Subscribe to our RSS feed
Follow us on Twitter
A Minnesota appeals court judge upheld a ruling on Tuesday (pdf) that found it legal for the Rochester Athletic Club to deny a family membership to a lesbian couple because the couple is not married. The case spotlights an instance where Minnesota anti-discrimination laws — some of the toughest in the country — are ineffective so long as same-sex couples cannot marry.
Amy and Sarah Monson have been together for seven years and are raising a daughter together. They co-own a business, have joint finances, and had a commitment ceremony in 2002. They have drafted estate plans for themselves and their daughter, and Sarah changed her last name to Monson.
The Rochester Athletic Club had a policy that only married couples could apply for a family membership package. The courts have said that since unmarried heterosexual couples also cannot get the discounted membership the policy does not constitute discrimination based on sexual orientation. But the Monsons contend that since they don’t have the option to marry, they should not be compared with unmarried heterosexual couples who have the option to marry.
After four attempts to resolve the matter with the club, the Monsons filed suit in 2007, alleging a violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the 1993 law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals denied their argument on Tuesday and upheld a previous Olmstead County judge’s decision.
The case highlights another instance of legal discrimination in Minnesota: Because the Monsons cannot marry, they can legally be discriminated against.
Even the judge in the original decision saw the flaws in the system. Judge Kevin Lund called the health club’s policy “anachronistic” and an “unrealistically narrow definition of family” that “fails to recognize the underlying stability and commitment of the Monsons’ relationship,” a relationship that he said functions “as a loving family unit and would otherwise be married or have entered into a permissible legal domestic partnership if allowed by our Legislature.”
The Monson may appeal the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Leave a comment
Become a fan on Facebook
7 Comments »
Comment posted January 7, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
http://www.rochesterathleticclub.com/
Comment posted January 7, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
The judge had the same opportunity to express his opinion as every other citizen when the question of what constituted a marriage was put to a democratic statewide vote.
The result showed that the vast majority of Minnesotan’s did not concur with the judge’s opinion (as have the results in every state the question has been voted upon), but he is certianly free to continue to keep it to himself.
Comment posted January 7, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
What state do you live in, icecycle? If you voted on what constitutes a marriage in Minnesota, then you were the only one. The question has never been on the ballot.
You alone are the vast majority of Minnesotans something the other 5 million of us would certainly object to.
And, Arizona did vote against banning same-sex marriage in 2006. So that would be a state that disputes your assertion.
But thank you for your ill informed and I presume anti-gay comment.
Comment posted January 7, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
If civil rights had been put to a vote in 1964, it would have been overturned then in most states too.
Justice is one arm of our government, and designed specifically to not be swayed by popular sentiment.
And for that, I’m glad.
Comment posted January 8, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
It might not be obvious but in Minnesota, “sexual orientation” of an individual is a “protected” or “suspect class” because the Legislature has defined it to be so. It does not follow that because two people belonging to that suspect class should want to be a “family’” that discrimination which would be unlawful against them as individuals should be discrimination against them claiming they are a “family”. Any more than people who are of the opposite sex should claim discrimination for such reasons. both of these Courts see what a can of worms it would be to hold that this “family” of a same sex couple is discrimination but to deny such benefits to couples of the opposite sex. Plus, even under the facts of this case, a decision which ruled that it is presumptively discriminatory to deny “public accommodation” to same sex couples would also make it presumptively illegal to deny accommodations to any combination of individuals, including men or women who are not gay but who want to live together with friends of the same sex. Want to see the rental market for students and young people dry up over night?
It’s not clear that the public accepts same-sex marriage at this point especially in view of Prop. 8 in California. The public is undecided as I am. I think the public would rather see elected bodies deal with the issue rather than having the matter decided by the courts.
I hoe my comments are not seen as being against same-sex marriage under any and all circumstances. I think this case shows the flaws and the unintended problems created by a judicial ruling that “marriage” defined as a man and woman is per se discriminatory against gays on constitutional grounds without any legislation. There is nothing inherently discriminatory about “marriage” which from time immemorial has been understood in common parlance as a “contract between a man and a woman”, as the Court says, (and the statutes say). “Sexual orientation” or “gayness” is not a constitutionally suspect class under the Minnesota constitution or the US Constitution. In places like Hawaii, Massachussetts, California and Connecticutt it apparently is or at least the judiciary there has declared that it is. I’m troubled by that. That is why those decisions are limited to those states and the same sex marriages can be rejected in other states.
Anyway, maybe the Minnesota Supreme Court will accept the case for review and decide to overrule its early 1970’s decision against same sex couples receiving health benefits. I’ll wager it will not. But this case is probably a good example for the Legislature to consider if reasons for allow civil unions or to redefine the concept of marriage.
Comment posted January 14, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
As one member of LGBT, I do give a support here. Actually, we LGBT are also serious about it. i have also have the experience with like-minded person know at Bimingle.com for LGBT, we all treat it as a serious problem. And most of them claim to have healthy sex there. Why should we be discriminated.
Pingback posted May 25, 2009 @ 2:11 am
[...] Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media. » Lesbian couple … [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment