Replies

The lesbian psuedo-couple, who have no children,

Try as hard as they can two lesbians will NEVER have children

Stillman says her complaints about such comments were ignored and that club officers refused to discuss Koebke's case with her. Stillman said she felt the club was acting with prejudice, leading her and her husband to resign at a personal financial loss of $7,500.

Wonderful. One set of sodomite enablers removed from the club's rolls already!!

At Bernardo Heights, the value of a membership has fallen, from the $18,000 Koebke paid to $9,500 today. Shiner said he couldn't explain the decline.

Look at this. Let one lesbian in and the value of membership drops. If the members can sell their memberships to others (when moving out of the area for example) that means that this sodomite has cost them half their investment. They need to sue her.

Koebke and French can only wonder why the club has chosen to wage a costly battle rather let them play. French says, "That's the million-dollar question: Why?

Because you are perverts and disgusting and hazardous to the safety of our families

"There's so many great reasons to have embraced us,

If just one man had embraced this lesbian she would have sued the club for everything it had.

and there's only one reason not to, and that's fear," she says. "That's the sad part about it."

I can come up with several dozen reasons to reject them.

The couple, who have no children, also were jarred when the board decided to extend family benefits to members' grandchildren without a full membership vote, which they were told was needed for any such change.

Yep. That was really gratuitous, aside from the fact that they couldn't possibly have children. It was really important to the reporter to show her solidarity with the litigant (Koebke), as if she hadn't done so in 101 other ways, such as taking Koebke's point of view as THE objective point of view. The reporter would surely say, "But the club's directors refused comment." So, why didn't she seek out A SINGLE club member who opposes Koebke, instead of only seeking out (clearly with the litigant's help) a former member who supports the litigant?

And Koebke is as phony as a three dollar bill (no apologies for the unintended pun) -- witness her complaining that no one embraced her, after she sued the club. She couldn't possibly be that stupid. I've never heard of anyone suing people, and then getting mad when they didn't "embrace" her. However, I am all-too-familar with the homosexual demand that all heterosexuals embrace and celebrate them. Note how Koebke took any statement by the club leadership that did not toe the homosexual party line as a "personal attack" on her.

Note the chutzpah of suing essentially based on someone having "violated" a non-existent law.

This is more evidence, as if any were needed, that "domestic partnership" is a trojan horse, which is one of the reasons I oppose it. (Actually, I entered into a domestic partnership seven years ago -- it's called marriage. Is it possible that this thing was called "domestic partnership" as a euphemism for marriage, as some sort of gay in-joke?)