Civil rights are too often conceived as individual rights, but families and couples can be discriminated against as well, and these forms of discrimination are as insidious as any other. In 1967, when the Supreme Court overturned South Carolina's interracial marriage ban, it recognized that marriage was a right and that denying that right on the basis of the partners' respective races was a form of discrimination. When the state grants some families protections and rights, but denies them to an entire other class of families - just as it does in excluding gay and lesbian families from the protections of over 300 state laws and over 1000 federal laws - it both imperils and insults those families. The American Civil Liberties Union is strongly opposed to any such discrimination.

When a partner dies through the negligence or wrongful actions of a third party, his or her grief and loss are no less profound because California law refuses to countenance the meaning or value of their relationship; when a partnership dissolves, the financial and emotional entanglements are no less knotty and difficult to resolve because California's current laws consider the two partners strangers to one another; and when a partner suffers a catastrophic illness, he or she is no less reliant on his or her partner's aid simply because that aid isn't allowed for by the state.

These are just three of three hundred reasons the ACLU/SC strongly supports AB 1338, a bill introduced last Friday by Assemblymember Paul Koretz that would confer on gay and lesbian couples who choose to form a civil union the rights and responsibilities state law now reserves solely for married couples. AB 1338 would move California much closer to the ACLU's ideal of complete equality for gay and lesbian couples: equal marriage rights. The bill would not completely realize that goal, since it would not grant gay and lesbian couples the rights and responsibilities derived from federal laws or recognition of their legal union in other states.

I believe that Californians can come together to support the dignity of every human, the integrity of every family, and the worth of each community. Despite deliberate efforts, for instance, to target communities of color with anti-gay messages and images during the campaign for Proposition 22 last Spring, fully 62% of Latina women voters surveyed, a higher percentage than for any other group, support the concept of civil unions for same-gender couples, and a majority of all California voters - 52% - support legal unions for same-sex couples.

The time has come to answer discrimination unequivocally, to turn back laws that exclude people, and to focus on building a better California together. That's going to take all of us, regardless of race, ethnicity, immigration status, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, sex, or disability, and it will require the strength that we gain from our families. That's why it's so important to build and strengthen families, as AB 1338 does, rather than excluding them or tearing them apart.

LOS ANGELES - Civil rights groups today heralded the introduction of AB 788 as a significant new piece of legislation that will move California forward in its effort to curb the pernicious practice of racial profiling in traffic stops, an issue that persists throughout California.

The bill was introduced by two Southern California Assemblymembers, Marco Firebaugh, of the South Gate area, and Jerome Horton, of Inglewood.

"We are one of the most diverse states in the nation," said Robert Chang, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California board member, "yet every day, Californians suffer the effects of racially biased policing. It is hypocritical for a state that has outlawed the use of race in the context of public education, employment, and contracting to sit quietly and allow the use of race by police for traffic stops and searches.

"Unfortunately," said Chang, "racial profiling in California is practiced in various forms against many communities, African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Pacific Islanders. Police departments in Orange County, to cite an example that has come to light recently, have targeted Latino residents, threatening to investigate their citizenship status. At the ACLU of Southern California, we've had reports that Asian Pacific Islanders in the vicinity of UC Irvine are frequently subjected to race-based traffic stops. The idea that race-based policing is necessary to protect public safety ignores that African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Pacific Islanders are also members of the public. And members of our communities aren't feeling very safe because of racial profiling. If the state does not require mandatory data collection as a necessary step in ending this practice, then it is effectively saying that African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Pacific Islanders are second class members of this state who do not deserve full protection and respect. We must come together to end this divisive practice."

AB 788 tackles the problem from several angles.

AB 788:

' Requires statewide data collection in traffic stops for a period for at least five years, with yearly reporting, a 5-yr. statewide report, and data standards that include the race of the motorist, the reason for the stop, whether a search was conducted, whether drugs or other evidence of illegal activity was found, and whether a citation was issued.

' Sets new data standards for local law enforcement agencies that use state funds to collect data voluntarily, including requiring that they collect data on the items outlined above.

