LOS ANGELES - A federal judge has ruled that an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed on behalf of Charlene Nguon, an Orange County high school senior, and the Gay-Straight Alliance Network can proceed, rejecting the school's motion that it was within its rights to reveal the student's sexual orientation without her permission.

"Our family is really happy that the judge agreed Charlene can continue to stand up for her rights," said Nguon's mother, Crystal Chhun. "We love and fully support Charlene, but that's not the case for every student out there. The person to decide when and how to talk with our family about this should have been my daughter, not her principal."

In its motion to dismiss the case, the school claimed that Nguon did not have a legal interest in keeping her sexual orientation private because she was affectionate with her girlfriend at school. The court disagreed, ruling that Nguon can proceed with her legal claim that the principal violated her constitutional privacy rights.

"We are pleased that the court recognized that the school does not have the automatic right to disclose a student's sexual orientation just because that student is out of the closet to his or her friends at school," said Christine P. Sun, a staff attorney for the ACLU. "Coming out is a very serious decision that should not be taken away from anyone, especially from students who may be put in peril if they live in an unsupportive home."

The ACLU's national Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, the ACLU of Southern California, and the law firm of Latham & Watkins, LLP, brought a lawsuit on behalf of Nguon and the Gay-Straight Alliance Network in September after a series of events that included revealing Nguon's sexual orientation to her family without the student's permission in December of 2004.

Throughout the 2004-2005 school year Santiago High School Principal Ben Wolf had repeatedly singled Nguon out for discipline - including a one-week suspension - for displaying affection with her girlfriend. Heterosexual students are routinely allowed to hold hands, hug and kiss on campus. Wolf ultimately told Nguon that either she or her girlfriend had to leave the high school, which Nguon reluctantly did halfway during the spring semester of her junior year.

Nguon, 17, was a straight-A student ranked in the top five percent of her class who had no prior record of discipline. Her grades slipped when she switched to another high school as she struggled to catch up with that school's curriculum and her commute grew from a four-block walk to a four-and-a-half mile bike ride. After the ACLU sent a letter to the school in late July, Nguon was allowed to return to Santiago, but to date the school has not agreed to clear Nguon's disciplinary record. She is enrolled in a number of advanced placement and honors classes and had been a candidate for the National Honor Society until the offer was rescinded because of the school's unfair discipline.

The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, seeks to clear Nguon of any discipline on her record. The lawsuit also seeks to create a district-wide policy and guidelines to ensure that gay and lesbian students are treated equally.

The judge's decision regarding the school's motion to dismiss can be viewed online at:

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/22040lgl20051201.html

LOS ANGELES - The Los Angeles Unified School District recently announced a new policy that will better protect students' free speech rights, set specific parameters for military recruiters on public school campuses and protect the privacy rights of students who do not want to be contacted by the military.

The new policy comes after discussions with the ACLU of Southern California and a committee of Los Angeles teachers on behalf of parents and students in the district.

"Parents and students are concerned that they are being targeted by recruiters while at school and that they have little defense against the military's strong-arm tactics," said Ranjana Natarajan, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California. "School districts like LAUSD are acting responsibly by updating their policies on military recruiting to better protect students' free speech and privacy rights."

The LAUSD approved the new eight-page policy late last month and just made it available to district employees. The policy addresses numerous concerns that students and parents have reported to the ACLU, including: that military recruiters have greater access to schools than college recruiters; that schools place students, without their consent, in Junior ROTC classes instead of physical education classes; and that schools unfairly discipline students for distributing flyers opposing military recruitment.

"The new policy is a solid first step," said Arlene Inouye, LAUSD teacher and coordinator for CAMS (Coalition Against Militarism in our Schools). "We are very pleased that the district is taking parents' and students' concerns seriously and we think this will better protect students who do not wish to join the military and those who want more information so they can make their own decision."

The new policy states:

* No student is required by the school to meet with or speak to a recruiter.

* No student will be required to take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test, or ASVAB.

* Participation in JROTC is voluntary and students will not be forced to take JROTC class in lieu of regular PE class.

* Students age 17 and older will be allowed to opt out of sending personal information to military recruiters without parental approval.

* The military will not be allowed to bring military equipment or vehicles to campus unless the district has approved it.

* The military cannot suggest students drop out of high school and pursue a GED as a means of recruiting.

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.