The judges opinion on lesbian parents denied discrimination complaint: good outcome, wrong headed editorial comments by judge

A lesbian couple, denied a family membership to the Rochester Athletic Club because they weren't married, lost their discrimination lawsuit. The judge correctly pointed out that there was no sexual orientation discrimination because cohabiting heterosexual couples are also denied family memberships. Judge Kevin A. Lund wrote, "It is for the Legislature, not the courts, to determine whether nonmarital relationships such as that involved in this case deserve the statutory protection afforded the sanctity of the marriage union." Good decision evidencing judicial restraint.

In his editorial comments though Judge Lund was off base in calling the health club's definition of family "unrealistically narrow" and "fails to recognize the underlying stability and commitment of the Monsons' relationship.' He also wrote, "Other, arguably more enlightened organizations, such as the Rochester Area Family Y, have chosen not to reduce the definition of family in such an anachronistic fashion,'' he said.

He calls the policy less than enlightened but that simply begs the questions, is the present effort to redefine the family and marriage good for society. Let's see. Family breakdown is at unprecedented levels. Cohabitation, divorce rates are far too high and marriage rates are dropping. Kids do much worse in unmarried headed households. Past family redefinition experiments like subsidizing single parent headed households have been an utter failure. Now there's an effort afoot to re-define marriage to be a "loving relationship." Yet homosexual relationships are more unstable than heterosexual relationships and by definition deliberately deny a child the benefit of a mother or a father.

Marriage sounds like the best policy for strong families. But of course Judge Lund who seems to have absorbed much of the "spirit of our age" fails to see beyond the politically correct view of family. How bad will things have to get before he and others realize that common sense, modern research and millennia of experience affirm the ancient truth -- man and woman were created for a purpose.

Homosexual couple sues Rochester Athletic Club

Press Release

Homosexual couple sues Rochester Athletic Club over refusal to treat them like a married couple

Group links lawsuit with legislative efforts to create domestic status for homosexual couples as part of systematic effort to redefine marriage in Minnesota

MINNEAPOLIS – Tom Prichard, president of the Minnesota Family Council (MFC), said a lawsuit challenging the Rochester Athletic Club’s family membership policy which recognizes only married couples in their family membership is part of a systematic effort to redefine marriage in Minnesota.

“This lawsuit is another example of efforts by homosexual activists to redefine marriage. They’re using the legal system as well as the legislative process to achieve their goals,” said Prichard.

The Rochester Athletic Club is being sued by a lesbian couple who claim the Athletic Club’s family policy, which applies toward “legally married only” couples, is a violation of the state’s anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation.

“We’re seeing a systematic effort by homosexual activists at the legislature to lay the legal foundation for overturning Minnesota’s marriages. Now they’re attempting to force private organizations to treat homosexual couples on par with married couples. That certainly sounds like a push towards same sex marriage to me,” said Prichard.

“A vote in favor of domestic partner status for gay couples is a vote to legalize same-sex marriage,” said Chuck Darrell, MFC director of communications. “OutFront is sending a clear signal that they will never compromise until same-sex marriage is legalized. This is exactly why we need a marriage amendment,” he said.

In the state legislature, bills are moving forward which will provide marital benefits and marital type status for homosexual state employees (SF 1369/HF 1618) and local government employees (SF 960/HF 1097) through domestic partnerships. Domestic partner recognition is also being pushed for hospital visitation (SF 1398/HF 1589) and sick leave benefits (SF 1128/HF 219).

“The end game in all of this is a legal imposition of homosexual marriage upon the state of Minnesota. Domestic partner benefits and a legal attack on private businesses are merely part of their strategy,” concluded Prichard. “The result will be the further destabilization and redefinition of marriage. All of society suffers when marriage breaks down, particularly children who will be even more unlikely to be raised by a mother and a father.”