' Creates a strong new definition of racial profiling, clarifying that race may not be used "in any fashion" or "to any degree" in determining who is stopped, except in the case of a specific suspect description.

' Creates an incentive for law enforcement officers and agencies to comply with the racial profiling prohibition by establishing a cause of action for individuals who experience racial profiling.

Elizabeth Guillen, Legislative Counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), emphasized that the data collection provision of the bill, a provision that proved controversial in last year's racial profiling bill, is especially important.

"Without the right data," said Guillen, " it is impossible to track, monitor, or prove discrimination by the police. Statewide mandatory data collection remains absolutely critical. Nobody should be misled into believing that the voluntary data collection efforts of a handful of agencies is going to solve the problem."

While a small percentage of the state's law enforcement agencies collect data, fewer than 3% include the information civil rights groups see as a necessary baseline for meaningful analysis: the race of the motorist stopped, the reason for the stop, whether a search was conducted whether drugs or other evidence of illegal activity was found, and whether a citation was issued.

Another key provision of the bill is the way in which it defines racial profiling:

"...'racial profiling' for the purposes of this section is the consideration in any fashion and to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop or in deciding upon the scope or substance of any enforcement action or procedure in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop."

"The definition of racial profiling is strong and clear," said Victor Narro, Director of the Workers' Rights Project of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA). "It will help police departments conduct more effective training, and it provides people of color the unequivocal assurance that the State of California does not tolerate the racist enforcement of traffic laws."

The American Civil Liberties Union is working in coalition with civil rights groups throughout the state, including CHIRLA, NAACP chapters, the United Farm Workers, MALDEF, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, the Asian Law Caucus, SEIU, and numerous other organizations to pass the bill.

LOS ANGELES - Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gregory C. O'Brien, Jr. today dismissed a lawsuit filed against a local tenants' association and its members in retaliation for their free speech. The tenants and their association had been sued by the owner of Lincoln Place, a 795-unit apartment complex, for engaging in advocacy on behalf of low-income tenants. The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California defended the First Amendment rights of the tenants and their association.

The Lincoln Place Tenants' Association is a community-based organization that, since the late-1980's, has fought to preserve affordable housing in the Venice community. In particular, the tenants' association has been fighting developers' plans to evict Lincoln Place tenants, tear down their homes, and replace them with luxury townhouses that would be out of reach to low- and moderate-income tenants. Many of the people who live at Lincoln Place, including members of the tenants' association, are elderly, disabled, or single mothers. If their homes were destroyed, they would have nowhere else to go.

On September 20, 2000, the Lincoln Place owners and developers sued the tenants' association and 12 individual tenants in direct retaliation for their advocacy activities. The case, Pfeiffer Venice Properties LLC v. Bernard, et al., Superior Ct. No. BC 237108, is a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP"), brought by a well-financed private land development company to chill the free speech of grassroots activists. In 1992, the California Legislature enacted strong protections against SLAPP suits, allowing courts to throw out such litigation at an early stage and to award fees to activists wrongfully sued in retaliation for their free speech.

The tenants' association and its members filed a SLAPP motion on November 17, 2000, after the companies refused to dismiss their meritless lawsuit. The development companies amended their complaint on December 5, 2000, dropping their claims against all but two of the individual tenants. The tenants' association and the two remaining tenants to file a second SLAPP motion on February 5, 2001.

Judge O'Brien today granted the tenants' second SLAPP motion in its entirety. Describing the lawsuit as offensive, Judge O'Brien threw out all the developer's claims against the tenants' and the tenants association.

"This lawsuit was an abuse of the legal process," said Dan Toakji, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, "brought by a well-financed neighborhood bully to intimidate tenants brave enough to stand up for their rights. From start to finish, the Lincoln Place owners have tried to silence anyone who disagrees with their plans to destroy affordable housing in the Venice community. Today's ruling shows that the SLAPP law has teeth, and sends a loud and clear message that companies will pay a heavy price if they attempt to bludgeon community advocates through litigation."

Within 10 days, the tenants' association will be filing a motion for attorneys' fees against the Lincoln Place owners, as provided for by California's anti-SLAPP law to punish those who abuse the legal process as Lincoln Place's owners have done.