FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

Honolulu, HI — Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai'i Foundation (ACLU) today announced they are planning legal action against the state of Hawai'i following last Friday's failure by the Hawai'i Legislature to enact a law providing broad legal rights and duties to the state's lesbian and gay couples.

The Hawai'i Senate had approved H.B. 444 — a bill to create "civil unions" — by a veto-proof 18 to 7 majority the week before, sending the bill back to the House for a conforming vote. Although the House had passed H.B. 444 by an emphatic 33 to 17 margin last year, House members used an anonymous voice vote to kill the bill last Friday.

"Enough is enough. Infinite patience in the face of discrimination is irresponsible," said Jennifer C. Pizer, Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal. "Our clients suffer every day from unfair taxes and denial of basic legal protections that every family in Hawai'i' needs. Although same-sex couples can't hope today for the full equality of marriage, Hawai'i's constitution still guarantees equal rights and responsibilities to everyone, gay and heterosexual alike. Because the Legislature has ducked its responsibility multiple sessions in a row, we have no choice now but to bring our clients' legal claims to court."

Hawai'i's constitution was amended in 1998 to allow the Legislature to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, which it has done. This means same-sex couples cannot sue for full equality through marriage.

Although civil unions are a lesser status, they would provide a full range of state law protections and duties to gay and lesbian couples, such as relief from unfair state taxation of job-provided health insurance for family members, clear duties to pay child support and alimony as spouses must, protection of the family home against nursing home costs as spouses receive, and other vital protections. The current "reciprocal beneficiaries" system not only fails to provide many basic rights but also sends a harmful message that the state views samesex couples as less worthy of rights and protections.

"Civil unions offer essential protections but they are old news these days," said Lois Perrin, Legal Director of the ACLU of Hawaii. "It's shameful that Hawaii again validates discrimination — another blot on our history of diversity and fair treatment of all people. Once again, lawmakers' continued failure to support what's fair and right will leave many constituent families vulnerable under the current reciprocal beneficiary laws."

Lambda Legal's Pizer added, "Thanks to the persistent work of Equality Hawaii and the Human Rights Campaign, the legislators were well aware of how urgently Hawai'i's lesbian and gay residents need the protections of civil unions. Since the reciprocal beneficiary system was created more than a decade ago, it's inflicted a daily 'death-by-a-thousand-cuts' of insults, discrimination and legal vulnerability for gay people in this state. It relegates them to a lower status that withholds vital protections in areas ranging from parenting to financial stability. We simply can't stand by passively observing any more."

Lambda Legal will be lead counsel in the case. The ACLU of Hawai'i will be co-counsel and the law firm of Alston, Hunt, Floyd & Ing will serve as cooperating attorneys.

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 mission of the ACLU and its Hawai'i affiliate is to protect the fundamental freedoms contained in the state and federal constitutions through litigation, legislative and public education programs statewide.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

WINDSOR, CT – The Windsor Board of Education voted late Monday to stop holding public high school graduation ceremonies at a local Christian church. With this decision, all five area school districts that had been holding graduations at the church have voted to halt the practice. The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Connecticut and Americans United for Separation of Church and State had objected to the school districts' practice of holding graduations at The First Cathedral in Bloomfield, Connecticut, a 120,000 square foot facility steeped in Christian symbols and iconography, calling for the graduations to instead be held at any of a number of secular locations available in the area. 

"Under our constitutional system, public school officials should not endorse particular religious faiths," said Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "The decision by the Windsor Board of Education, and similar recent actions by other school districts in Connecticut, will help ensure that no graduating student will feel like a second-class participant in these important celebrations."

The ACLU and Americans United last fall sent Freedom of Information Act requests to the Windsor, Enfield, East Hartford and South Windsor Public Schools, as well as the Metropolitan Learning Center Magnet School in Bloomfield, seeking information about their use of The First Cathedral as a high-school graduation venue. The groups also sent a letter last fall to the Enfield Public Schools, arguing that graduating students, their families and other guests are unconstitutionally subjected to religious messages when attending high school commencement and that "students and family members of minority religions, as well as those who do not subscribe to any religion at all, are immersed in a religious environment of a faith not their own." Windsor last night became the last of the five school districts to decide to move its graduations after this correspondence was sent.

