Like millions of other lonely people fed up with bars and the dating scene, Eric McKinley decided to look for love online.

The 46-year-old gay man living in New Jersey decided to register with the popular Pasadena-based online dating company, eHarmony, in 2005. But instead of finding the man of his dreams, McKinley found only closed doors. However, McKinley scored a victory on Nov. 19 for gay rights advocates by forcing the Internet matchmaker to change the way it does business.

The trouble began after McKinley discovered there was no way for users seeking same-sex partners to register for an account. According to statements on eHarmony’s Web site, 20 million people seeking companionship have registered on the company’s Web site since its inception in 2000.

“I heard their advertisement and thought, ‘Hey, this could work for me,’” said McKinley. “So I went to their Web site but couldn’t pass the initial screen. There was no option for man seeking man. It made me feel angry, mad, and sad; a whole range of emotions.”

McKinley contacted the New Jersey Attorney General’s Division on Civil Rights and filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual preference.

As part of a settlement agreement to end that lawsuit, eHarmony must start a new online dating site allowing users to search for same-sex partners.

The new service, “Compatible Partners,” will be up and running by March 31, according to a statement on the company’s Web site. Potential customers seeking same-sex partners will be able to navigate to the new site from eHarmony, which will remain a site that matches members with the opposite sex.

The first 10,000 users registering with Compatible Partners will receive a free account for a year. After that, pricing will be about $50 per month, the same as eHarmony. eHarmony, Inc. must also pay the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office $50,000 for administrative costs, and McKinley will receive $5,000.

eHarmony was founded by evangelical Christian Neil Clark Warren, the former dean of the graduate school of psychology at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena.

Warren has not publicly commented on the settlement.

In a 2005 interview with USA Today, Warren claimed that the company is not anti-homosexual. He said the site’s purpose is to produce successful marriages, and added that same-sex relationship services were not provided because gay marriage is illegal.

According to MarketWatch.com, which is part of the Wall Street Journal, eHarmony made about $165 million in 2006.

Clark had a prior business relationship with the influential religious conservative group Focus on the Family. According to the Colorado Independent, Focus on the Family spent more than $600,000 to ensure the passage of Proposition 8 on Election Day, which denies same-sex couples the right to marry. Several lawsuits have been filed to nullify the measure’s action, amending the state constitution to restrict marriage to opposite-sex partners.

“This is a huge decision,” said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth, a group dedicated to exposing what they call “the homosexual activist agenda.” “There is a growing battle that has emerged between gay rights and religious freedom. The people defending religious freedom have to stick their necks out and defend it,” LaBarbera said.

“It’s not like eHarmony did not have the resources to fight a lengthy court battle. The fact eHarmony was bludgeoned is going to set the stage for other companies attacking religious freedom. It was a very public business with a born-again Christian at the top and they now are going to be in the business of promoting homosexual relationships. If they can force Neil Clark Warren to do this, what’s next?”

Dereck Andrade, an openly gay Pasadena resident and former public relations instructor at Pasadena City College, felt differently. “When I think about these companies that promote relationships, and especially in light of Proposition 8, which barely passed, I think people and companies are starting to understand that relationships are not just among heterosexuals. We are not going away,”

“I think we have turned the corner and people in some circles are becoming more accepting,” he said. “But for the most part it’s the courts that are forcing companies to come around. eHarmony should have been more open-minded in the first place. Why wouldn’t a company take the money?”

Other sites not only provide same-sex matching, but have also pointed out eHarmony’s unwillingness to

do so. Executives at Chemistry.com ran ads two years ago, inviting customers denied access to eHarmony to try their services for seeking same-sex partners.

eHarmony uses a questionnaire containing more than 200 questions about values, faith and interests to match couples along 29 dimensions of compatibility. Once matching pairs complete the questionnaire and show interest, they reach a stage of open communications where they can see each others’ photos.

McKinley is not the first person to sue the company. In 2005, Linda Carlson had the same experience and despite a letter to eHarmony executives, was still denied access. Her suit is pending, though eHarmony attorneys claim that the McKinley settlement has made that case moot.

“eHarmony has ignored the gay community, flip-flopping on their reasons for discrimination,” said Thomas Enraght-Moony, CEO of Match.com and Chemistry.com in a prepared statement released after the settlement was announced. “In a 2005 interview, Warren claimed that ‘same-sex marriage is illegal in most states and we don’t really want to participate in something that’s illegal.’ However, in a 2007 statement, the brand blamed their exclusion on research, stating that ‘the research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages.’”

Phone calls to eHarmony’s Lake Avenue offices were not returned Friday, but in a statement on the company’s Web site attributed to eHarmony, Inc. legal counsel Theodore B. Olson said “the company does not apologize or acknowledge any discriminatory practices.”

“Even though we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business, we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case with the Attorney General since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable,” Olson (who served as George W. Bush’s first Solicitor General) wrote.

“eHarmony looks forward to moving beyond this legal dispute, which has been a burden for the company, and continuing to advance its business model of serving individuals by helping them find successful, long-term relationships.”

However, the company’s commitment to serving the new client base and its needs effectively seems less than whole-hearted.

“The company reserves the right,” the statement continues, “to inform those using the new same-sex matching service that the Compatibility Matching System™ developed by eHarmony is solely based on research involving married heterosexual couples.”