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

LOS ANGELES - The ACLU and the California Library Association (CLA) are calling upon voters to urge their California representatives to support legislation that would roll back some of the USA PATRIOT Act's most dangerous provisions, including the government's ability to search individuals' library records, Internet activity and bookstore purchases.

"Several of the provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act go too far and increase the chances that innocent Americans will be swept into terrorism investigations by removing traditional checks and balances on law enforcement and oversight powers from the judiciary," said Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. "Today, we continue our campaign to raise public awareness about the PATRIOT Act and encourage Californians to take back their liberties."

As part of the campaign, full-page ads in twelve alternative newspapers throughout California, with a combined circulation of more than one million, will start running on January 21-28. The headline reads: "Don't you hate it when someone reads over your shoulder? Especially when that someone is the Justice Department" and calls upon individuals to contact their representatives and urge them to support the SAFE Act.

"This the latest public education campaign launched by the ACLU-SC and the California Library Association," said Christopher Calhoun, Deputy Director of Public Policy for the ACLU-SC. "Last year, together with the CLA, we undertook a successful campaign to inform library patrons that their records were subject to FBI scrutiny under the PATRIOT Act. As a part of that campaign we distributed posters and bookmarks to over 3,000 libraries throughout the state."

Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced the SAFE Act late last year and Representative Butch Otter (R-ID) introduced a companion bill in the house. The bill, if passed, would do the following:

- Limit the government's ability to conduct widespread searches of an individual's records, without probable cause or individualized suspicion;

- Limit the government's use of "sneak and peek searches" and require notification within seven days (currently notification can be delayed indefinitely);

- Make sure that intelligence agents cannot search library records unless there is suspicion that an individual is involved with a foreign power.

"Your public library records should be a SAFE haven where you can be assured that, whatever magazine you read, web site you visit or book you check out, that information will be kept private," said Susan Hildreth, CLA President. "We support the SAFE Act so that libraries can continue to remain institutions of free expression and exploration of ideas. We are proud that the California Library Association and the ACLU affiliates of California have forged this partnership to restore our precious constitutional rights."

The PATRIOT Act was rushed through Congress in just 45 days after the attacks on September 11, 2001. On Wednesday, Los Angeles became the largest locality to join over 230 governing bodies - including the state legislatures of Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont - to pass resolutions opposing provisions of the PATRIOT Act.

"In his State of the Union address, President Bush called for an extension of the PATRIOT Act's powers," said Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU-SC. "The actions undertaken by the Los Angeles City Council and the members of Congress sponsoring the SAFE Act demonstrate widespread public disapproval of the PATRIOT Act as it stands now. People throughout the country are talking about curtailing the Act's powers, not extending them; the President would be wise to listen to the voice of the American people."

Through its website www.aclusocal.org the ACLU-SC is urging individuals to send letters to their Congressional representatives asking them to support the SAFE Act.

To view the ad and take action on the SAFE Act, visit www.aclusocal.org