« Ideology of Death | Main | Hillary Slayer? »
August 4, 2005
Golf Rights
From the AP:
SAN FRANCISCO -- California's highest court ruled Monday that country clubs must offer gay members who register as domestic partners the same discounts given to married members -- a decision that could apply to other businesses such as insurance companies and mortgage lenders.The California Supreme Court decision dealt with a policy at the Bernardo Heights Country Club in San Diego that allows the children, grandchildren and spouses of married members to golf for free.
Birgit Koebke, 48, an avid golfer, challenged the policy after being told that her longtime partner, Kendall French, could play as a guest only six times a year while paying up to $70 a round.
Because of my belief in limited government, I support allowing homosexuals to marry legally. My reasoning is that same-sex marriage does not affect anyone other than the two people involved. I have not been swayed by arguments that allowing gays to marry would weaken heterosexual marriage or otherwise harm society.
Gay rights advocates often use limited government arguments to further their cause, chiding conservatives who "want to regulate people's bedrooms." But this case is an example of how gay rights advocates are disengenuous when they speak of wanting government to butt out of people's business. What really irked me was a quote by the lead plaintiff:
Of the ruling, Koebke said: "We just wanted to play golf together, and we just really felt we had every human right to do that."
Koebke and her partner have every right to leave the country club for another golf course, or pay the extra fee, or lobby other members of the golf course to change the bylaws to allow them to receive the special marriage discount. But since when do we have a "human right" to play golf at a course of our choosing under terms of our choosing?
Wanting the government to butt out of our lives cuts both ways. If you oppose the government moving into people's bedrooms, you shouldn't support a government that butts into the policies of a private country club. As a Jew, I would find it offensive if my local country club were restricted, but as a supporter of limited government, I believe a private club should have every right to bar Jews.
You can read the California Supreme Court's decision here and decide for yourself whether the court was bound by existing California laws to reach the decision it did.
My issue is mainly with those gay rights activists who will seek to use the courts to interfere with private businesses. It seems that we can look forward to endless litigation on this front in the coming years. From the article:
Jon Davidson, legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, predicted that the ruling would also affect mortgage lenders, insurance companies and other businesses that have separate policies or fees for married and unmarried customers.
The more gay rights advocates pursue this route, the more they will lose allies like me who are with them when they are on the side of getting government to butt out of people's lives.
Posted by Philip Klein at August 4, 2005 11:25 AM
Comments
Excellent post--I totally agree. One of the most neglected portions of the First Amendment is the "right of the people to peaceably assemble," a right which, by my reckoning, means that private citizens can form groups that have their own rules and policies. Although the government may not agree with those policies, it doesn't necessarily have the right to overrule them.
This echoes the case of "Boy Scouts of America v. Dale," in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts did not have to admit a gay scout leader. Gay rights groups cried foul, but the fact of the matter is that the Boy Scouts are a private organization, and they have the right to set the terms of their own membership.
This is, in a nutshell, what frequently irks me about the gay rights movement: they frequently repeat their mantras about not wanting the government to legislate morality, but then they try to use the government to enforce their own morality on private organizations. Yes, we should keep the government out of our bedrooms--but we should keep them out of our meeting rooms as well.
Posted by: Jerry at August 5, 2005 12:12 AM
Klein's quip and the above post, quite frankly, reek of plain ignorance. With all due respect to both Klein and Jerry, they should hold off a little more on the armchair politics and focus on the true issue - doing the right thing. In the 21st century, gays should and must be treated equally. PERIOD.
That said, speaking as a gay man living in San Francisco, if one must mention the role of government then such a role is exceedingly clear. The role of government must in all cases step in and preserve equality to uphold the integrity of the basic foundation of the United States constitution - "All men are created equal". Both Klein and Jerry would do well to remember this basic tennet instead of placing undue focus on the extremely nebulous concept of what actually constitutes limited government.
If one is to take the foundation of the U.S. consitution literally that all men are created equal, then it becomes striking clear that government must not only support gay marriage, but must also step in against outright gay discrimination. All too often, the discrimination that gays face is subverse. When a policy or discrimination is this outwardly and unabashadly egregious, the government must unequivocally vanquish such offenders and require them to immediately cease and desist such actions. Accordingly, I think you can come to no other conclusion that the ruling in the Bernardo Heights matter was not only justified, but I daresay necessary.
Unfortunately, there are just too many neanderthals running around that think gays are inferior. It is akin to the 1860s view of blacks and slavery. Over 140 years later, this country still has issues with black discrimination but few would argue for slavery. Gay rights shall too persevere and reign victorious. Let's hope minor government intervention such as Bernardo Heights speeds the process along. It would be a shame for this country to suffer another Civil War to rectify a human rights issue that is so glaringly clear. But make no mistake, if we must, we will act on my right to bear arms should it become necessary.
Mr. Klein, the stakes are too high to focus on the technicalities of what does or does not constitute limited government. An entire generation of people and the their god given inevitable rights is at stake.
Posted by: San Francisco Slam at August 7, 2005 12:39 PM