Connect with us

News

Utah places ‘on hold’ recognition of same-sex marriages

Letter to staff comes after Supreme Court issued a stay on gay nuptials

Published

on

Gary Herbert, Utah, Republican Party, gay news, Washington Blade
Gary Herbert, Utah, Republican Party, gay news, Washington Blade

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

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

Gay-owned pizzeria in Dupont Circle burglarized

Protest Pizza owners say community has expressed support

Published

on

From left: Protest Pizza co-owners Ricky Bennett and Randy Downs. The two men say they have received an outpouring of community support after Protest Pizza was burglarized on Aug. 21, 2026. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Gay activist Randy Downs said he and his business and life partner Ricky Bennett are grateful for the support they have received from the Dupont Circle community after they released a video showing a suspect breaking into their recently opened pizza shop and taking money from a cash register shortly before 3 a.m. on Friday, Aug. 21.

The surveillance video shows a man wearing black clothing with his face covered, smashing the glass front door of Protest Pizza, located at 1633 ½ P St., N.W. The video, which Downs and Bennett provided to D.C. police, also shows the suspect climbing over the bar to get to a cash register, which he opened to take out cash.

A D.C. police report obtained by the Washington Blade lists the incident as a Burglary in the Second Degree and says the owners reported “approximately $78 in cash” was taken from the cash register.  The report says the incident is not listed as a suspected hate crime.

Downs told the Washington Blade that after he and Bennett reported the break-in and theft on social media, they received an overwhelming showing of support from neighbors and others, including business owners, from across the nation. 

“The break-in was upsetting, but it is not what will define Protest Pizza,” Downs said. “What defines us is how quickly people showed up,” he told the Blade. “One person came looking for a cash register; our community saw a gathering place worth protecting. The response reminded us that Protest’s real value was never in the register.”

Downs said he and Bennett, who live around the corner on the section of 17th Street, N.W., near several other bars and restaurants, including the gay bar JRs are located, opened Protest Pizza in November 2025.

“Ricky and I built Protest Pizza as a positive, welcoming, queer owned neighborhood restaurant and bar — a space for protest and joy,” he said.

A D.C. police spokesperson said police offer a reward of up to $1,000 for information leading to an arrest and conviction of a suspect responsible for the type of burglary and theft that occurred at Protest Pizza. Police say anyone with information to help solve this type of crime should call the police tipline at 202-727-9099.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Advocates honored at Engendered Spirit Awards

Annual ceremony held at conclusion of Trans Pride DC

Published

on

From left, Bianca Sprague, Vida Rangel and SC Nealy attend the 2026 SaVanna Wanzer Engendered Spirit Awards at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library on Aug. 22, 2026. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The 2026 SaVanna Wanzer Engendered Spirit Awards ceremony took place at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library in D.C. on Saturday. The ceremony was held at the conclusion of the day-long Trans Pride DC: Encore.

Honorees included D.C. Mayor’s Office of Community Affairs Deputy Director Vida Rangel; the LGBT+ Counseling Collaborative, Inc.; and Connor Keuntje, CLP, CLPC.

Trans Pride DC: Encore was held throughout Saturday with several workshop sessions and a virtual conversation with actress and advocate Dominique Jackson.

The annual Engendered Spirit Awards were renamed the “SaVanna Wanzer Engendered Spirit Awards” in honor of SaVanna Wanzer, founder of D.C. Trans Pride. Wanzer died on April 24 of this year.

Speakers at the ceremony included Japer Bowles, director of the D.C. Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs and Bianca Sprague, executive director of D.C. Trans Pride.

“The intent behind this award and honoring members of our communities, organizations, and allies, is to really elevate all of the work that they’re doing to provide resources, tools, learning opportunities and connections: centering trans folks, gender non-conforming, and gender diverse individuals,” Sprague said.

Continue Reading

India

Proposed Indian foreign funding law overhaul could further pressure LGBTQ groups

Measure introduced in Parliament earlier this year

Published

on

Activists on Sept. 21, 2024, attend a conference in Chennai, India, that focused on climate change and how it impacts transgender women. A proposed overhaul to India's foreign funding law could further pressure advocacy groups that are already struggling to secure funding. (Courtesy photo)

India’s proposed overhaul of its foreign funding law could put LGBTQ organizations that depend on overseas donations under new pressure. 

Introduced in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Parliament, on March 25, the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, or FCRA, would give a government-designated authority control over foreign funds, and assets when an organization loses or surrenders its registration.

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill returned to the spotlight this month as the Indian government prepared to seek its passage during Parliament’s Monsoon Session; drawing fierce opposition from political parties, civil society groups and religious organizations.

