Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Homo Separate But Equal
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Or equally cheesy, in this case:
eHarmony, Inc., which runs an online dating service for heterosexual couples, must now cater to a gay clientele. That is the upshot of a settlement the California company reached today with the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office.In what seems like a novel claim to our ears, the Garden State asserted that eHarmony violated the state’s Law Against Discrimination by not offering a same-sex matching service. New Jersey got involved following a complaint by Eric McKinley, a gay match-seeker in the state.
eHarmony has denied violating the law, claiming that its business model has been based on its expertise to date. The company says it has researched thousands of opposite-sex marriages to understand what makes opposite-sex couples compatible.
But, as a result of the settlement, eHarmony next year will launch a same sex matching service called Compatible Partners, which will be marketed in gay and lesbian media outlets, according to a FAQ that the company released today. The document makes clear that users of eHarmony.com will not be matched with users of the new site, compatiblepartners.net.
Compatible Partners—doesn't that sound romantic....
I've never understood the outrage about eHarmony. Yes, it's a dating website for heteros, and they don't match up queers and, yes, that smacks of discrimination. Hell, it actually is discriminatory. But there are tons of dating websites out there for homos—lots of which don't match up heteros—and as rights violations go, eHarmony was pretty piddling.
But now eHarmony will be running a gay dating website—victory is ours!—but one with a name that makes it clear that 1. eHarmony is doing it under duress and 2. eHarmony will be holding us at arms length with eTongs for as long as they have to run this separate-but-equal website. Which hopefully won't be for long. I predict that compatiblepartners.net will be among the least trafficked dating websites on the planet, right down there with guessyoulldo.com, desperatetogetpregnant.net, and blackgayrepublicans.org.
Share via
2
Coming next: The site that advertises to married couples looking for affairs now forced to advertise for ethical singles as well.
I really hate this law. Geez, maybe those right-wingers have a point.
I really hate this law. Geez, maybe those right-wingers have a point.
3
I know one of the lead researchers at eharmony and he's talked about getting the site working for non-heteros but that it takes time and research. One of the biggest problems he mentioned is that compared to hetero relationship data, there's just so little data available about gays and lesbians that it makes it difficult to simply tweak their matching computers... they have to figure out a whole different system.
But he's most definitely gay-rights friendly, he and his team have already been working on this stuff... it's too bad now they'll have to rush a chop-job
But he's most definitely gay-rights friendly, he and his team have already been working on this stuff... it's too bad now they'll have to rush a chop-job
4
How about instead of "Compatible Partners" they call it something more romantic like "Clinically Capable of Mutual Enjoyment via Projected Narcissism"?
5
eHarmony is based upon a complex matching system developed through extensive research with married couples. One of the requirements for successful matching is that participants fall within certain defined profiles. If we find that we will not be able to match a user using these profiles, we feel it is only fair to inform them early in the process.
We are so convinced of the importance of creating compatible matches to help people establish happy, lasting relationships that we sometimes choose not to provide service rather than risk an uncertain match.
Unfortunately, we are not able to make our profiles work for you. Our matching model could not accurately predict with whom you would be best matched. This occurs for about 20% of potential users, so 1 in 5 people simply will not benefit from our service. We hope that you understand, and we regret our inability to provide service for you at this time.
We are so convinced of the importance of creating compatible matches to help people establish happy, lasting relationships that we sometimes choose not to provide service rather than risk an uncertain match.
Unfortunately, we are not able to make our profiles work for you. Our matching model could not accurately predict with whom you would be best matched. This occurs for about 20% of potential users, so 1 in 5 people simply will not benefit from our service. We hope that you understand, and we regret our inability to provide service for you at this time.
7
And if a prospective user is bisexual and would like to see matches of either gender, they're shit out of luck or have to sign up with both services. Excellent.
8
Compatible Partners sounds like where you go to discuss the trials and tribulations of Lesbian Bed Death.
