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.”
Afghanistan
ICC issues arrest warrants for Taliban leaders over persecution of LGBTQ people, women
Groups ‘non-conforming’ with group’s gender policy targeted

The International Criminal Court on Tuesday issued arrest warrants for two top Taliban officials accused of targeting LGBTQ people, women, and others who defy the group’s strict gender norms.
The warrants are for Hibatullah Akhundzada, the Taliban’s supreme leader, and Afghanistan Chief Justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani.
“Based on evidence presented by the Office (of the Prosecutor), the judges found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed — by ordering, inducing, or soliciting — the crime against humanity of persecution, under article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute, on gender grounds, against girls, women, and other persons non-conforming with the Taliban’s policy on gender, gender identity or expression; and on political grounds against persons perceived as ‘allies of girls and women,’” reads an ICC press release that announced the warrants.
Karim Khan, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, in January announced a request for warrants against Taliban officials over their treatment of women and other groups since they regained control of Afghanistan in 2021. The request marked the first time the court specifically named LGBTQ people as victims in a gender persecution case before it.
“The issuance of the first arrest warrants in the situation in Afghanistan is an important vindication and acknowledgement of the rights of Afghan women and girls,” reads the press release the ICC released on Tuesday. “It also recognizes the rights and lived experiences of persons whom the Taliban perceived as not conforming with their ideological expectations of gender identity or expression, such as members of the LGBTQI+ community, and persons whom the Taliban perceived as allies of girls and women.”
A report that Outright International released in 2023 notes Taliban officials have systematically targeted LGBTQ people — especially gay men and transgender women.
Taliban officials have subjected them to physical and sexual assault as well as arbitrary detention. The Outright International report also notes Taliban authorities have carried out public floggings for alleged same-sex sexual relations, and have collected intelligence on LGBTQ activists and community members.
Artemis Akbary, executive director of the Afghanistan LGBTIQ Organization, praised the ICC.
“Today is a historic moment for LGBTIQ victims and survivors,” he said on social media.
District of Columbia
LGBTQ voters divided in Ward 8 special election
All four candidates on DC Council seat ballot are allies

Political observers, including LGBTQ activists, believe LGBTQ voters in Ward 8, like most if not all voters in the ward, are divided over which of the four candidates to support in the July 15 special election to fill the ward’s vacant D.C. Council seat.
Each of the four candidates, all of whom are Democrats, including ousted Ward 8 council member Trayon White, who is running to recapture his seat, have expressed support for LGBTQ related issues.
The special election was called earlier this year after the D.C. Council voted unanimously to expel White following his indictment and arrest by the FBI on a federal bribery charge in August 2024.
He has pleaded not guilty to the charge and under D.C. law he can legally run for and regain his council seat until the time he is convicted of the charge. His trial is scheduled to begin in January 2026.
The three candidates challenging White — Sheila Bunn, Mike Austin, and Salim Adofo — are longtime Ward 8 community advocates who have been involved in local government affairs for many years and, according to LGBTQ activists who know them, have been supportive of LGBTQ rights.
White also has a record of supporting LGBTQ issues while serving on the council since 2017. Following his indictment, he won re-election by a wide margin in the November 2024 general election against a lesser-known Republican opponent.
Political observers say White’s indictment on a bribery charge is likely to alienate some of his past supporters, but they say he remains popular in the ward, and with three candidates dividing the opposition vote he could win the election with less than 50 percent of the divided vote count.
Two of the candidates, Bunn and Adofo, responded to a request by the Washington Blade sent to each of the four candidates asking for a statement summarizing their positions on LGBTQ related issues. In their respective statements Bunn and Adofo expressed strong support on a wide range of LGBTQ issues.
“In my nearly 30 years of public service, I have consistently supported the rights and worked to improve the quality of life for the LGBTQIA+ community,” Bunn said in her statement. She noted that much of her work on behalf of LGBTQ rights took place when she served as chief of staff for D.C. Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and as a senior staff member for former D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray.
In his statement, Adofo said he advocated for a wide range of LGBTQ issues, including housing programs for homeless LGBTQ youth and supportive employment training programs for transgender residents.
