LOS ANGELES - This morning, the ACLU of Southern California, together with the ACLU of Northern California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit arguing that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the California Constitution's guarantees of equality, liberty, and privacy.

The suit was filed on behalf of six same-sex couples, five of whom had upcoming appointments to obtain marriage licenses at San Francisco's City Hall. The couples had their appointments cancelled as a result of the California Supreme Court's order yesterday directing San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Two organizations, Our Family Coalition and Equality California, are also parties in the case.

"We have an opportunity here to end marriage discrimination in California," said Martha Matthews, Bohnett Attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. "Loving, committed same-sex couples should not be denied the rights extended to all other Californians under the state's Constitution."

The couples in the suit:

' Lancy Woo and Cristy Chung have been in a committed relationship for 16 years. They have a five-year old daughter, Olivia. Lancy and Cristy had an appointment to get married at San Francisco City Hall on March 30th.

' Joshua Rymer and Timothy Frazer have been in a committed relationship for more than 10 years. Joshua and Tim met in 1994 and exchanged wedding rings in a private ceremony in 1995. They had an appointment to get married at San Francisco City Hall at 2:00 P.M. on March 17th and were planning to have a small ceremony at City Hall, to be followed by a reception and renewal of vows at their home in Sonoma.

' Jewell Gomez and Diane Sabin have been together for 11 years. Jewell is a writer and the Program Director at the San Francisco Arts Commission. Diane is a chiropractor. Diane and Jewell had obtained an application for a marriage license and intended to marry.

' Myra Beals and Ida Matson are 61 and 68 years old, respectively, and have been in a committed relationship for 27 years. They had an appointment to get married at San Francisco City Hall on Friday, March 12, 2004 - one day after the California Supreme Court ordered San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Friends and family had made plans to join them in San Francisco on March 12 to celebrate their marriage with them.

' Arthur Frederick Adams and Devin Wayne Baker have been together in a committed relationship for three and a half years. Arthur and Devin had an appointment to get married at San Francisco Hall at 3:00 P.M. on March 11th. They bought wedding rings and arrived at San Francisco City Hall about 2:45 P.M. on March 11, along with several family members and friends who were there to witness and celebrate their wedding. Arthur and Devin were in the process of completing an application for a marriage license when they were informed that no further marriage licenses would be issued to same-sex couples.

' Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper have been together in a committed relationship for 15 years. Jeanne and Pali had an appointment to get married at San Francisco City Hall at 3:00 P.M. on March 11th. They arrived at San Francisco City Hall on that date, accompanied by about fifty family members and friends, including many who had traveled from out of state to attend their wedding celebration. Jeanne and Pali were on the steps of City Hall with their family members when they were told that no more marriage licenses would be granted.

The two organizational plaintiffs in the suit:

' Our Family Coalition is a San Francisco Bay Area organization dedicated to promoting the civil rights and well being of families of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender members.

' Equality California is the leading state-wide advocacy group protecting the needs and interests of same-sex couples and their children in California.

Yesterday afternoon, the California Supreme Court issued an order temporarily directing San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco. The Court said it would hear a case in May or June on whether Mayor Gavin Newsom and the City of San Francisco had the authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

For the more than 3600 lesbian and gay couples who are already married, the Court's decision does not address or call into question the validity of their marriages. The Court's order also does not address the question Mayor Newsome was correct in deciding that denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry violates the California Constitution.

It is unfortunate for the many couples who were turned away from City Hall yesterday, and who had planned to be married in the near future, that the Court required the Mayor to stop issuing marriage licenses while this case is pending. However, we are confident that the Court will ultimately decide the constitutional question, and conclude that excluding lesbian and gay couples and their children from the benefits, protections and obligations of legal marriage offends the promises of equality, liberty and privacy in our state's Constitution.

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, who were the first same-sex couple married in San Francisco and who have been in a committed relationship for over 51 years, commented that "On March 12th, we will celebrate the 1 month anniversary of our legal marriage. We hope and believe that in the not too distant future all lesbian and gay couples will likewise have the opportunity to marry legally and enjoy government respect and recognition of their relationships. We consider today's ruling by the California Supreme Court simply to be a pause on the road to full equality and celebration of our relationships."

WASHINGTON - With the Senate Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee set to hear testimony on the state of marriage laws, the American Civil Liberties Union today said that the hearing served as a guise to push a constitutional amendment that, besides limiting marriage to a man and a woman, could forever deny protections to same-sex couples.

The ACLU also noted that the measure as written is fundamentally at odds with basic principles of federalism and state authority, which has made the amendment a wedge issue even among conservatives.

"The Constitution is not a prop that should be used to score political points," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Recently, thousands of gays and lesbians demonstrated in favor of receiving the same protections enjoyed by other Americans. This extreme measure says that the commitment made by gays and lesbians is invalid - worse still, this nuclear bomb of anti-gay attacks would lead to a dismantling of a wide range of protections that state and local governments have given to gay and lesbian Americans."

Before the Senate subcommittee hearing, the ACLU joined with several other organizations to hold a news conference denouncing the marriage amendment, where several gay and lesbian families and a retired navy officer spoke. The ACLU noted that gay and lesbian families - already denied equal protection - would be irrevocably harmed if the marriage amendment were to be adopted.

The debate over denying marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples has escalated following the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the same rights enjoyed by straight married couples, and the city of San Francisco's issuance of marriage licenses to over 3,000 gay and lesbian couples. Last week, President Bush publicly announced his support for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

In Congress, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) and Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) have introduced such an amendment, which would also deny all the "legal incidents" of marriage to any unmarried couple, including straight relationships. While proponents of the measure claim that state legislatures could still recognize same-sex relationships through civil unions or domestic partnerships, the ACLU and other organizations stated that the broad language of the amendment would deny marriage rights for anyone other than those in a straight marriage.

The amendment would also take the extremely rare - and inevitably disastrous - step of changing the Constitution to restrict rights, a purpose that its framers never intended. The last time the Constitution was changed to constrain Americans' liberties - with the 18th Amendment's prohibition on alcohol use - the move was an unqualified failure that had to be repealed.

The proposed amendment lacks across the board support from conservatives. Former member of Congress Bob Barr (R-GA), who opposes legal recognition of homosexual marriages, stated in reaction to the Massachusetts ruling that he, "does not support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage," preferring instead to, "leave the decision to the citizens of each state." Barr was the author of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which allows individual states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed by other states.

"The promise of the Constitution is equality, and these measures would forever deface that great document," Anders said. "Gays and lesbians are part of American society who serve as law enforcement officers, politicians, and in the military. To alter the founding document of our nation to forever deny the rights that the rest of the country enjoys is mean-spirited and misguided."

Source: American Civil Liberties Union