9
I feel like that is a stupid ruling. It will lend credence to the idea that if gay marriage is legalized, churches will have to marry gay people.
If someone runs a service like, say, taking wedding photographs, should they be allowed to refuse to take photos at a gay wedding? I would argue no, because it is the exact same service being done for gay and straight couples, and doesn't have anything to do with them being gay or straight.
But if someone runs a service based on their psychological expertise (real or imagined) on how straight relationships work, I don't think they should be forced to try to offer the same service to gay relationships.
If someone runs a service like, say, taking wedding photographs, should they be allowed to refuse to take photos at a gay wedding? I would argue no, because it is the exact same service being done for gay and straight couples, and doesn't have anything to do with them being gay or straight.
But if someone runs a service based on their psychological expertise (real or imagined) on how straight relationships work, I don't think they should be forced to try to offer the same service to gay relationships.
10
Ummm, does that mean manhunt and gay.com and whatever need to legally have hetero sections? It sounds like it from the law and ruling. I've never used those websites but I assume they're for gay men right now. I doubt we'll see a ruling because we won't be seeing any complaints from heteros wanting to join in on the manhunt action, probably.
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcr/law.html
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcr/law.html
11
guessyoulldo.com should totally redirect to Manhunt.net... just saying.
(Though we had mutual (fuck) buddies at the time, my bf of three+ years and I first communicated through Manhunt, so I'm allowed to make this joke, realizing we're the exception to the rule.)
(Though we had mutual (fuck) buddies at the time, my bf of three+ years and I first communicated through Manhunt, so I'm allowed to make this joke, realizing we're the exception to the rule.)
12
Also, it seems like New Jersey is a little weird (good?) about same-sex discrimination. They actually DID take away the tax exempt status of a church pavilion that refused to marry same-sex couples. The only time this has ever happened in the US, I think.
http://www.articlearchives.com/society-s…
http://www.articlearchives.com/society-s…
13
My worry with this is that it is something that churches could point to and say, “See look, if gay marriage is legal they’re going to make us marry gay people!” To them it could seem like this organization didn’t want to offer its services to gay people, and neither do we as a church, but the government is going to come in and tell us what to do.
The irony of that is that of course separate of church and state would prevent the government from doing any such thing (churches have protections in this area that companies do not), but apparently it does not prevent the churches from interfering with the affairs of the state. Churches don’t want the state to tell them who they can or cannot marry, but, that’s exactly the thing they want to be able to tell the state.
The irony of that is that of course separate of church and state would prevent the government from doing any such thing (churches have protections in this area that companies do not), but apparently it does not prevent the churches from interfering with the affairs of the state. Churches don’t want the state to tell them who they can or cannot marry, but, that’s exactly the thing they want to be able to tell the state.
14
The effectiveness and value of dating services is totally dependent on how large a pool they have. A dating service with one person in it is useless. What kind of self-respecting homosexer is going to want to sign up for this thing?
16
#9 beat me to it. Also, your point about it not being the exact same service for gays/lesbians is a valid one. It's not like they're selling widgets and they just don't want to sell them to homosexuals. Or, more to the point, they are not match.com and it's just a matter of allowing men to connect to men and women to women. It's actually a different product offering.
17
Is there a top 10 list of stupid court decisions? This ranks up there with that hot cup of coffee. Why anyone would want to join a dating service that doesn't cater to their tastes is beyond me. I'm pissed because I went to a Jewish Speed Dating event, and didn't find the Islamic boyfriend I was hoping for. Lawsuit!
19
"Equal is as equal does", as a non-supporter of same-sex marriage shouted at me on the walk downtown last Saturday. I took that to mean that I would have an equal right to marry when I equaled a straight person by having a hetero relationship. I welcome every court ruling which challenges separate-but-equal thinking.
EHarmony used the excuse about expertise in hetero relationships as a red herring. It is not as if there are people actually matching individuals based on profiles, they use list programs just like everyone else. There are no data which show EHarmony has a greater success rate in getting people married than any other similar site.
