The exclusive Elkridge Country Club in Maryland now is courting its first black members.

The club gave up its Maryland tax breaks in 1977 rather than give its membership list to the state.

Elkridge was forced into the limelight after Maryland Governor Robert Erlich held a fundraiser there in June. The Governor came under fire for appearing at a club that apparently endorses racial discrimination and later urged the club to reconsider its policies.

Elkridge now apparently has admitted its first black members, Baltimore developer Theo Rodgers and his wife Blanche.

In another case, the city of Atlanta apparently has dropped its efforts to force the Druid Hills Golf Club to treat the significant others of its gay members the same way it treats the spouses of heterosexual members.

In find these types of cases (including the ongoing males only issue at Augusta) fascinating because of the constitutional issues they raise. On the one hand, the first Amendment grants us freedom of association (actually, it doesn’t say that, but the courts have extended it). And on the other, we all are guaranteed due process and equal protection.

If the clubs in question were public facilities, or were receiving government breaks, they very clearly couldn’t discriminate. But as private clubs ... I really don’t’ know what to say about that.

It’s the kind of discussion that goes on for days in the political science classes I teach. When two constitutional rights are in conflict, which one takes precedent?

I just know that I wouldn’t want to belong to a club that discriminates. My home club is relatively diverse, and that makes it a lot more fun.

Some guy named Bart won the Tour Championship over the weekend, and in doing so, I think pointed out one of the problems that golf has as a major sport: i’ts almost totally personality driven.

In each of the other major sports, it’s really the team that matters. Players come and go, but the Yankees are still the hated (beloved) Yankees, the Cubs are lovable losers , the Cowboys the self-styled America’s Team, and so on.

Even NASCAR, which is probably the next closest thing to a personality driven sport, has its “teams.” I know guys who root for Roush Racing, and who cheer for Fords over Chevys. (Of course, it also has its personality cults—witness the whole Dale Earnhardt thing. I know a guy who has a whole room dedicated to the Intimidator)

But I’ve never heard anyone root for Callaway over Titleist.

And when a guy not named Tiger, Phil, Vijay (the New York Yankees of Golf), Retief, Ernie, Sergio or Daly isn’t in the hunt, people lose interest.

I don’t know that there’s a real solution here—or even that people are looking for one. It strikes me that the whole upcoming playoff thing is nothing more than an attempt to get the top personalities to play more often.

The official line is that the “race for the championship” will generate its own kind of excitement, but the more I think about it, the less I believe it. There will be absolutely no excitement if the above mentioned one-name guys aren’t in the hunt.

Casey Martin, the physically challenged golfer who sued the PGA Tour for the right to use a golf cart may have reached the end of his professional playing career.

The San Jose Mercury News reports that after he

failed to advance out of the first stage of PGA Tour qualifying at San Juan Oaks on Friday, Martin told golfdigest.com: ``I’ve pretty much made it clear that this would be my last Q-School. I’m not saying I’ll never compete again. But I don’t anticipate it being my main thing.’’

Martin, who has a degree in economics from Stanford, is looking into business offers.

I’ve always been conflicted about Martin’s lawsuit. As a handicapped person (I’m quite deaf, and have been so since birth), I understand the desire to have people make accomodations. But I also think that a man has got to know his limitations. I would never dream of trying to become a telephone salesperson, for example.  There are some things that the good Lord apparently just didn’t intend for me to do.

And that means that my mission in life is to do the best I can at the things he DID intend for me to do.

I think that Casey Martin has yet to find what he was supposed to do. I hope he finds it. His determination is an inspiration.

Jean Van de Velde’s remarks about wanting to play in the Women’s Open if women can play in the Open (British) Championship got me thinking.

On the one hand, I can see where some people might think that it’s discriminatory to allow women into the one, but not men into the other.

But I think they’re missing the point.

The Open Championship and the US Open seek to identify the champion golfer of the year. Period. And if the best golfer happens to be a woman, a senior, a junior, an amateur, or a professional, then so be it.

The women’s championships on the other hand, seeks to identify the champion FEMALE golfer. In the same manner, the amateurs seek to identify the champion amateurs, the senior opens, the champion seniors, and so on.

I don’t see any problem with this at all. No one seriously thinks that professionals should be allowed to play in the US Amateur just because amateurs are permitted in the US Open. Tiger doesn’t demand a place in the Senior Open because Tom Watson is playing in the Open Championship.

Further, no sane person believes that opening the championship to women threatens the status of the best male golfers. If a woman—Wie, or Sorenstam, perhaps—gets into the Open Championship, they will not be taking the spot from Jean Van de Velde, or any other man who actually has a chance of winning.

Van De Velde—and Singh, for that matter—should just get over it. In the future, there are going to be some women who get to play in men’s tournaments. Some will play their way into it; others will get a sponsor’s exemption.

But they are in no way threatened by that.

I was at a church dinner tonight, when the conversation at the table turned to golf. One of the guys there—whom I had not met—turned to me and said “You play golf don’t you?”

Either my reputation as a fanatic had preceeded me, or there is something about me that gives me away as a golfer (the clothing, or perhaps the distinctive sun tan).

I admitted that I was, and then he asked a curious question: “Are you a one-planer, or a two-planer?”

I had a flashback to the seventies, when lots of conversations began by asking people what their sign was.

I felt like answering “I’m a Scorpio,” but told him that I was a reformed two-planer, who had been working all summer on getting to a one plane.

Apparently I passed the test, because we then had a nice long talk about the different area golf courses that we had played.

I’m still thinking about it, though, because it seems to be an indication as to just how far Jim Hardy’s The Plane Truth for Golfers (review here) has worked its way into the thinking of the golf world.  All of the golfers in my circle of friends have read the book, and most have worked hard to define their swing as one type or the other.

So, what’s your sign?

I mean, what’s your swing type.