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

LOS ANGELES - In a victory for civil liberties, the Los Angeles City Council today passed a resolution condemning the unconstitutional aspects of the USA-PATRIOT Act. The City of Los Angeles is the largest locality in the country to pass such a resolution, joining over 230 cities, counties and even states throughout the nation that have passed similar resolutions.

"This is a huge victory for civil liberties," said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. "Los Angeles is the largest city to pass a resolution in support of civil liberties and critical of the USA-PATRIOT Act. Angelenos should be proud that their City Council stands on the side of those who believe we can be both safe and free. Today's resolution sends a clear message to those who assume that Americans will tolerate the erosion of our basic Constitutional rights."

"As a city, we pride ourselves on being inclusive and protecting the basic rights of all people," said Councilmember Jan Perry, the sponsor of the resolution. "Significant portions of the PATRIOT Act destroy the spirit of inclusion and encourage racial profiling and other violations of our rights as people of this great nation. This is an opportunity for the City of Los Angeles to join other major cities across the nation to voice its concern to our federal government."

Wednesday's City Council action takes place less than 24 hours after President George W. Bush, in the State of the Union address, called for a permanent extension of the broad new powers granted to the government under the USA-PATRIOT Act. Currently, portions of the law are designed to "sunset" after 2005.

"The City Council's actions underscore the fact that there is widespread opposition to the PATRIOT Act," continued Ripston. "All across this country, people of all walks of life and of all political persuasions are continuing to voice concern about the expansion of government powers under this Administration."

"Clearly there are enough reservations about the PATRIOT Act as it stands now - any talk of expanding the Act is not grounded in reality," she added.

The USA-PATRIOT Act was passed on October 26, 2001, just 45 days after the September 11th attacks. The 342-page piece of legislation was passed with little debate by the Members of Congress, most of whom did not even read the bill. The Act gives the Executive Branch sweeping new powers that weaken the American system of checks and balances that is designed to guard against government encroachment.

"The PATRIOT Act trashes the checks and balances that guard against tyranny," said Councilmember Eric Garcetti, who voted in favor of the resolution. "Instead of fighting Americans' real fears with hope and strength, it exploits our fears by turning everything from following the immigrant dream to patronizing the library into an act of suspicion. I am proud to stand with the City of Los Angeles and call upon Congress to take our liberty and our security seriously."