News
Utah couples ‘humble and proud’ after day in court
Att’y gen’l apologizes for putting them ‘through this pain’
Plaintiff same-sex couples in the Utah marriage equality case (Washington Blade photo by Chris Johnson)
After more than an hour of legal arguments on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage, the scene at the Byron White Court House took on a hopeful tone as plaintiff couples spoke to the media about their involvement in litigation seeking marriage equality in Utah.
Derek Kitchen, the namesake of the case, known as Kitchen v. Herbert, said he stands before the court “humble and proud” that the court has given so much weight to the arguments in the case, then embraced his partner, Moudi Sbeity, and gave him a kiss.
Kody Partridge, who’s also seeking the ability to marry her partner, Laurie Wood, expressed a similar sentiment when addressing reporters.
“We are hopeful that we will see a wonderful decision coming out of this court,” Partridge said.
The two were among the six same-sex plaintiff couples who were present in the courtroom as oral arguments were heard before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges appeared split over whether they wanted to uphold the ban, known as Amendment 3, or overturn it as a result of the appeal.
Mark Lawrence, director of the Salt Lake City-based Restore Our Humanity, was also present outside the courthouse and was optimistic the court would rule favorably on the lawsuit he helped initiate.
“I think there’s going to be a 2-1 decision,” Lawrence told the Blade. “I think that was made pretty obvious when we heard the state, and my general impression of the whole thing is I think the state is trying very, very hard to take the humanity out of this case, or trying to make it a thing instead of a case about people, and I just don’t think they can do that.”
Speaking before reporters, Kitchen was reluctant to answer questions about the legal arguments presented during the case, nor would he venture to predict which way the judges would rule, saying, “That’s not my job.”
But he did talk more about the impact of anti-gay marriage laws on couples like him and his partner.
“We are loving and committed individuals who have committed to each other,” Kitchen said.
During the news conference, a reporter said Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes was seen talking to the plaintiffs in the aftermath of the hearing and telling them, “Sorry for putting you through this pain.”
Addressing reporters to emphasize the state’s position that the marriage issue should be resolved not through the courts, but the “democratic process,” Reyes acknowledged he spoke with plaintiffs and said something along those lines.
“I offered them my best wishes,” Reyes said. “I did express to them that I was sorry that there was feeling pain. Again, this is not an easy thing to do when you know that the people you really care about on both sides of the issue will be affected very significantly and very personally. I wanted them to know that it wasn’t personal; I wanted them to appreciate that I recognize their families are as important to them as my family is to me.”
Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is assisting in the case, said in a statement after the arguments she was heartened by what she heard.
“As a Utah native, today was a proud moment as Utah residents poignantly brought their families’ stories to a federal appeals court and made a basic request for equal treatment under our nation’s Constitution,” Kendell said. “We are optimistic the court will agree that excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry causes harm and allowing couples to marry strengthens families and hurts no one. “
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.
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
