|
|
| It’s being called the social issue of our time and the private club industry doesn’t have immunity! |
| Same-sex marriage, legal unions, and significant others? In the middle of February, same-sex couples were lined up for blocks for civil ceremonies at San Francisco City Hall, after that city’s mayor decided to allow same-sex couples to get married. Many of these couples have been partners for significant periods of time and to them the relevant word is “married.” |
| The situation brewing at the Druid Hills Golf Club in Atlanta, Georgia hinges on another aspect: spousal benefits. Six members of that city’s Human Relations Commission believe the club has violated a city ordinance by not extending spousal benefits to partners of gay members. |
| Two club members raised the complaint. In reports from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the members say “the club repeatedly denied requests that their partners be viewed as spouses and be afforded the associated privileges: attending the club alone, playing golf without paying guest fees and inheriting the membership upon the member’s death. |
| Although the commission is not empowered to make a decision, the findings are to be forwarded to the city’s mayor, who decides what happens. If Druid Hills doesn’t acquiesce, the club’s business and liquor licenses could be lifted. The lifeblood of the club is at stake. |
| The Druid Hills complaint revolves around the extension of spousal benefits to a partner in a gay relationship…a significant other, not necessarily a “married” partner. |
| It’s only the second sexual orientation discrimination complaint ever legally filed against a country club in the United States. And given that the first case is before a California appeals court, the Atlanta decision, according to reports from that city, could set a precedent for clubs in Atlanta, but also not necessarily around the country because it is based on a civil ordinance. |
| In fact, in California a new state law, the Domestic Partners’ Rights and Responsibilities Act, takes effect Jan. 1, 2005. Under this act, two adults of the same sex, sharing the same residence, may register as domestic partners. Members of the opposite sex may register a domestic partnership if at least one of the two is over 62. |
| The law says, “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights regarding non-discrimination as those provided to spouses.” This act doesn’t require that registering partners be gay or lesbian, only that they not be related by blood, be over 18 and able to consent. |
| What does all this mean for private clubs in the future? What are the issues? |
| Although the discussion, to some extent has focused on gay partners and the rights they have or want at a private club, there is really an issue that affects not only gay partners, but also others who are part of private club memberships. It’s significant others and that includes gay partners. |
| Andrew Fortin, vice president, legal/government relations of the National Club Association, says his recent research tells him “the issue is not as simple as the media and politicians would have you believe. There is a massive political element to the current debate that’s hard to avoid with all the hype. |
| “First this is not solely about gay marriage” which he sees as the tip of the iceberg. It’s also significant others and the trends that are driving the debate over the rights of significant others. |
| “Increasing numbers of single households, an aging population and a new front in the civil rights debate guarantee that issues involving the legal rights of significant others will be a key issue of public debate in 2004, “ said Fortin who is developing a white paper on this topic for the National Club Association. |
| “There are three trends that are driving the debate over the rights of significant others. First is a demographic change that is fast approaching a tipping point. In a recent article, Businessweek magazine noted that the percentage of two-person, married households has dropped from 80 percent in the 1950’s to just over 50 percent at the turn of the century. |
| And Fortin added, “the aging baby boomer population will create additional problems as widowed seniors look for companionship, but can’t remarry without the loss of pension health care benefits. Finally, long term gay couples are asserting their rights for more equal treatment under the law and the ability to enjoy some of the legal rights granted to married couples.” |
| The issues of course, are broader than simply those of private clubs, yet they affect private clubs. So what to do? |
| “For employee policies, the club should follow the letter of the law,” says Rick Coyne, president of the Dallas-based ClubMark Corporation. “It is not the club’s place to set precedent particularly in a matter as potentially divisive as this one. Relative to membership policies, the same should be true. It will be increasingly important for clubs to stay abreast of pending legislation in their respective areas. |
| “The California and Atlanta situation may only be the beginning of a long and difficult period of legal and moral discussions, which could seriously affect the way that clubs do business,” Coyne said in speaking directly to membership policies for same-sex partners. |
| “Clubs face enough issues today without trying to solve equal rights issues that may not have been decided in the courts. The best advice would be to rest on the current legislation as being the guideline,” Coyne stressed. “If and when legislation mandates change, then change should be made, in accordance with that legislation. Setting precedent is always a minefield. Let the courts decide!” |
| Gregg Patterson, general manager of The Beach Club of Santa Monica, CA says, “private clubs are rarely at the ‘cutting edge’ of social change but tend to follow the norms of contemporary society. |
| “As a rule, they ‘lag’ when adopting contemporary social policies (dress standards, for instance) and ‘lag’ when leaving those policies behind (coats and ties in the dining room). However, they eventually catch up with modernity and then hold onto it longer than the rest of society,” he suggested. |
| “This may also be true with same sex partners – they (clubs) will adopt the new norm (if one emerges from this controversy) after it has been well and truly tested and accepted throughout society. Until that ‘consensus’ emerges, clubs will handle same sex partners in ways consistent with that club's existing culture – don't ask, don't tell; extension of privileges to a designated ‘significant other’ for single members etc. There will be no consistent or ‘right’ response until the larger society arrives at a commonly accepted answer to the issue,” Patterson offered. |
