News
Gay Mormons relish the opportunity to marry in Utah
Same-sex couples marry in state following court decision

Gay Mormons relish the opportunity to marry following the Utah court ruling. (photo from wikimedia by Joe Ravi)
For lesbian couple Terri Henry and Perry Kirby, the court ruling instituting marriage equality in Utah and granting them the ability to wed allowed them to affirm the Mormon values with which they were raised.
Although Henry, 51, and Kirby, 47, no longer identify as members of the Church of Latter-day Saints, they say their upbringing compelled them to marry at Salt Lake County on Monday.
Henry, who left the church after it filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court in favor of Proposition 8, said LDS teaching showed her the importance of marriage — even if it’s to someone of the same gender.
“Being raised in a very strong community that values family, that values commitment and sacrifice to one another, that was something I wanted to continue with my life,” Henry said.
For Kirby, who went on a mission for the church to the Netherlands in the mid-1980s, she wanted to marry her partner of four years because she came to learn through the Mormon Church that “family is so important.”
“I was ingrained with family being one of the most important things in life,” Kirby said. “The ability to serve another, and to sacrifice for each other is important, and having that connection makes that expectation more cemented.”
The couple initially tried to obtain a marriage license in Utah County on Friday, but they were turned away. According to media reports, that county was still denying marriage licenses as of Monday.
Although the Mormon Church is known for being a stalwart advocate for family and marriage, that ideology isn’t supposed to apply to same-sex couples. The church has been a leading opponent of same-sex marriage, donating millions to oppose its legalization.
Upon the news last week that U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby had issued a decision instituting marriage equality throughout the state, the Church of Latter-day Saints reaffirmed its position against same-sex marriage.
“The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect,” the statement says. “This ruling by a district court will work its way through the judicial process. We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court.”
In 2008, during the battle over California’s Proposition 8, the Mormon Church took a lead role in organizing support for an amendment that stripped marriage rights for gay couples. Although the church largely sat on the sidelines over the 2012 ballot initiatives on marriage, Mormons leaders took an active role in attempting to stop the legalization of same-sex marriage in Hawaii.
Kirby said she’s sad for the church because it doesn’t extend its support of strong families to gay and lesbian couples seeking to wed.
“There’s is a church that was founded coming out of oppression and they have now turned into the bullies themselves,” Kirby said. “They, of all people, should be supportive and understanding and be able to step away from their dogma.”
That’s the same sentiment that Perry expressed with regard to the Mormon Church’s opposition to gay nuptials.
“I feel like everything that the Mormon Church has gone through, from their early ages of persecution, now I think because of the fear that they have, they really, really don’t know how to handle gay couples,” Perry said.
As Kirby noted, the decision brings the issue to the doorstep of the church headquarters in Salt Lake City.
“This shift that has happened on their home turf hopefully will speak to them that this is miraculous in a good, positive way and that we can all be OK, we can all be fine, no one’s threatened,” Kirby said. “All families have space to be together.”
Spencer Clark, executive director of Mormons for Equality, affirmed that the ruling from the district enabled gay Mormons to gain access to the institution they hold dear as part of their values.
“While Mormons have organized to advocate for the equal treatment of families across the country, it is particularly sweet to have this decision come down in the heartland of our faith,” Clark said. “We pray with confidence that it will be upheld as the inevitable appeals ensue, but take this time to express gratitude for the progress that this ruling represents – particularly for the many families who will ultimately be stronger and more secure as a result.”
What is the couple’s next plan? Kirby said it’s simple, “We’re going to take a nap.” The couple had camped out before the clerk’s office in Salt Lake City early in the morning to ensure they’d be able to receive a license Monday morning. There will be time to celebrate at a candlelight vigil later in the evening and during Christmas at home.
“We have a really great new ornament that says, ‘Our first Christmas together in 2013,” Kirby said. “While we’ve shared Christmas together, this is our first married Christmas, and that is an amazing thing.”
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says Pentagon will appeal to SCOTUS
A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled that President Donald Trump’s policy banning transgender troops likely violates their constitutional rights.
The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump’s Executive Order 14183, also known as “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was created with the intent to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.
The policy argues that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history of or signs of gender dysphoria as the cause. According to the Defense Department, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.”
The policy states that, regardless of the physical or intellectual capabilities of each applicant, it views trans military applicants as a monolith, considering them less qualified than their cisgender peers.
