Tuesday, August 14, 2018
Editorials

Uphold marriage equality

By agreeing to hear two cases that challenge legal limits on same-sex marriage, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide whether gays and lesbians are entitled to fair treatment under the law. The issue is a timely one. A majority or near majority of Americans, depending on the poll, now say they support making it legal for same-sex couples to marry. Shifting attitudes are moving in one direction, toward broader acceptance. Approving marriage equality would affirm a civil right that will soon be a nonissue, much like interracial marriage is today, and put the court on the right side of history.

The cases the high court has agreed to hear challenge the legality of California's Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage passed by the state's voters in 2008, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that denies legally married same-sex couples the right to federal benefits afforded people in heterosexual marriages.

In the California case, the ideologically riven court could turn the clock back on progress by resurrecting the ban passed by Proposition 8. It could do what fairness demands and recognize marriage equality in the Constitution for gays and lesbians. Or it could adopt a more narrow rationale articulated by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. That court found Proposition 8 unconstitutional because it imposed a legal disability on a disfavored class of people by repealing the marriage rights for same-sex couples that the California Supreme Court had recognized. This holding would have an immediate effect only in California.

In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court in Romer vs. Evans laid the groundwork for this narrower approach by setting aside a Colorado amendment that barred anti-discrimination laws protecting gays and lesbians. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's likely swing vote in the pending same-sex marriage cases, wrote for the court's majority, siding with the court's liberal members. His ruling overturned Colorado's amendment because it legally handicapped members of an unpopular minority. Kennedy also joined the liberal justices in 2003 in striking down a Texas sodomy law that targeted gays. Kennedy's rulings are a positive sign that he might once again demand the law not disadvantage gays and lesbians.

The high court's second same-sex marriage case involves Edith Windsor, who legally married her lesbian partner in Canada in 2007. Due to the federal DOMA, when Windsor's partner died in 2009, Windsor was required to pay about $360,000 in federal estate taxes from which a heterosexual spouse would be exempt. This violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, said the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Other courts have drawn similar conclusions. With nine states and the District of Columbia now recognizing same-sex marriages, it is blatantly unfair that those couples cannot access the hundreds of federal benefits to which they should be entitled. The Obama administration is so certain DOMA is unconstitutional it is refusing to defend the law. That distasteful duty is being borne by the House Republican leadership.

Some might argue that it is too soon for the high court to weigh in on one of the most divisive issues of the day. After all, when the high court decided in 1967 to sweep away anti-miscegenation laws, only 16 states still outlawed interracial marriage. At present 41 states, including Florida, do not allow same-sex marriage, while only nine states allow it. But this is an issue where evolving attitudes — like the support for marriage equality expressed by President Barack Obama earlier this year — are rapidly outpacing the laws on the books. Almost all groups of Americans have upped their support for marriage equality recently, with 73 percent of people between 18 and 29 years now approving, according to a Gallup poll last month. In November's general election, voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington state were the first to adopt same-sex marriage through popular vote. In Minnesota, voters turned aside a ballot measure to put its same-sex marriage ban into its Constitution.

A tipping point has been reached. The time is right for the high court to banish this state-sponsored discrimination. The Supreme Court would not be leading as much as reflecting the emerging ethos of what constitutes justice.

Comments
Editorial: Habitat for Humanity still has questions to answer about selling mortgages

Editorial: Habitat for Humanity still has questions to answer about selling mortgages

A good reputation can vanish overnight, which is why Habitat for Humanity of Hills-borough County made a smart decision by announcing it would seek to buy back 12 mortgages it sold to a Tampa company with a history of flipping properties. The arrange...
Updated: 8 hours ago
Editorial: Why stand your ground has to go

Editorial: Why stand your ground has to go

Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe made a reasonable decision to charge Michael Drejka with manslaughter in last month’s deadly Clearwater convenience store parking lot confrontation. The shooting, which erupted over use of a handicap parkin...
Published: 08/13/18
Editorial: Politics aside, arguments are clear for moving appellate court to Tampa

Editorial: Politics aside, arguments are clear for moving appellate court to Tampa

It’s time to re-establish a permanent home for the state appeals court that serves the Tampa Bay region.It makes sense to put it in Tampa, the same as it made sense 30 years ago when the court’s operations began moving piece by piece up Interstate 4 ...
Published: 08/09/18
Updated: 08/10/18
Editorial: A big first step toward improving transportation in Hillsborough

Editorial: A big first step toward improving transportation in Hillsborough

The Hillsborough County transit referendum that has made the November ballot is significantly stronger than two efforts that failed to reach the end zone in the past decade. The one-cent sales surtax would generate enough money to meaningfully improv...
Published: 08/09/18
Editorial: Bondi should stop fighting smokable medicial marijuana

Editorial: Bondi should stop fighting smokable medicial marijuana

The fight for medical marijuana in Florida should have ended with the resounding 2016 vote authorizing it in the state Constitution. Instead, the battle for access drags on, with Attorney General Pam Bondi waging the latest round in a lengthy legal b...
Published: 08/07/18
Updated: 08/10/18
Editorial: Warning signs of a mental health crisis in Florida

Editorial: Warning signs of a mental health crisis in Florida

They reach from South Florida to Tampa, from a high school to a college campus, from troubled kids to troubled parents. But there is a common thread connecting these tragedies: Florida has a mental health crisis. Addressing it would require spending ...
Published: 08/07/18
Updated: 08/10/18
Editorial: Time to pursue or sink ferry to MacDill

Editorial: Time to pursue or sink ferry to MacDill

A proposal to use local money to ferry workers to MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa always has been a questionable idea. The loss of nearly $5 million in federal money toward the project makes it all the more suspect. It’s time the ferry supporters off...
Published: 08/07/18
Updated: 08/10/18
Blood on the streets of Chicago

Blood on the streets of Chicago

A hot summer weekend, when Chicago should be at its most livable, brings an undercurrent of dread and horror to this city. Summer is block party season, beach season, baseball season. But in some neighborhoods, summer is killing season — when armed g...
Published: 08/07/18
Updated: 08/10/18
Editorial: FDA should not penalize premium cigars

Editorial: FDA should not penalize premium cigars

A well-meaning but poorly designed effort to keep tobacco from children could sink a niche industry and end Tampa’s fabled history as a cigar-making capital. The Food and Drug Administration needs to recognize not all tobacco products are alike...
Published: 08/06/18
Updated: 08/13/18
Editorial: New St. Petersburg Pier spot for Echelman art better, not perfect

Editorial: New St. Petersburg Pier spot for Echelman art better, not perfect

The St. Petersburg City Council has listened to the concerns of constituents and forged a compromise on where to install a signature public art piece in the new Pier District. Plans had called for an imposing aerial net sculpture to soar above Spa Be...
Published: 08/06/18
Updated: 08/07/18