“At the heart of our platform is a steadfast commitment to uplifting LGBTQ+ communities, ensuring that policy is shaped not just for them, but with them,” his statement says. Adofo’s positions in support of LGBTQ rights are also posted on his campaign website.
GLAA D.C, formerly known as the Gay and Lesbian Activists of Washington, released its ratings of three of the four candidates on June 22, based on its recent policy of basing its ratings mostly on non-LGBTQ specific issues. The group rates candidates on a scale of -10, the lowest possible rating, to +10, its highest rating.
It assigned a rating of +7.5 for Bunn, +6.5 for Austin, and +4.5 for Adofo. In a statement accompanying its ratings, GLAA said each of the three have a record of support on LGBTQ issues, but they lost rating points for not supporting non-LGBTQ related issues deemed important by GLAA.
GLAA said it did not issue a rating for White based on its policy of not rating candidates who are removed from office or resign due to allegations of ethics violations.
The Capital Stonewall Democrats, D.C.’s largest local LGBTQ political group, chose not to make an endorsement in the Ward 8 special election.
“We thought that this is best because this is a special election and in these unfamiliar times, we decided not to take a stand,” Howard Garrett, the group’s president, told the Blade.
Ward 8 gay Democratic activist Phil Pannell is supporting Adofo, he told the Blade, on grounds of Adofo’s strong support on LGBTQ issues and Adofo’s role as the only candidate in the Ward 8 special election who supported Initiative 83, the ballot measure passed by D.C. voters in November 2024 calling for a ranked choice voting system and open D.C. primaries. A lawsuit challenging the initiative filed by the D.C. Democratic Party has delayed its implementation.
Another longtime Ward 8 gay Democratic activist, David Meadows, is supporting Bunn. Meadows cites Bunn’s support for LGBTQ rights and her positions on other issues he supports as his reason for backing her candidacy.
The D.C. Board of Elections website shows that the board mailed ballots for the special election to all Ward 8 registered voters. The website shows that as of July 7, 2,483 voters sent back their ballots by mail or placed them in drop boxes located throughout the ward.
Early in-person voting at several polling places was scheduled to begin July 11, the website says, prior to the official election date of July 15 at all polling places throughout the ward.
Salim Adofo statement on LGBTQ issues:
Our campaign is rooted in the belief that everyone deserves to live with dignity, security, and opportunity. We are committed to building a safer, healthier, and more equitable District for all — where every voice is heard and every community is empowered. At the heart of our platform is a steadfast commitment to uplifting LGBTQ+ communities, ensuring that policy is shaped not just for them, but with them. We recognize that the fight for equity is interconnected, and we prioritize action in the areas that most deeply impact our residents’ daily lives. As [a] council member, I will advocate for healthcare for all, boost funding for HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, STD, and TB Administration (HAHSTA) programs to address disparities in health outcomes.
• Expand access to care by exempting digital-only telehealth services from the Certificate of Need (CON) process and increasing funding through the Department of Behavioral Health (DBH).
• Build a culturally competent workforce by removing licensure barriers and expanding the pipeline of LGBTQ+ mental health providers.
• Employment and economic equity: sustain workforce development efforts like Project LEAP, a successful investment in economic empowerment for TGD residents.
• Foster public-private partnerships by requiring D.C. HR to work with labor unions and local employers to host trans-affirming job fairs.
• Fund community-led training by supporting programs developed by TGD organizations, modeled after California’s Transgender Economic Empowerment Initiative.
• Housing with dignity: every LGBTQ+ resident deserves stable, affirming, and permanent housing. End youth homelessness with a community-centered strategic plan focused on expanding permanent housing and wraparound services.
• Support inclusive housing by continuing funding for LGBTQ+ housing vouchers and senior housing initiatives.
• Safety and community support: create safe shelters by investing $2 million in a 20-bed LGBTQIA2S+ shelter for survivors of intimate partner violence and sexual assault.
• Empower community organizations with no-cost capacity-building support and streamlined access to D.C. grants for LGBTQ+-serving CBOs.
