News
Utah judge legalizes same-sex marriage
No stay in decision means gay couples can apply for licenses immediately

A federal judge in Utah has struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Michael Ferguson (left) and Seth Anderson were married in Salt Lake City. (Photo courtesy of Seth Anderson)
A federal judge in Utah has ruled the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex nuptials is unconstitutional, enabling gay couples in the state to apply for marriage licenses immediately.
U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby, an Obama appointee, issued 53-page decision on Friday, determining the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates gay couples’ rights under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“Applying the law as it is required to do, the court holds that Utah’s prohibition on same- sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process under the law,” Shelby writes. “The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.”
The decision — handed down in response to a request for summary judgment from all parties involved — makes Utah the 18th state in the country where same-sex marriage is legal. No stay was placed in the decision, so gay couples can apply for marriage licenses immediately.
One such couple, Seth Anderson and his new spouse, documented their application for a marriage license in Utah on Twitter within an hour after the ruling.
Me and my new husband!! My polygamous Mormon great grandparents would be so proud! pic.twitter.com/82xyh9GJoS
— Seth Anderson (@jsethanderson) December 20, 2013
Gov. Gary Herbert (R-Utah) opposes same-sex marriage and defended the ban against the litigation in court, so is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Herbert, along with Acting Attorney General Brian Tarbet, filed a notice of appeal with the district court following the ruling.
In a statement, Tarbet said his office is requesting an emergency stay in anticipation of an appeal to higher court.
“The federal district court’s ruling that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right has never been established in any previous case in the 10th Circuit,” Tarbet said. “The state is requesting an emergency stay pending the filing of an appeal. The Attorney General’s Office will continue reviewing the ruling in detail until an appeal is filed to support the constitutional amendment passed by the citizens of Utah.”
Earlier, Herbert said he’s “disappointed” with the judge’s ruling and is examining ways to keep the ban to same-sex marriage in place within the state.
“I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah,” Herbert said. “I am working with my legal counsel and the acting Attorney General to determine the best course to defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah.”
The ruling marks the second time a court has struck down a ban on same-sex marriage that was constitutional and not statutory. The first was the 2010 ruling against California’s Proposition 8. It’s also the first time a court struck down a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions on Prop 8 and Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told the Washington Blade the decision is “a huge win” — not just for same-sex couples in Utah, but the entire country.
“To have such a historic ruling take place in Utah speaks volumes about our country’s trajectory from discrimination to acceptance and support for same-sex couples and their families,” Minter said.
The challenge to the law was brought by three Utah couples – Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity; Karen Archer and Kate Call; and Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge — who were represented by the law firm of Magleby & Greenwood. The couples either wished to be married in Utah or were legally married elsewhere and wanted their home state to recognize their marriage.
The decision makes heavy use of the Supreme Court decision against DOMA as part of the reasoning striking down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage. Ironically, Shelby draws on the dissent of U.S. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote it would be “easy” for judges to apply the DOMA decision to state laws banning same-sex marriage.
“The court agrees with Justice Scalia’s interpretation of Windsor and finds that the important federalism concerns at issue here are nevertheless insufficient to save a state-law prohibition that denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the law,” Shelby writes.
Utah voters in 2004 approved the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, known as Amendment 3, by a margin of 65.8 percent to 33.2 percent. It bans both same-sex marriage and marriage-like unions.
Shelby writes the issue of same-sex marriage is “politically charged in the current climate” and more so because the current law is in place as a result of referendum. However, Shelby rules that even a vote of the people can’t defy the U.S. Constitution.
“It is only under exceptional circumstances that a court interferes with such action,” Shelby writes. “But the legal issues presented in this lawsuit do not depend on whether Utah’s laws were the result of its legislature or a referendum, or whether the laws passed by the widest or smallest of margins. The question presented here depends instead on the Constitution itself, and on the interpretation of that document contained in binding precedent from the Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.”
The judge concludes by drawing on the 1966 case of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state bans on interracial marriage throughout the country, saying the defense in favor of these bans 50 years ago is the same the state provided for Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage.
“For the reasons discussed above, the court finds these arguments as unpersuasive as the Supreme Court found them fifty years ago,” Shelby writes. “Anti-miscegenation laws in Virginia and elsewhere were designed to, and did, deprive a targeted minority of the full measure of human dignity and liberty by denying them the freedom to marry the partner of their choice. Utah’s Amendment 3 achieves the same result.”
Marc Solomon, national campaign director for the LGBT group Freedom to Marry, said ruling represents a historic end to a year of tremendous success for the marriage equality movement.
“The federal district judge has done the right thing by affirming that marriage is a fundamental freedom for all people, gay and non-gay – for all of us who believe in liberty and fairness,” Solomon said. “We hope that officials implement this ruling statewide. As same-sex couples celebrate their weddings, more people will see that sharing in the freedom to marry helps families and harms no one.”
