SAN FRANCISCO - The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Lambda Legal are filing a brief before a California appeals court today urging the court to affirm a lower court decision saying it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry.

"Couples, whether gay or straight, who commit to sharing and building their lives together deserve protection of their relationship," said Christine Sun, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. "As the trial court correctly recognized, it would be arbitrary and unfair to deny legal protection to a committed, loving couple simply because they are in a same-sex relationship."

The brief is being filed today in the California Court of Appeal, First District on behalf of 12 same-sex couples from throughout the state, as well as Equality California and Our Families Coalition. The ACLU brought the case with the National Center for Lesbian Rights (which is lead counsel) and Lambda Legal in response to a decision by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February 2003.

On March 14, 2005, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled that it was an unconstitutional violation of the state's equal protection guarantees and the fundamental right to marry to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry. The state appealed that decision to the California Court of Appeal.

"We would feel much safer knowing that our family has all the protections of marriage," said Lancy Woo, who has been in a committed relationship with her partner Cristy Chung for 17 years. "Just like any other parents, we want to provide our young daughter with all the protections and rights that any other couple has when they get married and have children."

The 12 couples involved in this lawsuit have made life-long commitments to each other. Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin have been together more than 51 years. Karen Shane and Judy Sokolower have been together more than 32 years. The couples come from throughout the state and from all walks of life, ranging from a small business owner to a writer to a chiropractor. Many of these couples are raising children together. Many of the couples in the case had appointments to obtain marriage licenses at San Francisco City Hall, but the California Supreme Court ordered the mayor to stop issuing licenses before they could obtain theirs.

Oral arguments in the case are expected to take place sometime next year.

LOS ANGELES - The ACLU of Southern California is seeking to enjoin a new Department of Homeland Security policy relating to federal air marshals' free speech rights that, like the previous directive, overly restricts speech and is likely to continue to jeopardize public safety.

"The new policy does nothing to ease the chilling effect on whistleblowers' speech," said Peter Eliasberg, Manheim Family Attorney for First Amendment Rights at the ACLU of Southern California. "The policy is still unconstitutional and leaves air marshals in the untenable position of not knowing whether they have First Amendment rights to participate in public discussion that could improve the safety of the airline industry."

The motion filed today seeks a temporary restraining order in advance of a House Committee on the Judiciary report pertaining to its investigation of the mismanagement of the Federal Air Marshal Service by the current administrators. The current rules could prohibit Air Marshal Frank Terreri from commenting on the report despite his prominent role as a president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and an informed critic of FAMS.

The director of FAMS has personally initiated four investigations of Terreri - two after the lawsuit was filed. As a result, portions of the motion for a restraining order are being made under seal since the Department of Homeland Security warns employees that any release of information about an investigation may result in discipline or criminal action.

In the original lawsuit, dubbed Air Marshal X, filed in April against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and other security officials, Air Marshal Frank Terreri challenged Federal Air Marshal Service rules that prohibited him from speaking publicly about his job or saying anything to do with the Air Marshal Service, a clear violation of his First Amendment rights.

The Office of Professional Responsibility concluded the original rules were "unenforceable as written." In July, the Department of Homeland Security issued a new directive purporting to honor the free speech rights of Federal Air Marshal employees. At the end of August, Terreri amended his lawsuit to also challenge the constitutionality of the new policy.

"The new policy of the Department of Homeland Security simply repackages the original unconstitutional restrictions in different language," said Professor Allan Ides of Loyola Law School. "The biggest loser is the public, which is denied information on critical policy matters."

Terreri has 12 years of law enforcement experience with an unblemished record. For the past three years he has been a federal air marshal and is also a president of a professional membership organization that represents more than 23,000 federal agents, including 1,400 air marshals.

Last year Terreri was taken off active flight duty and placed on administrative duty after he sent a private e-mail to another air marshal raising concerns about an air marshal profile in People magazine. He was returned to active flight duty the day after filing the lawsuit in April. He learned he was cleared of the first investigation and the charges were unfounded only after filing a Freedom of Information Act Request.

The ACLU of Southern California, Professor Allan Ides of Loyola Law School and Paul Hoffman of Schonbrun, DeSimone, Seplow, Harris and Hoffman are representing Terreri.

ORANGE, Calif. - The Orange County Branch of the ACLU of Southern California sent a letter to the Fullerton School District after receiving complaints about a district program that requires parents to purchase expensive laptop computers for their children so they can fully participate in class.

In a letter to the district on behalf of parents with children in the district, Orange County Office Director Hector Villagra wrote: the "Laptops for Learning Program, which has been implemented at various grade levels in four district schools, requires the payment of fees in order for students to participate. We write to you because the program plainly violates the free school guarantee under the California Constitution, which forbids the imposition of fees for educational activities offered by public school districts."

Parents like Sandra Dingess, who has five adopted children in the district, must pay nearly $1,500.00 in order to purchase a laptop computer, warranty, insurance, and computer case costs so her children can participate fully in class.

"At my children's school there really isn't any difference between not having a textbook and not having a computer," said Dingess, who has since enrolled three of her children in Fullerton schools not participating in the program. "I don't expect the school district to give my children a computer, but I do expect the school district to loan them. It's unfair when all kids don't have the same opportunities to learn, and it's stigmatizing for the kids who don't have the laptops."

As a part of a pilot program, students at four Fullerton School District in grades two through eight are using Macintosh iBook G4 computers at school and home. This year, the second year of the program, students in several other elementary and junior high schools are using laptops in the classroom. Teachers and parents at the schools estimate about 50 percent of class is conducted with the aid of a computer. Students without are asked to look over the shoulder of a neighbor.

"We understand the importance of providing technology access to students, but this is a huge burden for many parents," Villagra said. "Many parents simply cannot afford a $1,500 laptop for their young student. We've heard from parents who are upset that their children will not be able to fully participate in class if they don't have the computer and one parent who had to transfer her children to another public school because the cost is too great."

The district has until Friday, November 11 to respond to the letter.