From Reuters:

Atlanta Golf Club Sparks Battle Over Gay Rights

By Paul Simao

ATLANTA (Reuters) - A new battle in America's fight over gay rights has erupted in Atlanta, cradle of the U.S. civil rights movement, where a golf club is resisting a city order to grant spousal benefits to its gay members.

The defiant stand by the Druid Hills Golf Club has triggered the ire of gay activists in the Deep South and prompted threats of criminal prosecution and fines from officials in the Southern metropolis.

It also comes on the heels of a crushing defeat for gay activists in the nation. Eleven states, including Georgia, passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage or same-sex unions in the November election.

At the heart of the current conflict in Atlanta is a municipal ordinance that prohibits businesses and other groups dealing with the public from discriminating against gays or their partners.

The private 1,100-member Druid Hills club fell under the scrutiny of city attorneys last year after two gay members complained that their partners were not provided the same privileges as the spouses of heterosexual members.

The club, which is located in a fashionable part of Atlanta, allows members' spouses to use its facilities without being accompanied and to continue doing so for six months after the death of their husband or wife.

It does not extend those benefits to unmarried heterosexual or same-sex couples.



GAYS PUSH FOR ACTION

A city board ruled last year that the club's policies violated its human rights ordinance. Gay activists across the nation have been urging Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin to enforce that decision.

"Non-discrimination ordinances are something fundamental that we have all relied upon for years," said Andrew Borchini, a spokesman for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) in New York.

"It's a principle for us, and it is being threatened," Borchini added.

Franklin, a Democrat who has strong support in Atlanta's gay and lesbian community, warned the club last month that it could face prosecution in municipal court and be fined up to $90,000 if it did not comply with the ordinance.

Druid Hills responded last month by suing the city in Fulton County Superior Court. The lawsuit argues that the ordinance violates Georgia's gay marriage amendment, which says the benefits of marriage may only be enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

It also seeks undisclosed damages for harm done to the club's reputation as well as legal costs. Emmet Bondurant, the club's attorney, called the city's charges of discrimination "false and baseless."

"Druid Hills treats unmarried same sex couples and unmarried heterosexual couples equally," said Bondurant, who noted that the club allows gays and lesbians to become members.

The club's position has, for some, rekindled memories of the controversy that erupted in 2002 when the Augusta National Golf Club, home to the U.S. Masters, refused to bow to pressure from feminists to change its male-only membership policy.

City officials, who must respond to the lawsuit within 30 days of being served, did not return calls seeking comment. Some of them, however, have told the gay community that the anti-discrimination ordinance may have been poorly crafted and might not withstand a serious court challenge.


BACKLASH POSSIBLE

Coming just months after a heated U.S. election in which gay marriage was a lightning rod for millions of religious conservatives and other voters, the dispute could have far-reaching implications for gays in the United States.

Atlanta is home to the largest gay community in the South.

If the ordinance is upheld, it could trigger a backlash similar to the one seen last year when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled gay couples had the right to marry and San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Earl Ehrhart, a powerful Republican legislator in Georgia, has promised to push a bill that, if passed, would forbid the state or any local government from penalizing private social groups for engaging in what he describes as lawful expression.

"What these militant homosexuals are seeking is special rights, not equal rights," Ehrhart wrote in a recent editorial in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the city's largest newspaper.

"They want their local ordinances to supersede state and federal law," Ehrhart said.

Was it Linda Lovelace who said, "I think that these folks should be left alone to live their lives as they see fit, but I do  get irritated when they try to push their demands down our throats. Oops, no it was Oral Roberts.

I second that.

The whole "significant other" issue is a slippery pole...er...slope.

I'd suggest that this thread be deleted.

I have a friend who is a member at Druid Hills and it is believed by many of the membership that the members involved in the suit joined DH for the specific purpose of raising a stink on this issue.

I was told that the mayor of Atlanta is of like persuasion, which is perhaps why this has gotten the legs in the manner that it as.

Hamilton,

Perhaps if the members in question were allowed to marry their "significant others", this issue would not need to be raised. It is an example of a much larger problem, the unequal treatment of people based on sexual orientation (something we should be discussing in another forum, not GCA - sorry for perpetuating an off-topic thread).

TK

Sounds like DH needs a little better screening process up front on the membership approval area.  I am guessing that whomever sponsored them is feeling rather uncomfortable at this point.  I am guessing their fellow members are letting them hear about it.

Actually, it's not private clubs that are under assault. This thread is misnamed. It's discrimination againts gays that's being targeted.

I am not at all certain that in this case, Druid Hills is actually discriminating against gays. And it also sounds like some grandstanding here by the city of Atlanta, since the proper target should be the state's laws that do not allow for gay marriage unions. But there is no assault here upon private clubs, just against the notion that clubs are free to make discriminatory choices while benefiting from public benefits like tax abatements.

It is a little ridiculous for clubs to give "significant others" the same privileges as spouses, IMHO.  You wind up with people who try to cheat the system.  At Medinah, they caught a guy who was splitting his dues with a woman who claimed to be his "significant other" but who wasn't even dating him.  Not many women would marry a guy just to be able to play a private course on a regular basis, so I would say if you want your girlfriend to play, buy her a membership.

Or a ring.

I couldn't agree more if you aren't seen as married legally clubs should not grant significant other any special privledges