|Support the LB businesses you see here:
Joe Sopo, Realtor has his pulse On LB real estate. Click for info.
DrainPros: Unclog Drains + Full Service Plumbing, Locally Owned Pros. Info, Click Here
Wedding Entertainment Planning Is His Specialty. Bill Lovelace Delivers Personalized, Wedding Event Services. Get Info, Click Here
Become A Hero To LB Animals With A $20 Membership. Learn About Us, Click Here.
Saving Lives Thru Spay/Neuter & Education
Pollman's Insurance, Classic Or New, Car Or Home, When You Want It Insured, Call Us And Save! Click for info.
Mike & Kathi Kowal know Los Cerritos, Bixby Knolls, Cal Hts. and beyond. Click to learn more
Carter Wood Floors, a LB company, will restore your wood floor or install a new one. Enhance your home. Click pic.
NetKontent Digital Video Cutting Edge Services For The Internet, Broadcast and Multimedia. Click For Info
Ninos Ristorante: A delicious treasure in Bixby Knolls. Click here if you're hungry or for catering!
3853 Atlantic Ave.
How To Recall a LB Elected Official
City Council Agendas
Port of LB Agendas
Planning Comm'n Agendas
E-Mail Your Council member
Council District Map
LB Parks, Rec & Marine
LB Airport Watchdog
References & Archives
Lost, Found & Adoptable Pets
News in Depth
CA Supreme Court Says State Law Requires CA Businesses To Grant Registered Domestic Partners Same Benefits As Married Couples; We Post Decision
(August 2, 2005) -- The CA Supreme Court has ruled that a state law requires CA businesses must grant registered domestic partners the same benefits they give married couples.
"Domestic partners registered under the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 (the Domestic Partner Act), the current version of the domestic partnership law, are the equivalent of spouses for the purposes of the [CA] Unruh [Civil Rights] Act and a business that extends benefits to spouses it denies to registered domestic partners engages in impermissible marital status discrimination," the CA Supreme Court ruled in a decision.
LBReport.com has posted the full text of the Court's ruling below.
The case arose when a lesbian couple who are registered domestic partners sued a San Diego area country club to which one of them belongs, alleging the club’s refusal to extend them certain benefits it extends to married club members constituted marital status discrimination under CA's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The country club prevailed below on summary judgment (trial court) which was affirmed by a CA Court of Appeal...but the CA Supreme Court granted review and reversed. Citing the state legislature's action in enacting CA's Domestic Partner Act, the CA Supreme Court wrote:
The purpose of the Domestic Partner Act is set forth in uncodified portions
of section 297.5, in which the Legislature declares: "This act is intended to help
California move closer to fulfilling the promises of inalienable rights, liberty, and
equality contained in Sections 1 and 7 of Article 1 of the California Constitution
by providing all caring and committed couples, regardless of their gender or
sexual orientation, the opportunity to obtain essential rights, protections, and
benefits and to assume corresponding responsibilities, obligations, and duties and
to further the state’s interests in promoting stable and lasting family relationships,
and protecting Californians from the economic and social consequences of
abandonment, separation, the death of loved ones, and other life crises." (Stats.
203, ch. 421, § 1, subd. (a).) The Legislature has found "that despite longstanding
social and economic discrimination, many lesbian, gay, and bisexual Californians
have formed lasting, committed, and caring relationships with persons of the same
sex," and that "[e]xpanding the rights and creating responsibilities of registered
domestic partners would further California’s interests in promoting family
relationships and protecting family members during life crises, and would reduce
discrimination on the bases of sex and sexual orientation in a manner consistent
with the requirements of the California Constitution." (Stats. 2003, ch. 421, § 1,
Section 15 of the Domestic Partner Act, furthermore, requires that the act
be construed liberally in order to secure to eligible couples who register as
domestic partners the full range of legal rights, protections and benefits, as well as
all of the responsibilities, obligations, and duties to each other, to their children, to
third parties and to the state, as the laws of California extend to and impose upon
spouses." (Stats. 2003, ch. 421, § 15.)
