State Should Uphold Equal Protection

An op-ed piece in today's Sun-Sentinel makes a good case as to why the Florida Supreme Court should strike down the recently passed anti-gay marriage amendment to the Florida Constitution. The piece uses the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision upholding same-sex marriage as a keystone to the argument. The piece also looks at Iowa's history of being ahead of the curve and on the right side of equality under the law in contrast to Florida's shameful past track record. I truly believe that someday the opponents of gay marriage will be viewed in the same light as brutal slave owners and rabid segregationists. In truth, we are all one human family - like in Key West's motto - and the sooner all people are treated with equal dignity and equality under the civil laws, the better we will be as a nation. Here are some column highlights:

*

Far to the north, in a rural state known for long, cold winters and with barely one fifth as many residents as Florida, on April 3 the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously struck down the state legislature's effort to ban gay marriage as unconstitutional, upholding the most important constitutional principle underlying the American way of life — equal protection. Our Florida Supreme Court justices should take note of the challenge presented by the Iowa Supreme Court as they consider whether to set aside or let stand our state's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. If the Florida high court chooses the latter course, it will render toothless our guarantee of equality.

*

Why should the Florida Supreme Court attach any particular consequence to what happens in a sparsely populated Midwestern state? History provides the best answer to that question, with Iowa at the forefront of anti-discrimination rulings since the fight for equal protection began.

*

In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled a human being could not be treated as property to enforce a contract for slavery — 17 years before the U.S. Supreme Court elected to uphold the rights of a slave owner in Dred Scott v. Sanford. In 1868 and 1873, the Iowa court denounced segregation in a stand that the U.S. Supreme Court would not take until 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education.

*

In contrast, Florida's disappointing records on slavery and desegregation are well known, and the state only granted women the right to practice law in 1898. In each of its historic decisions, Iowa's highest court ignored public outcry. . . . The Iowa Supreme Court found in its ruling that "the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation."

*

The Iowa court's analysis and explanation are thorough, thoughtful and learned. The decision should help the Florida Supreme Court to recognize the prejudice embedded in efforts to preserve "traditional" marriage through persecution of same-sex couples.

*

In Iowa, the Supreme Court justices wrote that "we give respect to the views of all on the issue of same-sex marriage-religious or otherwise-by giving respect to our constitutional principles."In Florida, our Supreme Court should similarly seek to uphold this profoundly American principal of equal protection that is enshrined in our state Constitution.