(San Francisco, California, November 19, 2008)'Today the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, which passed by a narrow margin of 52 percent on November 4. In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay.

On November 5, 2008, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six couples and Equality California. The City of San Francisco, joined by the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and Santa Clara County, filed a similar challenge, as did a private attorney in Los Angeles.

The lawsuits allege that, on its face, Proposition 8 is an improper revision rather than an amendment of the California Constitution because, in its very title, which was 'Eliminates the right to marry for same-sex couples,' the initiative eliminated an existing right only for a targeted minority. If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take way an existing right only for a particular group. Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights. According to the California Constitution, such a serious revision of our state Constitution cannot be enacted through a simple majority vote, but must first be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature.

Since the three lawsuits submitted on November 5, three other lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 have been filed. In a petition filed on November 14, 2008, leading African American, Latino, and Asian American groups argued that Proposition 8 threatens the equal protection rights of all Californians.

On November 17, 2008, the California Council of Churches and other religious leaders and faith organizations representing millions of members statewide, also filed a petition asserting that Proposition 8 poses a severe threat to the guarantee of equal protection for all, and was not enacted through the constitutionally required process for such a dramatic change to the California Constitution. On the same day, prominent California women's rights organizations filed a petition asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because of its potentially disastrous implications for women and other groups that face discrimination.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and violates the fundamental right to marry. Proposition 8 would completely eliminate the right to marry only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group.

Over the past 100 years, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging either legislative enactments or initiatives as invalid revisions of the California Constitution. In three of those cases, the Court invalidated those measures.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education.

Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work.

The American Civil Liberties Union is America's foremost advocate of individual rights. It fights discrimination and moves public opinion on LGBT rights through the courts, legislatures and public education.

Founded in 1998, Equality California celebrates its 10th anniversary in 2008, commemorating a decade of building a state of equality in California. EQCA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots-based, statewide advocacy organization whose mission is to achieve equality and civil rights of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians.

LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The ACLU of Southern California has filed a lawsuit to force the release of an American citizen who has been imprisoned for 80 days without charge in the United Arab Emirates at the behest of the U.S. government.

The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C., alleges that Naji Hamdan was arrested August 29 by security agents for the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) who were acting at the behest of U.S. government officials. Because Hamdan is effectively in U.S. custody, and because U.S. officials have not charged him with any crime, they must abide by the Constitution and request his release, the lawsuit states.

"U.S. government officials cannot contract away their obligations under the Constitution by asking a foreign government to detain an American whom they couldn't detain themselves," said Ahilan Arulanantham, Director of Immigrants' Rights and National Security for the ACLU of Southern California.

Hamdan, who was born in Lebanon, lived for two decades in the Los Angeles area, where he ran an auto-parts business and helped manage the Islamic Center of Hawthorne, a mosque and community center. In 2006 he decided to relocate his family and business to the U.A.E., but when the Hamdans tried to board a flight at Los Angeles International Airport, FBI agents separated him from his wife and children, detained him, and questioned him for hours. He was eventually released and allowed to travel, but when he returned to Los Angeles in early 2007 to check on his business, he was kept under close, constant surveillance by the FBI.

This summer FBI agents traveled from Los Angeles to the U.A.E. to question Hamdan further. Three weeks later he was detained by U.A.E. security agents. Since then, both U.S. and U.A.E. officials have refused to deny that the U.S. is responsible for his detention.

"I am so scared for my husband. We are Americans, but the U.S. government won't tell us why he is arrested and when he will be released," said Hamdan's wife, Mona Mallouk, who has taken the family to Lebanon to stay with their relatives. "My husband is a good man, he would never hurt anyone. But I don't know what to tell my children about why their father is gone and when he will come back," she added.

"I don"t know what more the U.S. government needs to know about Naji, after they spoke to him so many times already," said Hamdan's brother, Hossam Hemdan,(CQ) who is also a U.S. citizen. "If you knew what a good person Naji is, you'd want every American to be like Naji. There's no way in the world he would be involved with terrorism. He's a very peaceful person."

Ahmed Azam, a friend of Hamdan's from the Islamic Center of Hawthorne, also spoke on his behalf. "I have known Naji for many years. He was a well-respected member of our community, and a good and caring family man. He would never promote violence or do anything to harm America. This is a terrible mistake," Azam said.

Arulanantham said the case is disturbing not only because Hamdan's civil rights have been violated, but because the U.S. government has a pattern of disregarding the Constitution by orchestrating the arrests of people overseas by other governments.

"Sadly, this is not the first time that the U.S. government has asked another country to arrest someone whom our government had no legal authority to detain. That the government has done this to a U.S. citizen using a country that has a record of torturing prisoners, as the U.A.E. does, is particularly frightening," Arulanantham said.

Catherine Lhamon, the Racial Justice Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, today urged the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to file suit or join an existing lawsuit to overturn Proposition 8. Here is her statement:

Good morning. I am Catherine Lhamon, Racial Justice Director of the ACLU of Southern California. I urge this board to file suit or join an existing suit to challenge the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

The very title of Proposition 8 states its constitutional defect. Its title is, 'Eliminates the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.' Proposition 8 takes away what our constitution guarantees as a fundamental right. It works a breathtaking diminution of the value of our constitution itself: by allowing voters to completely revise core constitutional principles, Proposition 8 sets a dangerous precedent that all our constitutional protections - the right to free speech, the right to equal protection of the law, and others - exist only for so long as majorities vote yes on them. If it stands, it will suggest that any fundamental rights can be revoked on a bare majority vote, regardless of what our constitution otherwise guarantees.

Our system of checks and balances does not give the voting majority the right to write out of the constitution those core principles enshrined in it. Our system of checks and balances is based on the principle that the constitution sets the baseline for all our most fundamental rights, and a simple majority of voters cannot take those away. Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and will be overturned in court; this county should be on the right side of history, saying that we will not be part of official discrimination.

As much as I am professionally interested, as Racial Justice Director of the ACLU of Southern California, in ensuring equal opportunity for all people, this issue is also deeply personal for me. My parents married in Washington, D.C., rather than in Virginia, where my mother was raised, because in 1966 Virginia still outlawed interracial marriage. My mother, who is black, could not at that time marry my father, who is white, in her home state. The United States Supreme Court outlawed race-based marriage restrictions the following year in Loving v. Virginia. I was raised in the shadow of Supreme Court decisions like Loving, and like Brown, that held that equal protection applies to all persons, and that promised a new day of meaningful opportunity for people like me. If an electorate can, through the tyranny of the majority vote, wipe away such fundamental constitutional protections as the right to equal protection for all persons, then we as a state are returning to the bad old days of institutionalized discrimination that I never thought I would see in my lifetime. I urge this board to do what is right and to work, through a lawsuit, to protect all Californians.