"Changing the location of these schools' high school graduations acknowledges the important role of diversity in our school systems," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United Executive Director. "It helps to ensure that students and their families are not made to feel unwelcome at a school event on account of their religious beliefs."

The ceremonies had been held at The First Cathedral despite the existence of many secular alternatives in the surrounding area, some of which are less expensive.

"School officials did the right thing by moving their graduations," said Alex J. Luchenitser, Senior Litigation Counsel for Americans United. "While the schools' decisions may be unpopular with many local residents, moving the graduations upholds the Bill of Rights, whose very purpose was to protect the rights of religious and other minorities."

The facade of The First Cathedral features five large Christian crosses, and another large cross towers over the cathedral's roof. There is a fountain in the shape of a cross surrounded by a frame in the shape of a tomb in the church's lobby, and on the way into the sanctuary where the graduations take place, students and parents pass underneath large banners on which biblical scriptures are written. During the graduation ceremony, students are seated underneath a giant cross in a window at the front of the sanctuary, and to the left of the cross, hangs a banner that reads, "Jesus Christ is Lord." There are also many large-screen televisions throughout the sanctuary that display the message, "This is God's House Where Jesus Christ Is Lord," while students and guests wait for the ceremony to begin.

"Regardless of intent, when schools host graduation at The First Cathedral, they devalue the faith of students and families in the religious minority," said David McGuire, staff attorney with the ACLU of Connecticut. "By agreeing to move graduation to a secular venue, the schools have demonstrated they value the religious diversity of all their students."

Additional information about the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief is available online at: www.aclu.org/religion

Additional information about Americans United for Separation of Church and State is available online at: www.au.org

Additional information about the ACLU of Connecticut is available online at: www.acluct.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

SAN FRANCISCO – The American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to Fresno City College today demanding that the school ensure that all its health science classes teach unbiased and medically accurate information. According to students at the college, lectures by Professor Dr. Bradley Lopez, who teaches an introductory health class, often present religiously-based and anti-gay views as “science” or “fact.”

“I feel very let down by my school,” said Jacqui Mahaffey, a 24-year-old student who took Professor Lopez’s class. “I signed up for health science because I was interested in the subject, but what I got was hateful lecturing based on Professor Lopez’s personal beliefs. I am in school to learn, not to be indoctrinated with one professor’s religious views and anti-gay beliefs.”

The ACLU letter includes several examples of Professor Lopez teaching sectarian views and personal bias as “fact.” In recent lectures, Professor Lopez:

• Presented a slide listing “homosexual facts,” including that homosexuality is a “biological misapplication of human sexuality” and said that the “recommended treatment” is “psychological counseling” or “hormone supplements.”
• Presented LGBT people as a burden on and/or threat to society, claiming, for example, that anything but a heterosexual union provides a “one-sided foundation for raising children.”
• Presented bible passages as “empirical” evidence that life begins at conception in support of his assertion that abortion is murder and “the leading cause of death in this country” (because there are over a million abortions a year).
• Followed a slide on climate change in a presentation on “environmental health” with a slide containing a Biblical quote about the world ending in fire, and said “that is the real global warming we should be worried about.”
• Repeatedly referenced the Bible and used it as a teaching tool, for example assigning as homework a question as to Jesus’ genetic makeup.

“The college class room of a state school should be a welcoming environment for all students, and courses, especially health courses, should be based on objective and medically accurate information, not religiously-based bias,” said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. “While Professor Lopez is free to talk about his religious beliefs outside of the classroom, Fresno City College has an obligation to protect its students from religious indoctrination and anti-gay bias presented as ‘science’ or ‘fact.’ Professor Lopez’s health class fails students in both regards.”

The letter sent by the ACLU charges that because the classes are being taught at a publicly funded college, Professor Lopez’s lectures violate federal and state constitutional protections guaranteeing the separation of church and state. To satisfy its legal obligation to combat anti-gay bias, the letter also urges the school to mandate accurate and unbiased health instruction.

The ACLU’s letter, which is available here, gives the college until February 15 to explain how it intends to address the problem.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

Today, the Maine Civil Liberties Union will lend its backing to an effort to protect the privacy of all the people of Maine.  The MCLU will testify in support of LD 1561: An Act to Regulate the Use of Traffic Surveillance Cameras, in a public hearing before the Maine Legislature's Joint Committee on Transportation.  The hearing is scheduled for 1:00 pm, in Room 126 at the State House.