World
This year’s IDAHOBiT to highlight democracy
Criminalization laws, US funding cuts among global movement’s challenges
Activists around the world on Sunday will mark the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia.
The IDAHOBiT Advisory Group — which includes 18 LGBTQ and intersex rights organizations around the world — in a press release notes IDAHOBiT events are expected to take place in more than 60 countries. Advocacy groups are also using IDAHOBiT to highlight discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity and other LGBTQ-specific issues.
Caribe Afirmativo, a Colombian advocacy group, on May 8 released a report that notes one LGBTQ person was reported murdered in the country every 32 hours in 2025. Caribe Afirmativo also said the Colombian government has not done enough to address anti-LGBTQ violence.
“The evidence is clear: violence against LGBTIQ+ persons in Colombia does not begin with homicide, but with tolerated prejudice and ignored threats,” reads Caribe Afirmativo’s report. “In 2025, the State not only failed to protect — it also failed to count, investigate, and sanction. The crisis is not invisible. It is structural. And it requires an urgent, comprehensive, and sustained response.”
The Initiative for Equality and Discrimination, a Kenyan group known by the acronym INEND, issued a report that details how the country’s law enforcement treats LGBTQ and intersex people. “A widespread pattern of arbitrary arrests, extortion, and both physical and sexual violence” are among the abuses the INEND report notes.
“These abuses not only inflict severe physical and psychological trauma but also foster a widespread distrust of the law enforcement, further marginalizing the community and hindering its ability to seek justice, access essential services such as healthcare, and fully enjoy fundamental freedoms,” it reads.
IDAHOBiT commemorates the World Health Organization’s declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder on May 17, 1990. This year’s IDAHOBiT theme is “At the Heart of Democracy.”
This year’s IDAHOBiT will take place against the continued impact that the lack of U.S. funding is having on the global LGBTQ and intersex rights movement.
The IDAHOBiT Advisory Group notes consensual same-sex sexual relations remain criminalized in 65 U.N. member states, and the number of countries with criminalization laws increased in 2025. The IDAHOBiT Advisory Group also indicates more than 60 countries have laws that restrict “freedom of expression related to sexual and gender diversity issues.”
“No matter where we live, who we are, or the faiths that drive us, most people want to nurture neighborhoods and communities where every life can bloom,” said the IDAHOBiT Advisory Group. “But today, reactionary governments worldwide are poisoning our gardens with the invasive weeds of their authoritarian policies and exclusionary legislations.”
‘Progress is still happening’
Activists around the world since last year’s IDAHOBiT have seen several legal and political victories.
New Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar on April 12 defeated his predecessor, Viktor Orbán, whose government faced widespread criticism over its anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court last July struck down St. Lucia’s colonial-era laws. The Dominican Republic’s Constitutional Court a few months later ruled the country’s National Police and Armed Forces cannot criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relations among its members. Botswana late last month repealed a provision of its colonial-era penal code that criminalized homosexuality.
A Hong Kong judge last September ruled in favor of a lesbian couple who sought parental recognition for their son. The European Union Court of Justice over the last year issued two landmark decisions: one said EU countries must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other member states and another directed member states to allow transgender people to legally change their name and gender on ID documents.
“Time and again, LGBTQIA+ people have resisted, rolled up their sleeves together with all the good people caring about their communities, and sowed the seeds of change,” said the IDAHOBiT Advisory Group in its press release.
District of Columbia
Capital Stonewall Democrats endorses Janeese Lewis George for D.C. mayor
Group also backed D.C. Council, Congressional delegate, AG candidates
The Capital Stonewall Democrats, D.C.’s largest local LGBTQ political organization, announced on May 14 that it has endorsed D.C. Councilmember Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) for mayor in the city’s June 16 Democratic primary.
Lewis George along with former D.C. Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie (D-At-Large) are considered by political observers to be the two leading candidates among the seven candidates competing in the Democratic primary election for mayor.
Both have strong, long-standing records of support on LGBTQ issues, indicating Capital Stonewall Democrats members, like LGBTQ voters across the city, are likely choosing a candidate based on non-LGBTQ related issues.
In a May 14 statement, the group announced its endorsements in seven other Democratic primary races, including D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson, who is running unopposed in the primary. Also endorsed is D.C. Councilmember Robert White (D-At-Large), who is one of five Democratic candidates competing for the position of D.C. delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives.
D.C. Councilmember Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2) is among the four candidates competing with White for that post, and who like White has a strong record of support on LGBTQ issues.
In the At-Large D.C. Council race for which incumbent Anita Bonds is not running for re-election, Capital Stonewall Democrats has endorsed community activist and LGBTQ ally Oye Owolewa in a nine candidate race.
For the Ward 1 D.C. Council election, in which five LGBTQ supportive candidates are competing, the group did not make an endorsement because none of the candidate received a required 60 percent of the endorsement vote cast by Capital Stonewall Democrats members, according to the group’s former president, Howard Garrett.