Sheila Bunn statement on LGBTQ issues:
In my nearly 30 years of public service, I have consistently supported the rights and worked to improve the quality of life for the LGBTQIA+ community.
As chief of staff to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, I helped prevent Congress from overturning the District’s 2009 marriage equality bill and worked on removing congressional riders from the District’s budget that prohibited the expenditure of locally raised funds for our needle-exchange program, which has been pivotal in HIV/AIDS prevention.
As part of Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s senior staff, I assisted in launching the District’s transgender employment initiative under the Project Empowerment Program, increasing training and job opportunities for transgender residents. We also employed a member of the transgender cohort in the Mayor’s Office of Community Affairs after their tenure, demonstrating our commitment to the program. I facilitated efforts to end health insurance discrimination based on gender identity with DISB’s 2013 bulletin, ensuring coverage for services like mastectomies and hormone replacement therapy. Additionally, I helped to coordinate Mayor Gray’s first LGBTQIA+ Youth Town Hall to address the concerns of LGBTQIA+ youth and participated in cultural competency training to better support the District’s significant LGBTQIA+ population.
Currently, I am a member of the Capital Stonewall Democrats, actively engaging in Pride events and supporting LGBTQIA+ causes like the DC LGBTQ+ Community Center, a one-stop shop for services and programs with critical social service partners. Through direct outreach to organizations serving the LGBTQIA+ community, I aim to understand and represent their issues effectively. I look forward to collaborating with GLAA, Capital Stonewall Democrats, and other allied organizations to shape legislation and policies that benefit our LGBTQIA+ residents and all District residents.
El Salvador
#JusticiaParaKarla: una lucha por el derecho a la identidad en El Salvador
Karla Guevara inició su camino legal y personal en 2020

Cinco años han pasado desde que Karla Guevara inició un camino legal y personal para lograr que su nombre y género sean reconocidos en su Documento Único de Identidad (DUI). Cinco años de sentencias, apelaciones, puertas cerradas y vulneraciones que hoy se resumen en una sola palabra: resistencia.
En medio de un país que aún arrastra estructuras jurídicas y sociales poco sensibles a las realidades trans, Guevara se ha convertido en una voz visible. No solo por la denuncia pública de su caso, sino por su capacidad de transformar el dolor en acción: ha iniciado la campaña #JusticiaParaKarla, la cual acompaña con conversatorios llamados “Si tú fueras yo” en diferentes zonas del país.
Su historia se remonta al año 2018, cuando, junto a otras tres defensoras de derechos humanos —Mónica Hernández, Bianca Rodríguez y Verónica López— interpuso una demanda para lograr el cambio de nombre legal. La acción se inspiró en la Opinión Consultiva 24/17 de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, que obligó a los Estados miembros de la OEA a garantizar los derechos de las personas trans, incluyendo el reconocimiento de su identidad.
A diferencia de sus compañeras, cuyo proceso fue resuelto favorablemente, Guevara fue la única a quien el Estado salvadoreño le negó el derecho, incluso tras contar con una sentencia favorable. El camino ha sido empinado, desgastante y doloroso, y ha implicado múltiples etapas legales con resoluciones contradictorias.
El 8 de enero de 2020, el juzgado declaró su demanda improponible. Guevara apeló el 22 de ese mismo mes, pero la Cámara de Familia desestimó su recurso. Aun así, perseveró. En abril de 2021 presentó una segunda apelación, y en septiembre se revocó la decisión del juzgado, ordenando admitir su demanda. Una pequeña luz parecía abrirse.
En agosto de 2022, después de varios peritajes que, según Guevara, incluyeron momentos donde se sintió expuesta y violentada, recibió una sentencia favorable: se autorizaba su cambio de nombre y género en la partida de nacimiento. Sin embargo, esta victoria fue parcial y breve. Aunque se ordenó marginar su partida, no se ordenó cancelarla como en otros casos similares.
