In response to a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Housing Authority of Santa Monica today agreed to allow a gay man on disability to live with his partner of 10 years.
"I'm extremely relieved that my partner and I will no longer have to live apart," said Gene Boccia. "He's my life support system, helping me with everything from doing the grocery shopping to taking me to the doctor. It's a great comfort to know that from now on he'll be by my side around the clock."
Boccia, disabled since a 1974 hate crime in which he was shot in the face, has been living in the same housing complex since 1999, using Section 8 housing vouchers. This fall he learned from an unmarried, cohabitating heterosexual couple that he could apply to the Housing Authority to have his life partner Brett Crowley share his apartment with him. Crowley is a disabled veteran who also relies on public assistance. Although the couple has been together over 10 years, they have always lived apart in fear of violating rules that would jeopardize their assistance.
The couple applied to live together almost immediately after learning that they could do so, but the Housing Authority failed to act on their request. Boccia contacted the ACLU, which submitted letters to the Housing Authority in October pointing out that both state and local law prohibit housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. Today the Housing Authority notified Boccia that his request to share his apartment with Crowley was approved.
"We're very pleased that the Housing Authority has decided to do right by this couple," said Christine Sun, a staff attorney for the Lesbian and Gay Rights Project of the ACLU. "Their story illustrates all too painfully what happens when the relationships of same-sex couples - especially those with limited incomes -- aren't respected."
Because Boccia and Crowley could not live together, they were also unable to apply to the state to become domestic partners. Now that this hurdle has been cleared, they plan to register with the state and take advantage of the expanded protections afforded to domestic partners that are scheduled to take place on January 1, 2005.
A copy of one of the letters submitted to the Housing Authority is available at http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=17179&c=100.

Date

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 12:00am

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

LGBTQ Rights

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

LOS ANGELES - The California affiliates of the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit today stating that Proposition 69 is unconstitutional. The case challenges those portions of the law that require DNA testing of people who are arrested for a felony and never charged or later found innocent, and people who have been convicted of a felony but have already served their debt to society and are no longer under any supervision by the criminal justice system.

Because of Proposition 69, people who are arrested for felonies will be subjected to DNA testing under the law, even if they are found innocent of the crime. This includes victims of identity theft; political protestors; lawful medical marijuana users; victims of domestic violence, who are arrested for violence committed in self-defense and who either have the charges against them dropped or are subsequently acquitted; and people who were arrested for felony drug offenses and who upon successful completion of treatment programs, have had their convictions expunged under Proposition 36 or other state laws. Proposition 69 also mandates the sharing of DNA samples with law enforcement and private laboratories nationwide and globally.

"DNA reveals highly personal medical information like if a person is HIV-positive or predisposed to Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis or even certain forms of cancer," said ACLU Staff Attorney Ricardo Garcia. "It contains a wealth of intimate information, much more than a fingerprint."

"Collecting DNA through Prop. 69 is a direct violation of a person's Fourth Amendment and due process and privacy rights," added Garcia. "Californians should be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. It's our constitutional right to privacy of our personal medical and genetic information."

Reuben Rivas, a former legal observer for the 2000 Democratic National Convention, joined the lawsuit after being swept up while observing a protest and arrested for a felony that a judge determined there was no evidence to sustain. Under the law, Rivas will be required to be tested for his DNA.

"I was treated like a criminal and arrested for a crime that I didn't commit. And now under the passage of Proposition 69, I will be subject to have my civil rights violated again by having to submit my DNA to law enforcement, even though I was never convicted of any crime."

Proposition 69 was passed by California voters on Nov. 2, 2004 and is known as the California DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act. Before passage of Prop. 69, California law provided for mandatory DNA testing only of individuals who had been convicted of serious and violent felony offenses and the inclusion of their DNA in a statewide database.

The suit, filed jointly with Covington & Burling in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, seeks a permanent injunction against DNA extraction and retention from Californians arrested but not convicted and those who have completed probation and parole.

