More than 70 percent of Latin Americans live in countries allowing same-sex marriage. Panama is not one of them—and the country's LGBT population would like to change that. Denial of the freedom to marry walls them off from the legal protections, benefits and responsibilities that strengthen and unite families. Dentons, which has an office in Panama City, took up their cause, submitting an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of Panama through a nonprofit "rule of law alliance" previously formed by lawyers in Costa Rica-based Dentons Muñoz to promote social justice initiatives. Dentons' extraordinary global reach is a unique asset when seeking to buttress a rule-of-law initiative. In this case US partners and counsel Evan Wolfson—who was the architect of the movement behind the US Supreme Court's landmark ruling that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right—worked in concert with colleagues from Dentons Muñoz to produce a brief that packed considerable punch. While the outcome was not what we wanted—the high court passed the ball to the legislature—our well-reasoned arguments, supported by abundant research, laid the foundation for future attempts to gain marriage equality.

Below, Pedro Muñoz, the founder of Dentons Muñoz, shares his thoughts on the amicus brief.

How and why did you choose to become involved in this matter?

Dentons believes that as same-sex couples in Panama share the same dreams and aspirations as heterosexual couples, have the same needs, and are as likely to apply the same level of commitment to making their partnerships work, they deserve the freedom to marry and its attendant benefits and protections. The status quo harms and demeans LGBT people, undermines the strength of their families, hurts the economy and, most important, erodes the values of democracy, freedom, equality and dignity. To defenders of "traditional marriage," we believe, as Justice Kennedy wrote in Obergefell v.Hodges, that "[t]he history of marriage is one of both continuity and change" and that "deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential… have strengthened, not weakened, the institution."

Why do you think Dentons was the right firm to handle this matter?

Dentons Muñoz, the Firm's Central American arm, has a history of commitment to delivering ethical results in compliance with the rule of law. In fact, that is one of its key pillars. In 2016, Dentons Muñoz launched the Rule of Law Alliance, a nonprofit created to promote access to justice, economic opportunity, human dignity, social advancement and equal rights through the rule of law. The freedom-to-marry cause fits squarely within that mandate. Dentons US also has a long tradition of pro bono and community service, dedicating thousands of hours every year.

Additionally, the Firm specifically recruited counsel Evan Wolfson, who is nationally known for his successful strategy to make same-sex marriage legal in the US, to help lead diversity initiatives and counsel clients on human rights and public policy matters. It only made sense for lawyers in our New York office to help their Panama City colleagues with their quest to secure the freedom to marry there.

Can you talk about the teamwork behind your effort?

Although amicus briefs are fairly routine, the resources we dedicated to this matter, as well as our ability and interest in playing such an active role, made this a markedly different effort. The collaboration between our US and Central American lawyers resulted in a brief that contained a mountain of evidence and catalogued experiences, across multiple countries, in favor of ending gay couples' exclusion from marriage.

What are you most proud of?

The fact that no other law firm but Dentons—with more lawyers in more places than any other—could have done what we did. And it's not just that we had talent and experience rooted in local understanding and tradition, but also that the Firm has the technology to ensure the seamless transfer of information from one country to another, whether for a corporate deal or a pro bono matter. What was distinctive about our amicus brief was  that it resulted from the efforts of multiple lawyers from separate legal traditions. Without the cultural understanding of Panama and the unique experience of the US team, we would not have been able to make such a compelling argument.

How did your work impact the key stakeholders and/or the public?

In October 2017, the Supreme Court Panama ruled against two separate efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in the country—our suit, which challenged the wording of the country's Family Code that excludes same-sex couples from marrying, and a suit filed by a gay couple who wed in the UK and were seeking to have their union recognized in Panama. The Supreme Court combined both lawsuits into one case and heard oral arguments over several months. It concluded that marriage equality should be decided by the Panama National Assembly. "Equality must be constitutionally guaranteed via the law," the judge wrote, adding, "It is incumbent upon the Assembly to pass the necessary laws to comply with the purposes and the exercise of the state's duties as outlined under the constitution."

That said, the ruling left the door open for members of the National Assembly to legislate on civil unions between people of the same sex. As Estralla de Panamá, the country's oldest newspaper, wrote before the decision, "Whatever the outcome, its impact will be deep and wide. We are proud to have provided the court with clear and well-reasoned arguments in favor of freedom to marry." We couldn't have said it better ourselves.