J
JMJ_Pinoy
Guest
**Court rules on domestic partner protections
http://www.mercurynews.com/images/common/spacer.gif
DECISION SAYS PRIVATE COUNTRY CLUBS MUST TREAT SAME-SEX PARTNERS THE SAME AS MARRIED COUPLES
http://www.mercurynews.com/images/common/spacer.gif
By Howard Mintz
http://www.mercurynews.com/images/common/spacer.gif
Mercury News
http://www.mercurynews.com/images/common/spacer.gif
The California Supreme Court on Monday added considerable legal clout to the state’s new domestic partner protections, concluding that private country clubs must treat same-sex partners the same as married couples.
The decision came in one of a series of gay rights cases that are serving as a prelude to the historic legal showdown over whether California’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a matter that could be heard by the Supreme Court by the end of this year. The justices ruled that a San Diego country club violated California civil rights laws by refusing a spousal discount to a lesbian couple that it extends to married members.
While the ruling did not tip the court’s hand in how it will view the gay marriage issue, the justices made it clear that the domestic partner law was intended to offer the same legal protections that married couples enjoy. The decision could now give registered domestic partners stronger protections with a host of businesses, from mortgage lenders to health clubs.
``In creating domestic partnerships, the Legislature has also created a policy favoring such partnerships similar to the policy favoring marriage,’’ Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for the court.
Legal experts say Monday’s ruling could cut two ways in the ongoing challenge to the state’s gay marriage ban – it shows the court is receptive to gay rights arguments but also could be exploited by gay marriage foes who argue that same-sex couples don’t need the right to marry because of the domestic partner law.
The San Diego case involves Birgit Koebke, who pays $500 per month in membership fees to the Bernardo Heights Country Club. Married members can have children, grandchildren and spouses play the golf course for free, but Koebke must pay for her partner, Kendall French, to golf and she can only be a guest six times a year.
The couple sued, arguing that the policy was discriminatory under civil rights laws and that it also violated the domestic partner provisions that went into effect the beginning of this year. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer backed the couple in the Supreme Court.
A trial judge and a state appeals court both ruled in favor of the country club, which argued that California’s civil rights law permitted businesses to distinguish between married and unmarried couples if they could show a legitimate business interest in their policy. Club attorneys maintained that they’d be unable to limit the number of members and face problems because of a lack of resources.
Club attorneys could not be reached for comment. But the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the club’s argument, saying treating domestic partners Koebke and French equally posed no threat to the business.
The decision gives the partners a chance to now seek damages from the club, although the court limited it to conduct since the new domestic partner law went in to effect. One justice dissented from that part of the ruling.
The justices are now expected to rule sometime this month on another major gay rights case involving the custody rights of same-sex couples who have children through artificial reproduction. The Supreme Court also in the coming months must decide whether to tackle the gay marriage challenge immediately or leave the issue for a state appeals court to rule upon first.
A San Francisco judge earlier this year found the state ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.
Jon Davidson, legal director for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, said the latest Supreme Court ruling was ``respectful’’ of the rights of same-sex couples, but didn’t alter the fact they should still be entitled to marry.
mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/12277848.htm
**
http://www.mercurynews.com/images/common/spacer.gif
DECISION SAYS PRIVATE COUNTRY CLUBS MUST TREAT SAME-SEX PARTNERS THE SAME AS MARRIED COUPLES
http://www.mercurynews.com/images/common/spacer.gif
By Howard Mintz
http://www.mercurynews.com/images/common/spacer.gif
Mercury News
http://www.mercurynews.com/images/common/spacer.gif
The California Supreme Court on Monday added considerable legal clout to the state’s new domestic partner protections, concluding that private country clubs must treat same-sex partners the same as married couples.
The decision came in one of a series of gay rights cases that are serving as a prelude to the historic legal showdown over whether California’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a matter that could be heard by the Supreme Court by the end of this year. The justices ruled that a San Diego country club violated California civil rights laws by refusing a spousal discount to a lesbian couple that it extends to married members.
While the ruling did not tip the court’s hand in how it will view the gay marriage issue, the justices made it clear that the domestic partner law was intended to offer the same legal protections that married couples enjoy. The decision could now give registered domestic partners stronger protections with a host of businesses, from mortgage lenders to health clubs.
``In creating domestic partnerships, the Legislature has also created a policy favoring such partnerships similar to the policy favoring marriage,’’ Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for the court.
Legal experts say Monday’s ruling could cut two ways in the ongoing challenge to the state’s gay marriage ban – it shows the court is receptive to gay rights arguments but also could be exploited by gay marriage foes who argue that same-sex couples don’t need the right to marry because of the domestic partner law.
The San Diego case involves Birgit Koebke, who pays $500 per month in membership fees to the Bernardo Heights Country Club. Married members can have children, grandchildren and spouses play the golf course for free, but Koebke must pay for her partner, Kendall French, to golf and she can only be a guest six times a year.
The couple sued, arguing that the policy was discriminatory under civil rights laws and that it also violated the domestic partner provisions that went into effect the beginning of this year. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer backed the couple in the Supreme Court.
A trial judge and a state appeals court both ruled in favor of the country club, which argued that California’s civil rights law permitted businesses to distinguish between married and unmarried couples if they could show a legitimate business interest in their policy. Club attorneys maintained that they’d be unable to limit the number of members and face problems because of a lack of resources.
Club attorneys could not be reached for comment. But the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the club’s argument, saying treating domestic partners Koebke and French equally posed no threat to the business.
Extending the spousal benefit to her,'' the justices wrote, would not create the stampede on the fairway that the (club) appears to envision.’’The decision gives the partners a chance to now seek damages from the club, although the court limited it to conduct since the new domestic partner law went in to effect. One justice dissented from that part of the ruling.
The justices are now expected to rule sometime this month on another major gay rights case involving the custody rights of same-sex couples who have children through artificial reproduction. The Supreme Court also in the coming months must decide whether to tackle the gay marriage challenge immediately or leave the issue for a state appeals court to rule upon first.
A San Francisco judge earlier this year found the state ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.
Jon Davidson, legal director for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, said the latest Supreme Court ruling was ``respectful’’ of the rights of same-sex couples, but didn’t alter the fact they should still be entitled to marry.
It really didn't answer the question posed by the marriage cases about whether or not having a two-tiered system is constitutionally adequate,'' Davidson said. Of course, it isn’t.’’mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/12277848.htm
**