The statement announcing its endorsements shows that it decided to list its “Preferred Ranking” of each of the Ward 1 Democratic candidates as part of the city’s newly implemented ranked choice voting system. It lists gay candidate Miguel Trindade Deramo as first, bisexual candidate Aparna Raj second, Jackie Reyes Yanes third, Rashida Brown fourth, and Terry Lynch fifth.
In the remaining ward Council races, Capital Stonewall Democrats endorsed Councilmember Matt Fruman (D-Ward 3), who is running unopposed for re-election; Councilmember Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), the Council’s only gay member who is being challenged by two opponents; and Councilmember Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), who is running unopposed for re-election.
The group also chose not to make an endorsement in the special election for another At-Large D.C. Council seat that became vacant when then-Independent Councilmember McDuffie resigned to enable him to run for mayor as a Democrat. Under the city’s Home Rule Charter adopted by Congress, that at large sweat is restricted to a “non-majority party” candidate, meaning a non-Democrat.
The three candidates running for the seat, all Independents, include incumbent Doni Crawford, who was appointed to the seat earlier this year; former D.C. Councilmember Elissa Silverman; and Jacque Patterson. All three have expressed support on LGBTQ related issues.
“The organization’s endorsement process included candidate questionnaires, public forums, and direct voting by active CSD members,” the statement announcing its endorsements says. “Each endorsement reflects the collective voice of 173 LGBTQ+ Democrats who voted in the process and are committed to building lasting political power in the District,” according to the statement. “Candidates that reached 60 percent support received the endorsement.”
Garrett, the group’s former president, acknowledged that with nearly all candidates running in D.C. elections expressing strong support for the LGBTQ community, many if not most of the group’s members most likely chose a candidate based on issues other than LGBTQ related issues.
He said he believes Lewis George, who he is supporting and is viewed as a progressive candidate who self-identifies as a Democratic Socialist, compared to McDuffie, who is viewed as a moderate Democrat, captured the group’s endorsement based on the view that she is the best person to lead the city going forward.
“I believe that Capital Stonewall members voted for Janeese Lewis George because we’re tired of the status quo and we need a new, bold leader to not only move our city forward but also to stand up to Donald Trump and his administration,” Garrett told the Washington Blade.
McDuffie’s LGBTQ supporters, including former Capital Stonewall Democrats presidents David Meadows and Kurt Vorndran, have argued that McDuffie’s positions on a wide range of issues, including LGBTQ issues, show him to be the best candidates to lead the city at this time and In future years.
The group’s endorsement of Lewis George comes one week after GLAA DC, a nonpartisan LGBTQ advocacy group, awarded her its highest candidate rating of +10.
United Kingdom
UK government makes trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban a legislative priority
King Charles III on Wednesday delivered King’s Speech
King Charles III on Wednesday said a transgender-inclusive ban on so-called conversion therapy in England and Wales is among the British government’s legislative priorities.
“My government will bring forward a bill to speed up remediation for people living in homes with unsafe cladding [Remediation Bill] and a draft bill to ban abusive conversion practices [Draft Conversion Practices Bill],” said Charles in his King’s Speech that he delivered in the British House of Lords.
The government writes the King’s Speech, which outlines its legislative agenda. The British monarch delivers it at Parliament’s ceremonial opening.
“Conversion practices are abuse, and the government will deliver the manifesto commitment to bring forward a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices,” said the government in an addendum to the speech.
Then-Prime Minister Theresa May’s government in 2018 announced it would “bring forward proposals to end the practice of conversion therapy in the U.K.”
Then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government in 2022 said it would support a ban that did not include gender identity. The decision sparked outrage among British advocacy groups, and prompted them to boycott a government-sponsored LGBTQ conference that was ultimately cancelled.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party ahead of the 2024 elections included a conversion therapy ban in its manifesto. Charles delivered the King’s Speech against the backdrop of growing calls for Starmer to resign after the Labour Party lost more than 1,000 council seats in local and regional elections that took place on May 7.
Stonewall, a British advocacy group, on April 30 said the government “has failed to meet its own timeline to publish a draft bill to ban conversion practices.”
“We should not have to wait any longer,” said Stonewall CEO Simon Blake in his group’s statement. “Conversion practices are abuse. LGBTQ+ people do not need fixing or changing. They need to hear and feel that government is going to protect their safety and dignity. Not at some random date in the future. No more delays.”
-
National3 days agoAmerica’s broken pipeline of mental healthcare for trans youth
-
Federal Government4 days agoSenate Democrats press DOJ over anti-trans prison directives
-
District of Columbia4 days agoAnti-LGBTQ violence prevention efforts highlighted at D.C. community fair
-
Rehoboth Beach4 days agoCelebrated performer Rose Levine plays Rehoboth on May 15