The government says the bill is intended to address gaps in the management of foreign funds and assets when an organization’s FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered, or expires. The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, would create a Designated Authority to oversee the vesting, supervision, management, and disposal of foreign contributions and assets when an organization’s FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered , or ceases. If a vested asset is a place of worship, the authority would be required to preserve its religious character. The FCRA would also reduce the maximum prison term for violating the law from five years to one year.

The changes could also make it difficult for organizations to leave the FCRA regime without surrendering assets created with foreign funds. Under the bill, an organization would have to keep renewing its FCRA certificate to retain those assets. FCRA rules also impose spending requirements on organizations seeking to maintain their certificates.

The bill may also create a distinction between assets created by organizations with FCRA registration and those created through the separate prior-permission route.

More significantly, neither the existing law nor the bill provides an appeal mechanism when the central government refuses to renew an FCRA certificate. They also do not expressly require the organization to be given an opportunity to be heard before renewal is denied. Under the proposed framework, such a denial could trigger the vesting of the organization’s foreign-funded assets in the Designated Authority.

The bill would also widen the circle of people who could face consequences for an organization’s FCRA violations. 

Its definition of “key functionary” extends beyond directors and office bearers to trustees, governing-body members, managing-committee members and others responsible for an organization’s affairs. Those functionaries could be held liable for offenses committed by the organization, unless they can show that they were unaware of the violation or had exercised due diligence to prevent it. The FCRA bill would also impose restrictions on dealing with foreign-funded assets during a suspension and leave several important operational details — including timelines and procedures for managing and returning assets — to rules that have yet to be prescribed.

Parliament on Aug 12 moved to refer the FCRA bill to a parliamentary committee for further scrutiny and wider consultations. 

Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai moved the motion in the Lok Sabha, to refer the bill to a committee comprising 21 members of the lower house and 10 members of the Rajya Sabha, Parliament’s upper house. 

The Rajya Sabha subsequently approved the nomination of its 10 members to the committee. The panel is expected to submit its report by the last day of the first week of Parliament’s Winter Session.

The proposed changes could have significant implications for LGBTQ organizations that rely on the FCRA framework to receive foreign contributions. (The global LGBTQ and intersex rights movement since the Trump-Vance administration took office in 2025 has lost nearly $50 million in U.S. funding because of foreign aid cuts. One source with whom the Washington Blade spoke described the funding loss as a “catastrophe” for the global movement.)

While the government does not appear to have published an easily accessible, consolidated list of LGBTQ organizations receiving such funding, FCRA registration records and organizations’ financial disclosures indicate that foreign contributions have supported LGBTQ rights, healthcare, and community services in India.

K.C. Venugopal, general secretary of the opposition Indian National Congress, told reporters his party and other opposition parties would strongly protest the legislation if it were introduced in Parliament. He said the bill was aimed at targeting minorities and NGOs and vowed that the opposition would oppose its passage.

Venugopal called the proposed legislation “unconstitutional and anti-people.” 

“If the Central Government thinks they can cook up and introduce the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill within these two or three days, they should keep that wish to themselves,” he told reporters in Alappuzha, Kerala, on Aug. 9.

“Three provisions worry LGBTQ+ organizations like ours most directly,” said Souvik Saha, founder of People for Change and Jamshedpur Queer Circle. “First, the 2026 bill would let a government-appointed ‘Designated Authority’ take control of an organization’s foreign-funded assets— bank balances, equipments, sometimes even property— the moment its FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered, or simply not renewed, and this happens through an administrative process, without prior judicial adjudication. For a small community organization, that means losing everything we have built — case files, shelter infrastructure, helpline equipment — almost overnight, with no court hearing first.”

Saha told the Blade the revised FCRA Rules announced in June introduced a minimum spending threshold: organizations must spend at least $10,449 in foreign contributions over two financial years or risk cancellation and non-renewal of their registration.

“This specifically penalizes small and grassroots groups that deliberately keep their foreign funding modest — which describes most LGBTQ organizations in India, including ours,” said Saha. “We are not running core-scale budgets; we are running helplines, safe spaces, and district-level outreach on modest grants.”

Saha told the Blade that the ban on sub-granting, carried over from the 2020 amendment, means larger, well-established rights organizations cannot pass foreign funds to smaller, unregistered LGBTQ collectives that could not obtain FCRA registration themselves. He said rights groups have long described the restriction as a near “death knell” for hundreds of small nongovernmental organizations that work collaboratively with larger organizations, adding that LGBTQ groups outside major metropolitan areas depend heavily on such funding arrangements.

“Domestic funding for LGBTQ work in India is still thin, CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) money avoids us because we are seen as ‘controversial,’ and most Indian foundations would not touch gender-identity programming,” Saha said. “So foreign funding is not a convenience for organizations working with the transgender and LGBTQ community, it is often always funding.”

Continue Reading

Popular