Today, a challenge to the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was filed on behalf of multiple same-sex couples in Colorado. Following the announcement of this litigation, the statements below were released by state LGBT advocacy group One Colorado, ACLU of Colorado, GLBT Community Center of Colorado, Colorado GLBT Bar Association, and the Faithful Voices Coalition.
Dave Montez, Executive Director of One Colorado:

“Just like thousands of other loving, committed couples across Colorado, the courageous plaintiffs who brought forth today’s case simply want to take care of their families and make a lifelong promise to the person they love. We share their goal of achieving marriage equality as quickly as possible, but we also want to ensure that victory endures – which means creating a climate where all Coloradans are free to live openly in their own communities. There’s a difference between having a civil union or marriage license and feeling comfortable enough to put a picture of your spouse on your desk at work. So as this issue moves toward resolution – either by our courts or at the ballot box – it’s critical that we keep building public support for the freedom to marry by talking to Coloradans about why marriage matters to our families. And One Colorado is proud to be doing that work right now, in every corner of our state.”
Nathan Woodliff-Stanley, Executive Director of ACLU of Colorado:

“The American Civil Liberties Union has been working for decades to secure marriage equality throughout the country, including here in Colorado. Over the past few years and especially the last few months, we’ve seen an astonishing and welcome shift toward Americans embracing equality and the freedom to marry. As the country progresses, Colorado’s marriage ban increasingly places our state at a competitive and moral disadvantage. We recognize the courage and resolve of these couples and their attorneys as they pursue, through the courts, the freedom to marry that all Coloradans deserve. And as advocates for full equality, we will continue to facilitate the important conversation across our state about why all families deserve the full dignity and protection that only marriage can provide.”
Mindy Barton, Legal Director of the GLBT Community Center of Colorado:

“The GLBT Community Center of Colorado has been supporting equality for gays and lesbians in this state for almost four decades. As this litigation moves forward, we are proud of the plaintiffs and their attorneys for standing up to show that no one should be treated differently just because of who they are and who they love. In parallel with these efforts, we know it’s vital to keep doing the important work of educating the public and talking to the people of Colorado about why marriage matters to all loving, committed couples – gay and straight alike. And The Center remains dedicated to having that important statewide conversation.”
Kyle Velte, President of the Colorado GLBT Bar Association:

“As an organization comprised of LGBT attorneys and focused on equality, it is inspiring to see this litigation filed. We recognize that litigation is one of several ways to achieve full marriage equality in this state, and we applaud the courage of the attorneys and plaintiffs – some of whom are members of our Association – as they move forward in this important legal fight."
Jeremy Shaver, Spokesperson for the Faithful Voices Coalition, a coalition comprised of 215 faith leaders and 60 faith-based organizations in support of marriage equality:

“As people of faith, we believe in the Golden Rule – to treat others as we would want to be treated. In light of the litigation filed today, it is important to remember that freedom means freedom for everyone, and none of us should be treated differently just because of who we are. We believe marriage is best defined by love, commitment, and the ability to protect your family – and that is why we support the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples across our state.”

“The ACLU of Colorado is paying close attention to the deliberations of the Boulder City Council around what it calls ‘social misbehavior.’ We strongly discourage the Council from adopting any measures that target the vulnerable by redefining otherwise legal behavior as criminal or that attempt to limit access and enjoyment of public spaces to those in the community that the Council deems ‘respectable’ and worthy of the privilege.
“Transients, panhandlers and people of all types have been part of the Downtown Boulder scene for its entire history.
“Now the city has proposed new restrictions, ordinances, arrests, prosecutions, jail sentences and exclusion orders targeted at an ill-defined population that includes homeless, transient, and other vulnerable individuals on the municipal campus.
“Contrary to the city’s contention that these measures are necessitated by criminal behavior, data provided to the Council by the City Manager shows that the majority of arrests on the municipal campus were for technical rule violations that had no effect on the public’s ability to enjoy the space. Yet many of the proposals before the Council would unjustly criminalize more activities and create more violations and arrests, seemingly to make life so difficult for targeted members of the community that they are driven out of the space.
“The ACLU of Colorado and its Boulder County Chapter oppose new laws that restrict peaceful activity and that provide tools for selective and arbitrary enforcement that threaten the rights of free speech, association and to simply be left alone and enjoy public spaces free of police harassment.”

In the first filing of its kind, a criminal defendant who was notified that his communications were monitored under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 today challenged the law’s constitutionality and the admissibility of evidence obtained under it. The defendant, Jamshid Muhtorov, is represented in the motion by the Federal Public Defender’s Office, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Colorado.

The motion argues that the FISA Amendments Act violates the Fourth Amendment because it permits the government to collect and access the international communications of U.S. residents in bulk, without individualized court review.

“The FISA Amendments Act affords the government virtually unfettered access to the international phone calls and emails of U.S. citizens and residents. We’ve learned over the last few months that the NSA has implemented the law in the broadest possible way, and that the rules that supposedly protect the privacy of innocent people are weak and riddled with exceptions,” said ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer. “Surveillance conducted under this statute is unconstitutional, and the fruits of this surveillance must be suppressed.”

The Supreme Court dismissed the ACLU’s civil lawsuit challenging the FISA Amendments Act last February on the grounds that the ACLU’s plaintiffs – which included Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, and The Nation magazine – could not prove their communications had been collected.

During the litigation, the government assured the Supreme Court that criminal defendants who were actually monitored under the statute would be given a chance to challenge its constitutionality. It was later revealed, however, that the Justice Department had a policy of concealing from criminal defendants the role that the FISA Amendments Act had played in their prosecutions. The Justice Department recently changed its policy, and Muhtorov is the first criminal defendant to receive notice that he was spied on under the law. Muhtorov, a former human rights advocate in his native Uzbekistan who was admitted to the U.S. as a political refugee, is accused of attempting and conspiring to provide material assistance to a resistance group opposed to the repressive Uzbek regime.

“For five years the government insulated this statute from judicial review by concealing from criminal defendants how the evidence against them was obtained, but the government will not be able to shield the statute from review in this case,” said Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU of Colorado.

The President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, which released its report last month, found that surveillance under the law does not sufficiently protect the privacy of U.S. citizens or residents and should be subjected to a number of significant restrictions – including a bar on the government’s use of evidence obtained through such surveillance in criminal proceedings like Muhtorov’s.

Lawyers on today’s motion are Jaffer, Alex Abdo, Patrick Toomey, Brett Max Kaufman, and Nathan Freed Wessler of the national ACLU; Silverstein and Sara J. Rich of the ACLU of Colorado; and Virginia L. Grady, Brian Leedy, Kathryn Stimson and Warren R. Williamson of the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Districts of Colorado and Wyoming.