Date

Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - 12:00am

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Reform

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

By 

The father and son who made a billion-dollar difference for California's students

With six kids ranging in age from 3 to 29, Sweetie Williams has heard a lot of excuses for not doing homework. But four years ago, when his 12-year-old son, Eliezer, told him he didn’t have any because there weren’t enough books for students to take home, the elder Williams felt it wasn’t just another story. A call to Eli’s seventh-grade English teacher confirmed the boy’s account; books were so scarce at Eli’s San Francisco school that assigning homework wasn’t an option.

That was hardly the only problem at Eli’s school. There were chronically clogged toilets, water fountains with discolored and foul-tasting water, mice-infested classrooms without heat. All in all, it wasn’t what Williams had envisioned when he moved his family to California from American Samoa in 1999. “We’ve been told this is the land of opportunity,” he says. “Our children are being deprived of that opportunity. It’s not fair.”
Williams is a serious man with gentle eyes and a low voice that must serve him well during the Sunday sermons he gives as pastor of the First Samoan Full Gospel Pentecostal Church. He and his wife, Talogasa, work as baggage screeners at the San Francisco airport; she works the swing shift and he works graveyard. He had never been much of an activist, but when Eli’s teacher told him about a lawsuit that was being filed by the ACLU over the conditions in California schools, Williams was eager to participate. So was Eli, who didn’t see why he shouldn’t have the same facilities as kids at schools in richer neighborhoods.
“I was thinking, ‘If I’m not going to do it, who is going to do it?’” the elder Williams recalls. “It’s a California-wide problem, and it needs to be solved.” Indeed, a 2002 poll of California teachers found that nearly a third of the state’s 6 million schoolchildren attend schools where there are not enough textbooks to assign homework; 2 million are in classrooms that are uncomfortably hot or cold; and 1.7 million are being educated amid mice, roaches, or rats.
On May 17, 2000, the 46th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the ACLU filed a class-action suit that came to represent more than a million California kids, accusing the state of depriving its poor, nonwhite, and immigrant children of the tools they need to obtain the free, common, and equal public education guaranteed by the state constitution. The lead plaintiff was Eli Williams.
Eli did some of the legal legwork, photographing flooded bathrooms and dangling ceiling tiles, and soon found himself getting frosty looks from the school’s principal, who insisted that Eli was exaggerating the situation. Still, Eli had no idea that the suit that bore his name was being carefully watched by educators across the country. “I didn’t think it was a big thing,” he recalls. “And when I saw it was a big thing, I wondered when it was going to end.”
Others were wondering the same thing. But then-Governor Gray Davis, a Democrat who claimed education was his top priority, hired a high-priced law firm to fight the suit, dragging it out over four years and ringing up close to $20 million in legal fees. The state’s tactics included lining up experts to testify that textbooks and heat were not crucial for learning, and subjecting students, some as young as eight, to days of harsh questioning, often reducing them to tears.
But soon after taking office, California’s Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, called off the dogs. By August, a $1 billion settlement had been reached in Williams v. California. The state agreed to immediately spend $188 million to buy books for and make repairs at the lowest-performing schools. The settlement also creates a system for students and teachers to lodge complaints about substandard conditions, and imposes a 30-day deadline for resolving them.
The money comes too late to help Eli. He’s a high school senior now, a tall, handsome 17-year-old with his father’s eyes and shy smile. “I won’t see the fruits of what’s going to happen,” he says, “but my little sister and cousins and nephews and nieces, they’ll see it.” Eli’s grades could be better—he says he’s still struggling to learn material he should have been taught in middle school. Yet he likes his communications class and hopes to go to college next year. Whatever happens, he figures he’s learned a valuable lesson, one that can’t be found in any textbook. “I learned that anyone can do this,” he says. “Anyone can make a change.”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/equalizers

Date

Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 11:44am

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU of Southern California RSS