| “Clubs individually will respond to the demands of their own same-sex partners in a way unique and consistent with their own club culture. There will be no consistency until the courts mandate consistency or contemporary society agrees overwhelmingly to a particular response to same-sex couples.” |
| Although the Druid Hills situation is a response to a city ordinance, not state or federal legislation, there is some feeling we may see similar complaints across the country. |
| “The publicity surrounding the Druid Hills case of ‘partner rights’ will spur similar complaints at private clubs throughout the country,” Patterson added. “Publicity creates a consciousness of both the issue and of the response. Similar issues exist at every club and it's only a matter of time before partner rights become ‘front and center’ issues at every club,” he asserted. |
| Coyne likens this significant other debate to one of several years ago – male-female issues, which he says prompted the industry to adopt gender neutral bylaws and usages for all members. “We will see more cases similar to Druid Hills emerge. This issue, with deeper emotional and political ramifications, could very easily become an even more volatile and widespread issue than the gender issue ever was. Clubs would be very wise to consult their legal counsel as to their current liability under their respective state legislation on the issue,” Coyne advised. |
| Fortin sees what’s happening in Massachusetts, California and Atlanta as the “current legal battlefields in answering the question of what rights to extend to significant others.” But there’s another side to the coin. |
| “In Massachusetts, the State Supreme Court ruled that the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage violated the state’s constitution and gave the legislature a May 13, 2004 deadline to either amend the state constitution to ban same sex marriage or such unions would become legal,” Fortin outlined. |
| In California, an extensive domestic partnership law takes effect in 2005. “Despite the forthcoming legal recognition, the mayor of San Francisco has issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, violating state law. This much-publicized move will provide a basis on which to challenge the state ban on same-sex marriage,” he opined. |
| “Finally, in Atlanta, advocates of domestic partnership rights have brought action against a golf club for not adhering to an ordinance that grants legal rights to significant others registered with the city. |
| “On the other side of the debate are the 38 states that have adopted a Defense of Marriage Act that limits the recognition of legal rights associated with marriage to heterosexual couples. Absent a local ordinance that grants significant others legal rights, these state level DOMAs provide protection against any state being forced to recognize significant other unions from other states,” Fortin said. |
| “In addition to state DOMAs, states that recognize same-sex or senior civil unions often limit that application of these new laws to state residents. Although much has been made of Massachusetts’s decision to allow gay marriage, Massachusetts’s marriage law does not allow for out-of-state couples to wed if the marriage would be void in their home state.” So the sorting out and debate continues. |
| “In my opinion, the debate is just beginning,” Coyne asserted. “As one would expect, California leads the country in creating legislation on the domestic partner issue. Will other states follow? Some have, but the moral side of the equation will make this a high stakes, politically and religiously potent and irresistible issue for both political pundits and the religious right. Stay tuned. This one will get interesting.” |
| Patterson agrees: “Partner rights is the ‘big’ social topic of the moment. It will be a focal point in the coming presidential election and will inspire legislation and lawsuits in every state of the nation. Clubs are merely a convenient symbol of the problem and a whipping boy that non-club members love to abuse – wealth, elitism, conservatism, etc. I don't see clubs as the focal point of legislation but I do see clubs deeply impacted by legal developments.” |
| Patterson feel this issue “will make its way to the Supreme Court and once legal decisions have been made and appropriate legislation passed, the private club industry will follow as is appropriate for any law abiding niche within the larger community. |
| “Clubs will do what eventually society determines is good, proper and legal. Resist though they may, they will change if needed and will hold tight to the ‘new norm’, whatever that new norm eventually becomes,” Patterson concluded. |
| Publisher's final thoughts |
| The past has taught us much about issues of our times. There was a club we worked with that allowed gay members to join, and a specific problem that happened was hard to predict. |
| One person, who has just been transferred to the area, wanted to join this club. He wanted a membership for himself and a friend but the membership director told him there was no such membership. He then asked the membership director: “What if we are a couple…a gay couple?” |
| The membership director told him he and his partner must be living at the same address, and he replied, “Yes, we live together.” The membership director said “no problem.” They joined the club and played under one membership. |
| Years later the club discovered the two were not gay. They did live together but did so because both had been transferred by the same company, and shared accommodations as a way to cut their overhead. They seemed not to care if they were labeled “gay” at the club. In fact, most members never knew and the information was kept on a “need to know” basis. The question does arise: How do you know if the two are a gay couple? It’s not an issue most clubs want to deal with, but may need to in the future. It may still be a question of “the significant other.” |
| At least, that's the way I see it! |
| What's your opinion. If you wish to respond to the Publisher's Perspective, or other BoardRoom articles, contact Publisher John G. Fornaro by email at john@apcd.com. |
| John Fornaro Publisher |