The ruling is sound, EHarmony is a business that was discriminating against an entire group of people because of sexual orientation. There isn't, to my knowledge, any prohibition against a woman seeking a man on Manhunt. It may not be a successful search but you could do it.
This is not analagous to organziations that try to match couples on religious or cultural grounds, those are protected by the First Amendment, because we have a right to seek people like ourselves.
EHarmony used the excuse about expertise in hetero relationships as a red herring. It is not as if there are people actually matching individuals based on profiles, they use list programs just like everyone else. There are no data which show EHarmony has a greater success rate in getting people married than any other similar site.
The ruling is sound, EHarmony is a business that was discriminating against an entire group of people because of sexual orientation. There isn't, to my knowledge, any prohibition against a woman seeking a man on Manhunt. It may not be a successful search but you could do it.
This is not analagous to organziations that try to match couples on religious or cultural grounds, those are protected by the First Amendment, because we have a right to seek people like ourselves.
20
@9: Are wedding photographers the government? No? Then they should be allowed to do business (or not) with whom they please.
21
@20: Are dating websites the government? No? Then they should be allowed to do business (or not) with whom they please.
22
@20 "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" was a sign found in businesses all over the U.S. until quite recently but in the South it meant just one thing: "If you aren't white you aren't getting served." Civil rights legislation alone did not make that sign more scarce. It took hundreds, if not thousands of individual lawsuits and court decisions to enforce the legislation and make it more than just words on paper.
23
@12 -- It's not exactly accurate to say that the case removes the pavilion's tax exempt status because they refused to marry same-sex couples. Nobody was trying to force the church to perform any weddings at the pavilion, they just wanted to be allowed to have their civil union ceremony there.
The pavilion itself, while owned by the Methodist church and occasionally used for religious purposes, was not primarily a religious-use property. It had been held out for years as a public accommodation that anyone could use at any time for any purpose just by getting a permit, and that was the basis of it's exempt status.
When they refused to issue a permit to a homosexual couple who wanted to have their civil union ceremony there, the state said either they were a public accommodation or they weren't. If they were, the only allowable excuse for refusing to issue a permit would be if the pavilion was already booked for the date requested. If they refused to issue the permit based on their religious beliefs, then they weren't a public accommodation.
In short, the church lost it's exemption on the pavilion because the wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to exemption that came along with holding the property out as a public accommodation while still actually treating the property as private church property.
The pavilion itself, while owned by the Methodist church and occasionally used for religious purposes, was not primarily a religious-use property. It had been held out for years as a public accommodation that anyone could use at any time for any purpose just by getting a permit, and that was the basis of it's exempt status.
When they refused to issue a permit to a homosexual couple who wanted to have their civil union ceremony there, the state said either they were a public accommodation or they weren't. If they were, the only allowable excuse for refusing to issue a permit would be if the pavilion was already booked for the date requested. If they refused to issue the permit based on their religious beliefs, then they weren't a public accommodation.
In short, the church lost it's exemption on the pavilion because the wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to exemption that came along with holding the property out as a public accommodation while still actually treating the property as private church property.
24
i don't see how this is discriminatory. eHarmony caters to a market. does anyone think that Manhunt is discriminatory?
28
@17 - I really wish people would stop trotting out the whole coffee lawsuit as an example of something stupid.
The coffee was kept at 180 degrees, and the woman had massive third-degree burns that required skin grafts and two years of treatment. She sued to recover medical costs. McDonald's was found to be 80% liable, and the lady was found to be 20% liable.
The coffee was kept at 180 degrees, and the woman had massive third-degree burns that required skin grafts and two years of treatment. She sued to recover medical costs. McDonald's was found to be 80% liable, and the lady was found to be 20% liable.
30
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" was a sign found in businesses all over the U.S. until quite recently but in the South it meant just one thing: "If you aren't white you aren't getting served." Civil rights legislation alone did not make that sign more scarce. It took hundreds, if not thousands of individual lawsuits and court decisions to enforce the legislation and make it more than just words on paper."