Section 297.5 effectuates the legislative intent by using the broadest terms
possible to grant to, and impose upon, registered domestic partners the same rights
and responsibilities as spouses in specified areas of laws whether they are current,
former or surviving domestic partners...
With respect to discrimination, subdivision (f) provides: "Registered
domestic partners shall have the same rights regarding nondiscrimination as those
provided to spouses." (§ 297.5, subd. (f).) Moreover, with one exception
pertaining to eligibility for long-term care plans, subdivision (h) prohibits any
public agency in California from discriminating against "any person or couple on
the ground that the person is a registered domestic partner rather than a spouse or
that the couple [consists of] registered domestic partners rather than spouses."
(§ 297.5, subd. (h).)
It is clear from both the language of section 297.5 and the Legislature’s
explicit statements of intent that a chief goal of the Domestic Partner Act is to
equalize the status of registered domestic partners and married couples. It is in
light of this intent that we must determine whether the Unruh Act precludes [the country club] from granting married couples benefits it denies to persons registered as
domestic partners under the Domestic Partner Act. We conclude that the Unruh
As to the country club's arguments:
[W]e find unpersuasive the various business interests [country club's claims are served by its policy of denying family membership benefits to any but married couples. [It] claims that extending that benefit to "members’
friends" might lead to overuse of its facilities, create a disincentive for such
friends to apply for membership and would discourage its "legitimate goal of
creating a family-friendly environment by welcoming the immediate family of
married members." [One of the plaintiffs] however, is not simply [the other's] friend, but her registered domestic partner, with rights and responsibilities similar to that of a
spouse. Extending the spousal benefit to her would not create the stampede on the
fairway that [the country club] appears to envision.
The [country club] also argues that denying...the spousal benefit contributes to
the creation of a "family-friendly environment." While creating a family-friendly
environment may be a legitimate business interest, that policy is not served when a
business discriminates against the domestic partner of one of its members. Rather,
by so doing, the business violates the policy favoring domestic partnerships which,
like the policy favoring marriage, seeks to promote and protect families as well as
reduce discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. Accordingly, we
conclude that, while promoting a "family-friendly environment" may be a
legitimate business interest, that interest is not furthered by excluding families
formed through domestic partnership.
And regarding consequences that might flow from allowing the plaintiffs' claim to proceed, the Court concluded, "[T]he consequence of interpreting the Unruh Act to
prohibit discrimination against domestic partners would have the positive effect of
effectuating the Legislature’s intent expressed in the Domestic Partner Act to
create substantial legal equality between registered domestic partners and spouses."
The Court confined its holding to cases of registered domestic partners...and drew a distinction regarding other unmarried couples and individuals.
"While the [Unruh] Act may also protect the rights of other unmarried couples and unmarried individuals to equal access to public accommodations under some circumstances, distinctions drawn by businesses between married couples and such unmarried couples and individuals that are supported by legitimate business reasons do not constitute impermissible marital status discrimination under the Act."
The opinion, by Justice Moreno was joined by Chief Justice George and Justices Kennard, Baxter and Chin; Justice Werdegar filed an opinion concurring but dissenting in part.
Supporting the plaintiffs/appellants in the CA Supreme Court were the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and as amici curiae [Friends of the Court] the American Civil Liberties Union (No. Cal, So. Cal, SD/Imperial Counties), American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, the Anti-Defamation League, Equality California, Tom Homann Law Association, Women’s Sports
Foundation, CA Women’s Law Center and National Center for Lesbian Rights.
CA Attorney General Bill Lockyer -- whose office has argued against SF's efforts to allow same-sex marriages -- also supported the plaintiffs/appellants.
The country club was represented by Morrison & Foerster.
To view the Court's ruling in full, click here (pdf file).
Return To Front Page
Contact us: mail@LBReport.com