The following can be attributed to Shenna Bellows, Executive Director of the Maine Civil Liberties Union (MCLU):

"Surveillance cameras have a chilling effect on freedom of movement, because people behave differently when they are under surveillance.  In a free society, we have a right to be left alone unless we are hurting someone or breaking the law.  All people in America are presumed innocent and law-abiding, but these surveillance cameras turns that presumption of innocence on its head – into a presumption that we are all guilty.

"The Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) creates and feeds a database that, very quickly will contain a virtual map of the movement of ordinary citizens about the community.  If we hastily adopt this new technology we will find ourselves grappling with significant embarrassments and harms in the future.  Just because we can do something doesn't always mean we should.  ALPRs place too much datamining power in the hands of the police and those who breach their system.

"Last year, Maine passed a law banning surveillance cameras at stoplights.  We hope that the same principles—that we have the right to be left alone and that the government should not put ordinary citizens under surveillance—will once again guide the legislature's deliberations."

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
 
Richmond, VA – The ACLU of Virginia is urging members of the Virginia General Assembly to support Senate and House bills that authorize a pro-choice specialty license plate.  The plate, containing the phrase Trust Women, Respect Choice, counters a law passed in 2009 authorizing a Choose Life license plate.

Under recent court decisions, specialty license plates are considered to be a public forum, and in a public forum all viewpoints must be equally accepted.  For the General Assembly to authorize an anti-choice plate but not a pro-choice plate violates this fundamental principle of free speech.

"Before the final vote takes place, all legislators will have received a memo from us explaining why they are required by the Constitution to approve the pro-choice license plate," said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis.  "This is one time lawmakers need to set aside their views on reproductive rights and let the First Amendment be their guide.  If they can do that, the pro-choice license plate will be easily approved.  If not we're undoubtedly headed to court."

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has consistently held that specialty license plates are subject to the First Amendment.  In 2002, the Fourth Circuit ordered DMV to restore a Confederate battle flag the General Assembly had stripped from a specialty plate created for the Sons of Confederate Veterans.  In 2004, the Fourth Circuit ordered South Carolina to halt production of an anti-choice plate after a pro-choice plate failed to be approved by the legislature.

The ACLU of Virginia has repeatedly asked legislators to move the specialty license plate authorization process to DMV, where it would be administered in a viewpoint neutral manner using rules similar to those that govern vanity license plates. 

"If you think about it, it is counterintuitive for lawmakers to be deciding who gets to have a specialty license plate and who doesn't," added Willis.  "Public officials are elected because of their political views and expected to vote in accordance with those views.  Yet the Constitution requires them to be viewpoint neutral when voting on specialty license plates."

There are two identical pro-choice license plate bills in the General Assembly, SB 704 and HB 1108.  Funds generated by the sale of the plate will support Planned Parenthood's health and family planning programs.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged in a congressional hearing on Wednesday that the U.S. may, with executive approval, deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism. The American Civil Liberties Union expressed serious concern about the lack of public information about the policy and the potential for abuse of unchecked executive power.
 
The following can be attributed to Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project:

"It is alarming to hear that the Obama administration is asserting that the president can authorize the assassination of Americans abroad, even if they are far from any battlefield and may have never taken up arms against the U.S., but have only been deemed to constitute an unspecified 'threat.' This is the most recent consequence of a troublingly overbroad interpretation of Congress's 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. This sweeping interpretation envisions a war that knows no borders or definable time limits and targets an enemy that the government has refused to define in public. This policy is particularly troubling since it targets U.S. citizens, who retain their constitutional right to due process even when abroad."

The following can be attributed to Jonathan Manes, legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project:

"The American people have a right to know more about a policy that grants the president the unilateral authority to approve the killing of U.S. citizens. It is essential that more information be made available about who can be targeted for killing, who makes these decisions and on the basis of how much evidence, and whether lethal force can be used if arrest or capture are possible or have not been attempted. While there is little doubt that a U.S. citizen fighting for an enemy army could lawfully be killed on the battlefield in the course of fighting, this policy goes far beyond the ordinary parameters of battlefield combat. It appears to allow for the deliberate targeted killing of American citizens far away from any active hostilities, as long as the executive branch determines unilaterally that they meet a secret definition of who the enemy is."