You know, despite the weight of history and the repellent nature of Jim Crow laws, I'm not sure what the legal basis is for not allowing private businesses to be racially discriminatory. I think the Augusta Golf Club should be allowed to ban women, the Boy Scouts should be allowed to ban gays, and so on, repugnant as one may be. I'm very much not comfortable with government taking away the rights for restaurants to not serve anyone, and I'd like to see ugly discrimination be eradicated through social change, not legal change.
You know, despite the weight of history and the repellent nature of Jim Crow laws, I'm not sure what the legal basis is for not allowing private businesses to be racially discriminatory. I think the Augusta Golf Club should be allowed to ban women, the Boy Scouts should be allowed to ban gays, and so on, repugnant as one may be. I'm very much not comfortable with government taking away the rights for restaurants to not serve anyone, and I'd like to see ugly discrimination be eradicated through social change, not legal change.
31
These are the kind of bullshit rulings that make perfectly non-bigoted libertarians extremely leery of commercial civil rights laws.
They trample on freedom of contract, freedom of association, and often even freedom of speech.
As #9 pointed out, they show that fears that marriage rights are just the thin end of a wedge, while undoubtedly overblown, have a real grain of truth: the gay rights movement does, in fact, want to use legal equality as way to force the government help them engineer social equality.
Finally, as #10 and #18 point out, these laws are not symmetric. The text of such laws may look symmetric, but since their application is governed by the notion of "protected classes," they are in practice entirely one-way.
They trample on freedom of contract, freedom of association, and often even freedom of speech.
As #9 pointed out, they show that fears that marriage rights are just the thin end of a wedge, while undoubtedly overblown, have a real grain of truth: the gay rights movement does, in fact, want to use legal equality as way to force the government help them engineer social equality.
Finally, as #10 and #18 point out, these laws are not symmetric. The text of such laws may look symmetric, but since their application is governed by the notion of "protected classes," they are in practice entirely one-way.
32
@30 If you believe in the power of social change alone to make a difference I would like to refer you to Nina Simone singing "Mississippi Goddam"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GpOGtGCL…
There is a great difference socially and legally between private clubs, fraternal organizations, religious groups, etc. and a public business or entity which receives public funding. If you are open to the public you have to treat all of the public equally.
Your examples are private organizations. The Boy Scouts have paid for their decision to discriminate by losing a great deal of public funding, and rightly so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GpOGtGCL…
There is a great difference socially and legally between private clubs, fraternal organizations, religious groups, etc. and a public business or entity which receives public funding. If you are open to the public you have to treat all of the public equally.
Your examples are private organizations. The Boy Scouts have paid for their decision to discriminate by losing a great deal of public funding, and rightly so.
33
"If you believe in the power of social change alone to make a difference I would like to refer you to Nina Simone singing 'Mississippi Goddam'."
No, don't get me wrong, I don't wanna be a Pollyanna about this, and I don't want to pretend that legal victories made things so much easier, it's just that I don't understand the legal basis for forcing people not to discriminate. What's the difference between a publically funded business and a private club exactly?
No, don't get me wrong, I don't wanna be a Pollyanna about this, and I don't want to pretend that legal victories made things so much easier, it's just that I don't understand the legal basis for forcing people not to discriminate. What's the difference between a publically funded business and a private club exactly?
34
I'm gay, and I met my boyfriend on OKCupid! We've been together 6 months! Why are people so upset about those douchebags at eHarmony?
35
btw, I wasted $100 on Eharmony. What a shitty site - full of all these creepy questions about 'traditional gender roles' and women who think it's immoral to swear. Even odder was that many women on the site advertise their interest in bondage. Now gay people can have access to a repressed dating site too.
