News
Utah places ‘on hold’ recognition of same-sex marriages
Letter to staff comes after Supreme Court issued a stay on gay nuptials

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert has placed on hold recognition of same-sex marriages in Utah. (Photo public domain)
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert has placed on hold recognition of same-sex marriages in the state following a stay on gay nuptials put in place this week by the Supreme Court.
The governor’s chief of staff Derek Miller indicated recognition of same-sex marriages would be placed on hold in an email Tuesday to Cabinet members on Herbert’s staff.
“Based on counsel from the Attorney General’s Office regarding the Supreme Court decision, state recognition of same-sex marital status is ON HOLD until further notice,” Miller writes.
On Monday, the Supreme Court placed a stay on marriage equality in Utah, which started occurring in the state on Dec. 20 after U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled against Amendment 3, the state law prohibiting same-sex marriage. Utah state officials — Herbert and Attorney General Sean Reyes— requested the stay on gay nuptials pending the results of the litigation, which is currently before the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Although the letter doesn’t explicitly say for how long the hold recognition on same-sex marriages will last, the suggestion is that the state won’t recognize the marriages until the courts say otherwise. Nate McDonald, a Herbert spokesperson, said the hold on recognition of same-sex marriages will continue “until it goes through the legal process.”
Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, criticized Herbert for the decision, saying it “harms hundreds of Utah families” seeking legal protections.
“Governor Herbert has once again planted himself firmly on the side of discrimination by preserving the second-class status he believes gay and lesbian Utahans merit,” Griffin said. “These families deserve better and I have no doubt the courts will soon grant them the justice and equality that our Constitution demands.”
Elizabeth Cooper, a law professor at Fordham Law School, said Utah has taken a highly unusual step by not recognizing the same-sex marriages because a stay should only freeze more from occurring and not be retroactive.
“Although the state may believe it is stabilizing the situation, it, in fact, is adding more uncertainty to the situation,” Cooper said. “The issue of whether same-sex couples may marry in Utah ultimately will be answered by the courts, not by the state’s unilateral action. Had it wanted to legitimately roll back the clock, the state should have petitioned the courts with its request.”
One question that remains is whether the federal government will recognize the same-sex marriages if Utah won’t recognize them. On Wednesday, Dena Iverson, a Justice Department spokesperson, said, “The department is reviewing the governor’s decision.”
Adam Umhoefer, executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, joined other LGBT advocates in calling for federal government to recognize the marriages.
“These families should not be stuck in legal limbo while the State’s appeal plays out,” Umhoefer said. “We call on the federal government to give them some measure of human dignity to which they are constitutionally entitled by recognizing their marriages under federal law.”
The complete email follows:
Dear Cabinet,
I’m sure you are all aware of the issuance of the stay regarding same-sex marriage in Utah from the United States Supreme Court yesterday. This stay effectively puts a hold on the decision of the district court, which found state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage in Utah to be unconstitutional.
After the district court decision was issued on Friday, December 20th, some same-sex couples availed themselves of the opportunity to marry and to the status granted by the state to married persons. This office sent an email to each of you soon after the district court decision, directing compliance.
With the district court injunction now stayed, the original laws governing marriage in Utah return to effect pending final resolution by the courts. It is important to understand that those laws include not only a prohibition of performing same-sex marriages but also recognizing same-sex marriages.
Based on counsel from the Attorney General’s Office regarding the Supreme Court decision, state recognition of same-sex marital status is ON HOLD until further notice. Please understand this position is not intended to comment on the legal status of those same-sex marriages – that is for the courts to decide. The intent of this communication is to direct state agency compliance with current laws that prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages.
Wherever individuals are in the process of availing themselves of state services related to same-sex marital status, that process is on hold and will stay exactly in that position until a final court decision is issued. For example, if a same-sex married couple previously changed their names on new drivers licenses, those licenses should not be revoked. If a same-sex couple seeks to change their names on drivers licenses now, the law does not allow the state agency to recognize the marriage therefore the new drivers licenses cannot be issued.
We appreciate your patience and diligence in this matter. We recognize that different state agencies have specific questions and circumstances that will need to be worked through. Please do so with the Assistant Attorney General assigned to your respective agency in coordination with the Governor’s General Counsel. We also recognize that these changes affect real people’s lives. Let us carefully and considerately ensure that we, and our employees throughout the state, continue to treat all people with respect and understanding as we assist them.
Regards,
Derek B. Miller
Chief of Staff
Governor’s Office
State of Utah
Rehoboth Beach
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Attendees encouraged to wear appropriate gear
Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach hosts a monthly leather happy hour. April’s edition is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 5-7 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to wear appropriate gear. The event is billed as an official event of BLUF, the free community group for men interested in leather. After happy hour, the attendees are encouraged to reconvene at Local Bootlegging Company for dinner, which allows cigar smoking. There’s no cover charge for either event.
District of Columbia
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.
Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.
A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.).
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
-
Opinions5 days agoD.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
-
The White House5 days agoTrump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
-
South Carolina4 days agoMan faces first S.C. ‘hate intimidation’ charge
-
District of Columbia5 days agoKey lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
