K.C. ALFRED / Union-Tribune Guadalupe Benitez (right) with her partner Joanne Clark and their son Gabriel Clark-Benitez.

K.C. ALFRED / Union-Tribune Guadalupe Benitez (left) and her partner, Joanne Clark, had their son, Gabriel Clark-Benitez, with them as they spoke with reporters yesterday about a California Supreme Court decision that favored advocates of same-sex rights.

In a unanimous decision that could play a role in the campaign to pass a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage, the justices said the religious liberty and free speech rights of doctors do not exempt them from complying with the state's civil rights act.

The closely watched case centers on Guadalupe Benitez, a 36-year-old lesbian from Oceanside, and doctors at the North Coast Women's Care Clinic in Vista.

Benitez sued the clinic in 2001, contending the doctors refused to perform an artificial insemination procedure for her because their religious beliefs prevented them from doing so for a lesbian.

Justice Joyce Kennard, writing for the court, said the state's sweeping anti-discrimination law “furthers California's compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to medical treatment irrespective of sexual orientation.”

She said that to avoid any conflict with their religious beliefs, doctors could refuse to do insemination procedures for all patients, or refer patients to other doctors who have no religious objections.

The decision marked the second major victory for same-sex rights advocates this year in the high court. In a historic ruling in May, the court allowed same-sex couples to marry.

OVERVIEW Background: Guadalupe Benitez sued North Coast Women's Care Clinic and two doctors in 2001 over her treatment at the fertility clinic. She said doctors refused to perform an artificial insemination procedure because their religious beliefs prevented them from impregnating a lesbian. What's changing: The state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that religious beliefs can't be used by doctors to discriminate against gays and lesbians. The future: The case now heads back to Superior Court in San Diego for a trial.

But in the hours after the court's ruling in the fertility clinic case was released, Advocates for Faith and Freedom lawyer Robert Tyler said the decision could help Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban, “as voters begin to recognize the radical agenda of our opposition.”

The group sided with the doctors in the case and supports the November ballot measure.

The doctors, Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton, have said they did refer Benitez to another doctor. They also said their refusal was based on the fact that Benitez was unmarried – not on her sexual orientation.

Those are among the disputed points in the long-running case, which has not yet gone to trial. The issues the court decided arose as the case headed to a trial in 2003.

Benitez said she was happy with the court's ruling. She eventually became pregnant through a procedure performed elsewhere and gave birth to a son. She since has also given birth to twin girls, and is raising the children with her partner, Joanne Clark. The couple are not married but said yesterday they plan to wed.

She said the decision was a victory for everyone, not just same-sex couples because “anyone could be the next target if doctors are allowed to pick and choose their patients based on religious views about other groups of people.”

Jennifer Pizer, an attorney for Lambda Legal, the same-sex civil rights group that argued the case, said the decision means “discrimination has no place in the doctor's office.”

Ken Pedroza, a lawyer for the doctors, said the court's decision did not completely go against the doctors.

The justices said the doctors can't raise their religious beliefs as a defense to the claim they discriminated against Benitez based on her sexual orientation. But he said the court ruled the doctors could still argue their religious beliefs prevented them from treating unmarried couples.

At the time the suit was filed, discrimination based on marital status was not expressly banned, although the Legislature amended the law to include marital status in 2006.

Pedroza warned that the ruling could affect other areas where medical treatment and religious views collide, such as end-of-life decisions.

The case could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but Pedroza said no decision had been made.

It is part of a line of decisions from the court over the past several years affirming the equal rights of same-sex couples in areas such as child custody, adoption and parental rights.

“My impression is this is a court that is very receptive to arguments about the rights of same-sex couples,” said David Steinberg, a law professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego. The ballot measure in November could be seen as a referendum on the court's evolving body of law in this area, he said.

“If it fails, that would indicate people are generally comfortable with the way the court is expanding the rights of same-sex couples,” he said. But if it passes, it could show a rejection of the court's rulings in the other cases as well, he said.

Greg Moran: (619) 542-4586; greg.moran@uniontrib.com