SAN FRANCISCO -- In a brief filed today with the California Supreme Court, attorneys representing same-sex couples, Equality California and Our Family Coalition urged the court to strike down as unconstitutional a law that bars same-sex couples from marriage. The couples and organizations are represented by lead counsel the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Heller Ehrman LLP, and the Law Office of David C. Codell.

'We are hopeful that the California Supreme Court will recognize that same-sex couples form committed relationships just like straight couples and shouldn't be barred from the dignity and universal recognition that comes with marriage,' said Alex Cleghorn, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. 'While domestic partnerships provide families with some legal protections, the marriage ban is a painful reminder that same-sex relationships are considered unworthy of marriage.'

The brief filed today charges that state law barring same-sex couples from marriage discriminates based on sexual orientation and sex and violates the fundamental right to marry, which is protected by the California Constitution's guarantees of privacy, intimate association and due process.

"We've seen in our new domestic partnership case in Orange County and from work with lesbians and gay men in domestic partnerships throughout the state that without access to marriage, same-sex couples and their families are still vulnerable under the law," said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Jennifer C. Pizer. "Lesbian and gay couples in domestic partnerships are constantly having to prove that their relationships are entitled to legal protections and basic respect'but because people don't understand and fully respect domestic partnerships, couples face significant hardships."

The California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case after the California Court of Appeal reversed a decision by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer finding that barring same-sex couples from marriage unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of sex and violates the fundamental right to marry.

'More same-sex couples live in California than in any other state,' said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who argued before the Court. 'Barring these committed couples from marriage is harmful and unfair. A person's sexual orientation is irrelevant to their ability to forge enduring human bonds and to create a family. Marriage is a cherished legal protection, and it should be equally available to all.'

In 2005, the California Legislature passed AB 849 (sponsored by Assemblyman Mark Leno), the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which would allow same-sex couples to marry in California. A similar bill, AB 43 (also sponsored by Leno) was reintroduced in December of last year and will be heard in committee later this month.

'Validating and protecting the relationships of loving and committed couples through marriage is good for California and furthers the state's interest in promoting family relationships and protecting family members during times of crisis,' said Geoff Kors, executive director of EQCA, the sponsor of AB 43. 'We hope the state will end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage in the near future so all couples will have the social support and legal protections marriage provides.'

The 15 represented couples have made life-long commitments to each other. Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin have been together more than 50 years. Karen Shane and Judy Sokolower have been together more than 30 years. The couples come from throughout the state and from all walks of life, with some working in business, some in education, and others in health professions. Many of the couples are raising children together and others are retired.

More than 250 religious and civil rights organizations, including the California NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, California Council of Churches, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, and National Black Justice Coalition, have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of marriage for same-sex couples.

This Supreme Court is considering six marriage cases under the title "In re Marriage Cases." The briefs filed today and other information about the case are available at www.aclu.org/caseprofiles, www.nclrights.org; www.lambdalegal.org; and at www.eqca.org.

LAKE FOREST - Nearly three weeks after the ACLU of Southern California filed a lawsuit to protect the free speech of day laborers in Lake Forest, the City Council voted to repeal the unconstitutional law. The ordinance prohibited people from soliciting employment while standing on sidewalks in the city.

'Laws like these have no place in our country,' said ACLU/SC staff attorney and Equal Justice Works Fellow Nora Preciado. 'The Constitution protects everyone living in our country, and cities can not choose who may speak on their public sidewalks.'

The ACLU/SC filed its suit March 1. Lake Forest agreed to stop enforcement of the ordinance on March 16, and the City Council voted to repeal it on March 20.

The ACLU/SC lawsuit also targeted city enforcement actions that discourage day laborers from seeking work, and the City Council's vote does not end the lawsuit.

'The city's decision to repeal this unconstitutional law is an important step, but it does not resolve our concern that day laborers in Lake Forest are unfairly targeted by police when they try to seek work,' said Preciado. 'We will keep the pressure on to make sure workers' rights are not violated.'

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), Colectivo Tonantzin, and the Association of Workers from Lake Forest.

'Now that the law is repealed, it's time to come together as a community and find solutions that work for all residents of Lake Forest,' said Pablo Alvarado, national coordinator of NDLON.

The ACLU has asked Congress to repeal a provision of the Patriot Act granting the FBI expanded powers to demand sensitive personal information without judicial supervision.

The Justice Department's own inspector general said the number of so-called "national security letters" the FBI has issued is significantly higher than previously disclosed. In 2005, the FBI alone issued more than 19,000 of the letters.

The ACLU believes the Justice Department, led by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, is trying to evade responsibility for the rampant use of letters by blaming the FBI for them. "The Attorney General and the FBI are part of the problem and they are dodging their responsibility," said ACLU/SC Executive Director Ramona Ripston. "Congress must act immediately to exercise true oversight and repeal these dangerous Patriot Act provisions."

Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can secretly demand telephone, e-mail and financial records without court approval. The law has a "gag rule" that forbids a person who receives a letter from telling anyone about the record demand.

The Justice Department report found serious breaches of department regulations and numerous potential violations of the law. It also criticized the FBI for lax managerial controls that invited abuse, and found that agents had claimed "exigent circumstances" where none existed, and that some recipients had provided more information than authorized by law.

The ACLU has successfully challenged the procedures for issuing the letters in two separate lawsuits.

In response to the court rulings, Congress made some minor changes to the law when it reauthorized the Patriot Act in 2005. As the Justice Department report demonstrates, those changes are not enough.

In a September 2004 ruling striking down the draconian gag provision of the NSL power, Federal District Court Judge Victor Marrero said: "As our sunshine laws and judicial doctrine attest, democracy abhors undue secrecy. An unlimited government warrant to conceal, effectively a form of secrecy per se, has no place in our open society. Such a claim is especially inimical to democratic values for reasons borne our by painful experience."

In April, Judge Marrero is expected to hear arguments in the ACLU's challenge to the gag and secrecy provisions of the NSL law as amended by Congress in 2006.