the fact that heterosexual couples have the OPTION to get married. Gay couples do not.
One more example of why the government should not be defining marriage.
Just one more reason why my husband and I are leaving California as soon as I can retire, which is less than a year from now! We're going to the Ozarks!
"One more example of why the government should not be defining marriage."
Oh, come on, now. You're sounding like a small government conservative. Ain't they extinct round these parts. /s
Welcome, I need the company.
Oh ya, ditto...
Here's a link to the CA Family Code on domestic partnerships.
In California, heterosexual couples, where at least one is over 62, also have the option of a domestic partnership in addition to traditional marriage.
I will make a note of these names:
"Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar filed a dissenting opinion. Joining Moreno were Chief Justice Ronald George, and Justices Joyce Kennard, Marvin Baxter and Ming W. Chin."
Unlike with SCOTUS, here in Calif, these jerks come before the voters and I will vote against those who voted for this. I think the interval is 12 years and here is when they were confimrmed:
* Ronald M. George, (since 1991), Chief Justice (elevated in 1996)
* Marvin R. Baxter, (since 1991), Associate Justice
* Ming W. Chin, (since 1996), Associate Justice
* Joyce L. Kennard, (since 1989), Associate Justice
* Carlos R. Moreno, (since 2001), Associate Justice
* Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, (since 1994), Associate Justice
It looks like George and Baxter were recently re-confimred but Chin comes up in '08
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.