When the Minister for Justice, John O'Donoghue, signs the Equal Status Act 2000 into law tomorrow, the spotlight will be turned, inevitably, on Portmarnock and Royal Dublin as the Republic's only all-male golf clubs. Indications are that all of the country's mixed-gender clubs are ready to comply with the new legislation.

Prior to receiving the President's signature earlier in the year, a Dail amendment resulted in a change to Section 9, which seemed to offer immunity to single-gender clubs. The section read ". . . . a club shall not be considered to be a discriminating club by reason that: (a) if its principal purpose is to cater only for the needs of - (i) persons of a particular gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religious belief, age, disability, nationality or ethnic or national origin."

Legal opinion at the time was that the amendment effectively placed Portmarnock and Royal Dublin outside the law. But a spokesperson for the Equality Authority insisted: "It could not be said that a golf club existed to provide a gender-specific or religious specific service."

The fact that neither club has taken steps to alter its status since then, would suggest that they believe their legal advice to be correct. So it seems that the legislation won't be long in operation, before a test case is taken.

"In our view, it comes down to the principal purpose for which the club was founded," said Gerry Hickey of the Equality Authority yesterday. "If the club were founded to cater for the needs of a specific group, i.e. men, then a male-only club could have a case. But it would be a rather different situation if its primary reason for coming into being was to provide golf for people, irrespective of gender."

On the other hand, Section 8 of the Act states that a club shall be considered to be a discriminating club if "it has any rule, policy or practice which discriminates against a member or an applicant for membership." In this context, applicant is the relevant word. It is up to the legal people to decide whether sections 8 and 9 are compatible, in the context of male-only clubs.

From a lay-person's standpoint, the legislation is quite complex. So, the ruling bodies for the men's and women's game in this country, the GUI and the ILGU, are to be commended on the thorough manner in which they have attempted to inform their member clubs.

For their part, the GUI invited questions from their affiliated clubs on the equality issue. They then referred these questions to their own legal advisers, who provided answers as they understood the law.

It was also hoped, that the same questions could be answered by the Equality Authority, but no response was forthcoming, according to Seamus Smith, general secretary of the GUI. "By last Thursday, we could wait no longer so we sent out the questions to the clubs with answers from our legal advisers only."

The GUI also expressed disappointment that despite their representations, the Equality Authority had not come up with a code of practice for the application of the new law. But Hickey explained: "The fact is that we don't have the power to do so until the law is in operation. Effectively, the power comes with the Act."

Meanwhile, among the concerns most prominent among affiliated clubs was the issue of numerical equality, which was sought by the ILGU earlier this year. But the legal advisers of the GUI responded: "There is no obligation on a club to engage in positive discrimination so as to equalise the gender composition of its members."

Then there was the question: "If the practice of a club had been to allow credit for the face value of the entrance fee paid into one category when a member moves to a higher category, must this practice continue with respect to ladies becoming full members." The GUI's legal advisers replied: "A club can provide for absolute equivalence between males and females in terms of subscriptions, levies, membership arrangements etc, but it is open to a club, if it wishes, to offer concessionary rates, fees or membership arrangements to a category (e.g. existing lady members) who were previously disadvantaged without thereby discriminating against others (e.g. males). Females cannot be treated less favourably than equivalent males."

Then: "What are the minimum requirements, in terms of positive discrimination, required, ensuring sufficient representation of ladies on all committees, including the Membership Committee?" Lawyers: "Clubs are free to engage in positive discrimination for the purpose of promoting equality by reserving places on its committee for persons who are in a particular category, but they have no obligation to do so."

Another question was: "If a joint club is to have a president, must it have a lady president and a male president?" "No. But the post must not be restricted to one gender only."

And another was: "If all lady associates are offered full membership on the same terms and conditions as current full members and a majority refuse, does this constitute an offer of equal membership and comply with the Act?" "No. Decisions made by certain potential applicants - even if a majority - will not bind or restrict the rights of others in the same category."

As these questions and answers indicate, the working of the Act will come down to common sense, once basic prejudices are discarded. But however well-intentioned clubs may be, they should prepare themselves for a painful transition.

Change is always difficult, especially when it means throwing out procedures which have been in place for decades. So, even those clubs which are fully amenable to change, are certain to experience problems in adapting to a new way of golfing life. For both genders, there are trying times ahead.