Connect with us

News

Utah judge legalizes same-sex marriage

No stay in decision means gay couples can apply for licenses immediately

Published

on

Seth Anderson, Michael Ferguson, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, Utah, Salt Lake City, gay news, Washington Blade
Seth Anderson, Michael Ferguson, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, Utah, Salt Lake City, gay news, Washington Blade

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.

 

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.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

Gay ANC member announces candidacy for Ward 1 D.C. Council seat

Community leader Brian Footer seeking seat held by Brianne Nadeau

Published

on

Brian Footer (Photo courtesy of Brian Footer for D.C.)

Gay Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Brian Footer, a community activist who has been involved for many years in local and national government affairs, has announced his candidacy for the Ward 1 D.C. Council seat up for election in 2026.

Footer, a Democrat, will be running in the city’s June 2, 2026, Democratic primary for the Ward 1 Council seat, but it is uncertain whether he will be running against incumbent Ward 1 Council member Brianne Nadeau (D). Nadeau has not yet announced if she plans to run for re-election for a fourth term following her 12 years on the Council.

 Nadeau has been a longtime vocal supporter of the LGBTQ community.  

If Footer were to win the primary and the November 2026 general election, he would become the Council’s second openly gay member. Ward 5 Council member Zachary Parker (D) is currently the 13-member Council’s only gay member.

Footer is a three-term ANC commissioner who currently serves as Chair of ANC 1E, which represents the city’s Adams Morgan neighborhood.

“Brian has worked at every level of government — federal, state, and local — building a career rooted in public service, aging policy, and inclusive urban planning,”  a statement on his campaign website says.

“I’m running for Council because too many people in Ward 1 are doing everything right and still feel ignored by the city they call home,” Footer states on his website.

“I’m running because we can do better,” his statement continues. “That means making housing more affordable, addressing homelessness with real solutions, and keeping our neighborhoods safe with smart, community focused strategies.”

When contacted by the Washington Blade for comment, Nadeau said she was not ready at this time to discuss her plans about running again or about Footer’s candidacy.

“The primary is a ways away, and I’m very focused right now on the budget and the stadium deal and all the work that we’re doing at the Council,” she told the Blade. “So, I really haven’t had time to turn to my plans. So, as a result, I’m also not going to be commenting on anybody else who is determined that they’re running at this time.” 

She first won election to the Council in 2014 after she defeated four-term gay Ward 1 Council member Jim Graham in the Democratic primary after Graham became embroiled in an ethics controversy.

In the 2022 Democratic primary Nadeau defeated gay challenger Salah Czapary in a three-candidate race, by a margin of 48.5% of the vote compared to Czapary’s 30.9%.

With the third candidate, Sabel Harris, receiving 20.4%, the outcome showed that the two challengers had a combined total vote count higher than Nadeau.

Further details of Footer’s candidacy can be accessed from his campaign website, brianfooterdc.com.

Continue Reading

Spain

Spanish women detail abuses suffered in Franco-era institutions

Barcelona-based photographer Luca Gaetano Pira created ‘Las Descarriadas’ exhibit

Published

on

Luca Gaetano Pira's 'Las Descarriadas' exhibit profiles women who suffered abuses in Franco-era institutions. (Photo courtesy of Luca Gaetano Pira)

A Barcelona-based photographer, audiovisual artist, and activist has created an exhibit that profiles Spanish women who suffered abuse in institutions that Gen. Francisco Franco’s dictatorship established.

Luca Gaetano Pira, who is originally from Italy, spoke with women who the regime, which governed Spain from 1936-1975, sent to Women’s Protection Board institutions.

The regime in 1941 created the board the country’s Justice Ministry oversaw.

Franco named his wife, Carmen Polo, as the board’s honorary president. Then-Prime Minister Felipe González fully dissolved the board in 1985, a decade after Franco’s death.

Gaetano’s exhibit is called “Las Descarriadas” or “The Misguided Women” in English.  