El 4 de octubre de ese mismo año, la sentencia fue enviada al Registro del Estado Familiar. Pero la respuesta institucional fue sorprendente: el 3 de noviembre, la Alcaldía de San Salvador se negó a realizar el cambio. El jefe del registro y el registrador presentaron un amparo ante la Sala de lo Constitucional, paralizando el proceso.
“No solo me lo negaron, sino que ahora me exponen a un juicio aún mayor”, expresa Guevara. La frustración y la indignación fueron creciendo. En febrero de 2023, presentó una denuncia ante la Fiscalía General de la República, aunque lo hizo con poca esperanza. “Temía que no harían nada”, dijo. Y el 16 de abril de 2024, sus temores se confirmaron: la Fiscalía archivó el caso alegando que “no existe delito que perseguir”.
El 19 de noviembre de ese mismo año, Guevara decidió acudir a instancias internacionales y presentó su caso ante la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. La CIDH ya notificó al Estado salvadoreño y le otorgó un plazo de cuatro meses para responder por qué no ha ejecutado el cambio ordenado por el juzgado.
“Obviamente no van a dar respuesta”, lamenta Guevara. Lo dice con la voz entrecortada, como quien ya ha llorado mucho, pero no ha perdido la voluntad de hablar. Reconoce que el proceso le ha afectado emocionalmente. “Cada vez que hablo de esto se me corta la voz”.
Las heridas no solo vienen de las oficinas estatales, sino también de las calles. Las miradas, los comentarios, el momento de presentar el DUI en cualquier trámite. “Es como si cada vez tuviera que explicar mi existencia. Es un juicio constante sobre quién soy”.
Guevara no está sola. Reconoce que hay otras personas trans en la misma situación. “Lo preocupante es que solo pasa en algunas zonas del país. En otras ha habido casos exitosos”, afirma. La disparidad en el trato revela una preocupante arbitrariedad institucional.
Uno de esos casos exitosos es el de Valeria Mejía, coordinadora de monitoreo y evaluación de ASPIDH. Su DUI ya refleja su nombre identitario, aunque no su género.
“Cuando recibí mi DUI con el nombre que me identifico pensé: aquí empieza una nueva vida”, relata.
Para Mejía, el cambio fue profundamente simbólico. “Uno ve pasar toda su vida frente a los ojos. Toda la discriminación, todos los rechazos. Sentí que algo sanaba”. A pesar de ello, su género asignado al nacer sigue apareciendo en el documento, lo que le genera inseguridad.
“El problema es que tengo que ir a todas las instituciones donde aparezco con mi nombre anterior. En el Seguro Social, por ejemplo, aún estoy registrada con el nombre masculino y no pueden atenderme, aunque el número del DUI sea el mismo”, explica.
Casos como los de Guevara y Mejía visibilizan una problemática estructural: el Estado salvadoreño no garantiza de forma uniforme el derecho a la identidad de las personas trans. Las resoluciones favorables son solo el primer paso. Su implementación efectiva aún tropieza con prejuicios, burocracia y omisiones.
Con la campaña #JusticiaParaKarla, la activista busca más que una solución a su caso personal. Busca generar conciencia, exigir coherencia legal y empujar una transformación cultural. En la marcha del 17 de mayo contra la LGBTIfobia, su presencia se hizo notar con camisetas, banners y mensajes que interpelan directamente al sistema.
Guevara ha hecho de su cuerpo, su voz y su historia una herramienta de resistencia. En cada conversatorio de “Si tú fueras yo”, invita a imaginar, a empatizar, a incomodarse.
“Lo que me pasa a mí le puede pasar a cualquier persona trans. Y si el Estado no nos reconoce, nos niega también la posibilidad de existir plenamente”, expresa.
Hoy, la resolución está en manos de la CIDH y el tiempo corre. La lucha de Guevara ya no es solo por una partida de nacimiento. Es por el derecho a ser, a vivir sin miedo, a que el nombre que la representa no siga siendo un motivo de juicio, burla o rechazo.
Mientras tanto, sigue esperando. Sigue alzando la voz. Sigue sembrando esperanza en quienes vienen detrás. Porque como ella misma dice: “Esto no se trata solo de mí. Se trata de justicia”.