36
@30, the issue isn't private organizations such as religious orgs or clubs discriminating. that's totally legal. But groups like the Boy Scouts receive(d) huge amounts of PUBLIC money, and publicly funded organizations, unlike private ones, do not have the right to discriminate.
There's a second sense of the word "public" at play here, though, and that's public as in "public accommodations." The idea here is that if you offer a service or own a space that you make open and available to the general public, then you have to be willing to admit ALL portions of the general public. So, for example, if I own a restaurant the premise of which is that people walk in off the street and, assuming that they are wearing clothes and have money to pay, I feed them, then it is illegal to exclude any customer or category of customers simply because of some criterion (e.g. race, sexuality) that is unrelated to their ability to pay for their meal. If, on the other hand, I want to have a dinner fundraiser in my church or my home, I don't have to let in anyone I don't want to, for any reason, because it is a PRIVATE function in a PRIVATE location.
Make sense?
There's a second sense of the word "public" at play here, though, and that's public as in "public accommodations." The idea here is that if you offer a service or own a space that you make open and available to the general public, then you have to be willing to admit ALL portions of the general public. So, for example, if I own a restaurant the premise of which is that people walk in off the street and, assuming that they are wearing clothes and have money to pay, I feed them, then it is illegal to exclude any customer or category of customers simply because of some criterion (e.g. race, sexuality) that is unrelated to their ability to pay for their meal. If, on the other hand, I want to have a dinner fundraiser in my church or my home, I don't have to let in anyone I don't want to, for any reason, because it is a PRIVATE function in a PRIVATE location.
Make sense?
37
Guys! Stop! It wasn't a ruling, it was an out-of-court settlement. So it means nothing precedentwise.
38
Yes, a settlement. I think it would be hard to see what kind of discrimination ruling could be made against eHarmony, as they are operating a private service - as other point out, this doesn't fall into the same classifications as the rulings on the Boy Scouts (who won, when they should have lost) or Ocean Grove (the church pavilion, which was correctly decided), since those cases involved public accommodations or public money.
However, where I think there might be a case might be in terms of deceptive advertising. It seems, judging from the eHarmony rejection letter, that they are not being straightforward about their policy of not letting gays and bisexuals onto the site. I think if they had simply said, sorry, we only accept heterosexuals, they might have actually avoided all the trouble.
However, where I think there might be a case might be in terms of deceptive advertising. It seems, judging from the eHarmony rejection letter, that they are not being straightforward about their policy of not letting gays and bisexuals onto the site. I think if they had simply said, sorry, we only accept heterosexuals, they might have actually avoided all the trouble.
40
Does this mean that if the baker doesn't sell my favorite kind of bread, I can sue him for discriminating against me and my bread?
I am an American Business Owner. I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. For any reason. I don't even have to tell you why. If you can start suing me for not serving you the way you want, instead of you finding the right vendor to cater to you, then fine - I quit - Make your own fucking bread.
What is next? Where has our capitalizm gone and when did we become the United Socialists of America?
If we stay on this track, the people and goverenment of the United States are going to drive the local business owner out of business. After that, the government will have to run the bakery.
Who wants to go stand in the bread line?
I am an American Business Owner. I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. For any reason. I don't even have to tell you why. If you can start suing me for not serving you the way you want, instead of you finding the right vendor to cater to you, then fine - I quit - Make your own fucking bread.
What is next? Where has our capitalizm gone and when did we become the United Socialists of America?
If we stay on this track, the people and goverenment of the United States are going to drive the local business owner out of business. After that, the government will have to run the bakery.
Who wants to go stand in the bread line?
41
I think those who voted on Prop 8 will complain about launching gay service at eHarmony. There are a lot of services granting just gay matching and we don't call them sexist for refusing to date members of the opposite sex. But, wait... think I've forgotten about bisexuals...So, let it be... My personal kudos to Eric McKinley! I just wish the membership was free...at least for a year, whom should I complain?
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
Precious: Brutal New Classic or African-American Bruno? by David Schmader
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (41) RSS