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.”
District of Columbia
How Pepper the courthouse dog helps victims of abuse
Reshaping how the legal system balances compassion with procedure
Deborah Kelly’s blind husband, Alton, was dragged for blocks to his death by a hit-and-run driver who had already plowed into her on Alabama Ave., S.E., in June 2024.
But her trauma had only just begun. It took 10 months before the driver, Kenneth Trice, Jr., was arrested, and another six months before he was sentenced to just six months behind bars.
As she heaved and sobbed in the courtroom in November, Kelly had a steady four-legged presence by her side: Pepper the Courthouse Dog, as the black Labrador retriever is known in D.C. Superior Court.
Abby Stavitsky, a former federal prosecutor who now serves as a victims’ advocate, is the owner and handler of nine-year-old Pepper. She says that one of the things that has made Pepper such a great asset in the court in the past six years is the emotional support and comfort she provides to victims.
“She absorbs all of the feelings and the emotions around her, but she’s very good at handling it,” Stavitsky said.
Pepper and Stavitsky started working in Magistrate Judge Mary Grace Rook’s courtroom — and now works in Magistrate Judge Janet Albert’s — to provide support for youth who suffer trauma, especially young survivors of commercial sexual exploitation.
These specially trained dogs offer emotional support to trauma victims of all ages. Courthouse dogs can reduce victims’ and witnesses’ anxiety and stress, making it easier for them to provide clear statements in the courtroom, according to a 2019 report in the Criminal Justice Review.
“Having something to pet and interact with is a distraction that results in victims being calmer when testifying in court,” says Stavitsky. “This gives them an extra level of comfort.”
What brought Stavitsky and Pepper together
Stavitsky, who spent 25 years as an assistant U.S attorney, handled a lot of victim-based crimes, mostly domestic violence and sex offenses. She was also a dog lover, and once she learned about courthouse dogs and their use, she was inspired.
In 2019, Pepper was given to Stavitsky by a Massachusetts-based organization, NEADS, formerly known as the National Education for Assistance Dog Services. Although Pepper was originally trained to be a service dog, evaluators determined her character was best suited for a courthouse dog.
Pepper now works regularly in various treatment court cases involving juveniles, many of whom have experienced trauma or are involved in the child welfare system. She also sits with victims while they are testifying in a trial.
“She loves people, especially children,” Stavitsky said. “She loves that interaction.”
Courthouse dogs have a long history
In courthouses across the U.S. specially trained “facility dogs” are becoming an important part of how the justice system supports vulnerable victims and witnesses.
Since the late 1980s, these dogs were used to help trauma survivors and anxious children during testimonies and interviews. The first dog to make an appearance in a courtroom was Sheba, a German shepherd who assisted child sexual abuse victims in the Queens (N.Y.) District Attorney’s Office. Courthouse dogs help them communicate more clearly, especially in these settings that make them anxious and stressed.
Unlike service dogs, courthouse facility dogs are professionally trained through accredited assistance dog organizations and work daily alongside prosecutors, victim advocates, and forensic interviewers. For example, courthouse dogs can have more social interaction, unlike service dogs.
Courthouse dogs’ growing use has prompted state laws and professional guidelines to recognize the dogs as a trauma-informed tool that helps victims participate in the justice process without compromising courtroom fairness.
As more jurisdictions adopt these programs, courthouse dogs are reshaping how the legal system balances compassion with procedure, ensuring that victims’ voices can be heard in environments that might otherwise silence them.
Pepper makes it easy to see why.
“I really love people, especially kids, and can provide emotional support and comfort during all stages of the court process,” reads the business card Stavitsky hands out with Pepper’s picture. “I’m calm, quiet and can stay in place for several hours.”
(This article was written by a student in the journalism program at Bard High School Early College DC. This work is part of a partnership between the Washington Blade Foundation and Youthcast Media Group, funded through the FY26 Community Development Grant from the Office of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser.)
Rehoboth Beach
Women’s FEST returns to Rehoboth Beach next week
Golf tournament, mini-concerts, meetups planned for silver anniversary festival
Women’s+ FEST 2026 will begin on Thursday, April 9 at CAMP Rehoboth Community Center.
The festival will celebrate a remarkable milestone in 2026: its silver anniversary. For 25 years, Women’s+ FEST has brought fun and entertainment for all those on the spectrum of the feminine spirit. There will be a variety of events including a golf tournament, mini-concerts and happy hour meetups.
For more information, visit Camp Rehoboth’s website.
Belarus
Belarusian lawmakers approve bill to crackdown on LGBTQ rights
Country’s president known as ‘Europe’s last dictator’
Lawmakers in Belarus on Thursday approved a bill that would allow the government to crack down on LGBTQ advocacy.
The Associated Press notes the bill would punish anyone found guilty of “propaganda of homosexual relations, gender change, refusal to have children, and pedophilia” with fines, community labor, and 15 days in jail.
The House of Representatives, the lower house of the Belarusian National Assembly, last month approved the bill. The Council of the Republic, which is the parliament’s upper chamber, passed it on Thursday.
President Alexander Lukashenko is expected to sign it.
Belarus borders Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Lukashenko — known as “Europe’s last dictator” is a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Kazakhstan is among the countries that have enacted Russian-style anti-LGBTQ propaganda laws in recent years.
Vika Biran, a Belarusian LGBTQ activist, is among those arrested during anti-Lukashenko protests that took place in 2020 after he declared victory in the country’s presidential election.
-
The White House5 days agoThousands attend ‘No Kings’ protests in D.C.
-
District of Columbia5 days agoBlade contributor, husband exchange vows in D.C.
-
U.S. Supreme Court4 days agoSupreme Court rules against Colo. law banning conversion therapy for minors
-
Senegal4 days agoSenegalese president signs bill that further criminalizes homosexuality
