The Convoluted Argument The Supreme Court of California has decided to hear a case brought by a lesbian couple against a country club wherein they claim that they were charged more for their membership than a married couple is charged. The plaintiffs are registered domestic partners under California's recently enacted Domestic Partnership law.
This law provides for the registrants
the ability to have custody of a partner’s child, access to family court, the right to make funeral arrangements and access to married student housing.
But they are not married, therefore they are not spouses.
The Bernardo Heights Country Club has a family membership package which the couple does not qualify for.
By granting family memberships only to married couples, the San Diego country club "chose criteria that same-sex couples could not possibly meet," said Jon Davidson, the couple's lawyer and legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Yeah, and that criteria would be you have to be married, which the couple clearly isn't. But is this discrimination? Clearly not, in my view, because the club did not bar the couple from joining the club, they simply didn't grant them the family discount.
The dispute centers on Birgit Koebke, 48, who pays the Bernardo Heights Country Club in San Diego about $500 a month in membership fees. Married members can have their children, grandchildren and spouses play golf for free.
Under club rules, Koebke must pay as much as $70 for her partner, Kendall French, 43, to play a round of golf, and French can only be Koebke's "guest' six times a year.
OK, fine. So what is this case really about? Last March, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled
California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional..., saying it violates the "basic human right to marry a person of one's choice.''
The case was appealed and the ruling set aside until such time as the state Supreme Court reviews the decision. The case against Bernardo Heights Country Club, in my view, is an attempt set precedent for the pending case.
In the Superior Court ruling, Judge Kramer justified his ruling based on an equal protection argument which in my view is ridiculous.
So let's look at this;
- Simply stating that marriage is a basic human right doesn't make it so. There is no right to marry either in the US Constitution or in the California Constitution which is why Judge's typically use the "equal protection" argument.
- The equal protection argument is bogus because no individual is being discriminated against; no males may marry another male regardless of their sexual orientation. Simply because a hetero male would not likely want to marry another male is immaterial. The same is obviously true of females.
- And the statement from Judge Kramer that the laws discriminate against the "basic human right to marry a person of one's choice" is a dangerous precedent. Does this mean that in the future a 50 year old male should be allowed to marry a 13 year old girl? How about a 13 year old boy? Should a brother be able to marry his sister? Should a father be able to marry his daughter?
In all of these cases a person could argue that the law is preventing them from marrying the person of their choice if such a standard were to be adopted.
This is why marriage is a union regulated by the civil authorities and this is why this issue needs to be resolved in the Legislatures across the country and not the courts. As a Federalist, I would be against any law or Constitutional Amendment that would force the states to either accept or ban Gay marriages.
I would also advocate that Judges should not makes laws, they should interpret them. Let the legislatures execute the will of the people in civil matters such as this and let them stand for election based on their positions on issues such as this.
Additionally I think that Gay "rights" advocates would be better served by trying to convince people of the correctness of their arguments and focus their attentions on getting the laws changed instead of trying to subvert the law through the courts. I truly believe that attempting subversion tends to place more roadblocks than it clears. I for instance would support efforts to change the law through legislation but will oppose any attempts to do it through the courts.
And I ain't the only one.
My advice for Birgit Koebke? Buy another membership.
Actionable Intelligence Wired magazine provides an example of the power of networks, even ad hoc networks, to allow people to act in ways that may be against conventional wisdom, but beneficial to their personal interests.
In this case, it saved lives.
For more than four years - steadily, seriously, and with the unsentimental rigor for which we love them - civil engineers have been studying the destruction of the World Trade Center towers, sifting the tragedy for its lessons. And it turns out that one of the lessons is: Disobey authority. In a connected world, ordinary people often have access to better information than officials do....
The report confirms a chilling fact that was widely covered in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. After both buildings were burning, many calls to 911 resulted in advice to stay put and wait for rescue. Also, occupants of the towers had been trained to use the stairs, not the elevators, in case of evacuation.
Fortunately, this advice was mostly ignored. According to the engineers, use of elevators in the early phase of the evacuation, along with the decision to not stay put, saved roughly 2,500 lives. This disobedience had nothing to do with panic. The report documents how evacuees stopped to help the injured and assist the mobility-impaired, even to give emotional comfort. Not panic but what disaster experts call reasoned flight ruled the day.
In fact, the people inside the towers were better informed and far more knowledgeable than emergency operators far from the scene. While walking down the stairs, they answered their cell phones and glanced at their BlackBerries, learning from friends that there had been a terrorist attack and that the Pentagon had also been hit. News of what was happening passed by word of mouth, and fellow workers pressed hesitating colleagues to continue their exit.
So I guess, to autonomous, diverse and decentralized, I would add wired.