Despite the panel’s majority opinion issued on Monday, the first day of Pride Month, the ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to enforce the policy last year and will continue to allow it to remain in place as litigation proceeds.
The panel’s new ruling will prevent the military from discharging current service members named in the lawsuit, but it does not allow new transrecruits to join.
The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins, a Democratic appointee of President Barack Obama wrote for the majority.
Judge Justin Walker, the author of the dissenting opinion and a Republican Trump appointee, argued that the authority to determine military policy does not rest with the courts. Instead, he wrote, the Constitution grants that power to Congress through legislation and to the president as commander in chief of the armed forces.
“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the commander-in-chief,” Walker wrote.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that an appeal is in the works, posting, “See you at SCOTUS” on X on Monday in response to the ruling.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which has led the litigation since last November, applauded the decision.
“Today’s decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” Levi said.
The Washington Blade spoke with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott of the U.S. Army, the lead plaintiff in the case, and Levi from GLAD Law back in November.
While discussing the case and his experiences as a trans service member, Talbott said his identity is an asset rather than a hindrance, particularly when it comes to identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others may think or say.
“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through,” Talbott told the Blade. “This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today … my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”
He also discussed the impact of removing qualified and dedicated service members from the military, arguing that the consequences will be felt long after Trump leaves office.
“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals … those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody,” he said. “[That’s] military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”
“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that … We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”
Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible to the Blade.
“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”
She also argued that the administration’s cost justification is flawed, saying that removing and replacing trans service members is more expensive than retaining them.
“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost … it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people … than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”
National
Results from key Tuesday primary races
State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election.
The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump.
In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.
In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.
In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.
The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple.
Congress
10 HIV/AIDS activists arrested on Capitol Hill
Protesters interrupted Secretary of State Marco Rubio during hearing
U.S. Capitol Police on Tuesday arrested 10 HIV/AIDS activists who protested Secretary of State Marco Rubio during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
The activists from Housing Works, Health GAP, the Treatment Action Group, and ACT UP held signs and chanted “Rubio’s Cuts Kill People with AIDS, PEPFAR Saves Lives!” before officers removed them from Dirksen Senate Office Building room where the hearing took place.
A media advisory the Washington Blade received before the protest noted “mounting evidence of Rubio’s attempts to sabotage PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, U.S. bilateral AIDS program) and vital global health programs.” The press release specifically highlighted three specific points:
• Eliminating Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) lifesaving PEPFAR programs, which currently support approximately 12 million people on HIV treatment across 51 countries. Instead, Rubio intends to dismantle CDC’s current PEPFAR role and stamp out their global footprint in disease outbreak and surveillance for pandemics beyond HIV. Experts including eight former CDC Directors under Republican and Democratic administrations have spoken out against this effort to dismantle PEPFAR. Recent PEPFAR data showed sharp decreases in the numbers of people newly tested, diagnosed, and treated for HIV, but these data would have been even worse if not for CDC’s PEPFAR programs.
• Withholding $2 billion in Congressionally appropriated FY25 funding, including $330 million to combat HIV, $250 million to fight malaria, $320 million for maternal and child health programs, and nearly $650 million in global health security programs.
• Negotiating secret bilateral deals blackmailing African governments by demanding access to critical mineral wealth as a condition of access to HIV treatment and prevention funding.
The groups have staged several protests against the Trump-Vance administration’s HIV/AIDS policies since it took office.
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates.
The New York Times last summer reported Vought “apportioned” only $2.9 billion of $6 billion that Congress set aside for PEPFAR for fiscal year 2025. (PEPFAR in the coming fiscal year will use funds allocated in fiscal year 2024.)
Bipartisan opposition in the U.S. Senate prompted the Trump-Vance administration last July withdraw a proposal to cut $400 million from PEPFAR’s budget. Vought a few weeks later said he would use a “pocket rescission” to cancel $4.9 billion for HIV/AIDS prevention and global health programs and other foreign aid assistance initiatives that Congress had already approved.
The White House in January expanded the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid for groups that promote “gender ideology.” President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the original regulation, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services. Advocacy groups insist the expanded rule will adversely impact HIV prevention efforts around the world.
“Congress must stop Secretary Rubio before he dismantles PEPFAR,” said Treatment Action Group’s Kendall Martinez-Wright. “Rubio continues to defy the will of Congress and the American people who want this program restored and repaired. Under his leadership he is diverting funding and trying to eliminate the essential role of technical experts in global HIV and global health, while program performance is flailing.”