“These are women who were detained between 1941 and 1985 for reasons that are unthinkable today: being lesbian, poor, pregnant out of wedlock, rebellious, politically active … or simply considered ‘morally suspect,'” Gaetano noted to the Washington Blade.

Groups affiliated with the Spanish Catholic Church ran these institutions. Gaetano pointed out they were “presented as social assistance centers.”

“In reality, they were spaces of punishment and forced reeducation, where isolation, unpaid work, and psychological violence were the norm,” he said. “Many of the survivors are still alive. Their testimonies are powerful, urgent, and of extraordinary current relevance.”

The regime sent more than 40,000 women to Women’s Protection Board institutions.

“Despite its seemingly benevolent name, it was in fact one of the most powerful instruments of moral and social control over women during and after the dictatorship,” notes the exhibit. “Under the guise of care and re-education, this institution functioned as a repressive apparatus that punished women who deviated from the ideal feminine model imposed by Franco’s regime: submissive, obedient, married, and dedicated to motherhood within the Catholic family structure.”

The Spanish Catholic Church last month issued a public apology, but Gaetano described it as “very soft” and noted “the women did not accept it.” Gaetano also compared the Women’s Protection Board institutions to Ireland’s Magdalene Laundries.

The Associated Press notes tens of thousands of “fallen” women were sent to the laundries that Catholic nuns operated in Ireland from the 18th century until the mid-1990s. Then-Irish Prime Minister Edna Kenny in 2013 issued a formal apology for the abuses that women suffered in the laundries and announced the government would compensate them.

The Spanish government has yet to offer compensation to the women abused in Women’s Protection Board institutions.

“My work focuses on recovering the historical memory of marginalized communities, particularly through the portrayal of survivors of institutional violence and the use of archival materials,” Gaetano told the Blade, noting he has also sought to highlight the repression that LGBTQ people suffered during dictatorships in Portugal and Latin America.

Gaetano’s exhibit can be found here:

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Gay GOP group hosts Ernst, 3 House members — all of whom oppose Equality Act

Log Cabin, congressional guest speakers mum on June 25 event

Published

on

Sen. Joni Ernst spoke to D.C.’s Log Cabin group. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and three women Republican members of the U.S. House appeared as guest speakers at the June 25 meeting of Log Cabin Republicans of D.C., the local chapter of the national LGBTQ Republican group with that same name.

The U.S. House members who joined Ernst as guest speakers at the Log Cabin meeting were Celeste Maloy (R-Utah), Kat Cammack (R-Fla.), and Julia Letlow (R-La.).

Neither D.C. Log Cabin Republicans President Andrew Minik nor spokespersons for Ernst or the three congresswomen immediately responded to a request by the Washington Blade for comment on the GOP lawmakers’ appearance at an LGBTQ GOP group’s meeting.

“Please join us for an inspiring evening as we celebrate and recognize the bold leadership and accomplishments of Republican women in Congress,” a D.C Log Cabin announcement sent to its members states.

“This month’s meeting will highlight the efforts of the Republican Women’s Caucus and explore key issues such as the Protection of Women and Girls In Sports Act and the broader fight to preserve women’s spaces in society,” the message says.

It was referring to legislation pending in Congress calling for banning transgender women from participating in women’s sports events. 

According to media reports, Ernst and the three congresswomen have expressed opposition to the Equality Act, the longstanding bill pending in Congress calling for prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations. 

The Log Cabin announcement says the meeting was scheduled to take place at the Royal Sands Social Club, which is a restaurant and bar at 26 N St., S.E. in the city’s Navy Yard area.    

D.C. Log Cabin member Stuart West, who attended the meeting, confirmed that Ernst and the three congresswomen showed up and spoke at the event.

“It was a good turnout,” he said. “I would definitely say probably 30 or 40 people attended.” West added, “Four women came to talk to a group of mostly gay men. That’s something you don’t see very often.” 

Continue Reading

Popular