Connect with us

News

Utah judge legalizes same-sex marriage

No stay in decision means gay couples can apply for licenses immediately

Published

on

Seth Anderson, Michael Ferguson, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, Utah, Salt Lake City, gay news, Washington Blade
Seth Anderson, Michael Ferguson, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, Utah, Salt Lake City, gay news, Washington Blade

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-pageĀ 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 Utahā€™s prohibition on same- sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitutionā€™s guarantees of equal protection and due process under the law,” Shelby writes. “The Stateā€™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 ā€” handed down in response to a request for summary judgment from all parties involved ā€” 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.

 

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 courtā€™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 Generalā€™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.

ā€œI 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.ā€

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” ā€” 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 countryā€™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 ā€“ Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity; Karen Archer and Kate Call; and Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge ā€” whoĀ were represented by the law firm of Magleby & Greenwood.Ā 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,Ā 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 Scaliaā€™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 Utahā€™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 humanĀ dignity and liberty by denying them the freedom to marry the partner of their choice. Utahā€™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 ā€“ 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.ā€

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

Bill to support LGBTQ+ seniors in rural areas reintroduced

‘LGBTQ+ elders and older people living with HIV live in every part of this nation & should be able to access services and care’

Published

on

(Washington Blade file photo by Lou Chibbaro, Jr.)

WASHINGTON ā€“ Representatives Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Mark Pocan (D-WI), and Sharice Davids (D-KS) reintroduced legislation to increase access to needed services and resources for LGBTQ+ seniors who live in rural areas this week.

The Elder Pride Act would bolster the capacity and ability of Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) located in rural communities to better serve and support LGBTQ+ seniors who often require affirming care, services, and supports that are often underfunded and scarce in many parts of the country.

Recent surveys show that between 2.9 million and 3.8 million LGBTQ+ people live in rural American communities.

ā€œLGBTQ+ elders and older people living with HIV live in every part of this nation, including rural areas. We all deserve to be able to age in our communities with the services and supports we need to remain independent,ā€ SAGE CEO Michael Adams said in the press release announcing the reintroduction of the legislation. ā€œWe commend Representatives Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Mark Pocan (D-WI), and Sharice Davids (D-KS) on reintroducing the Elder Pride Act. And we honor the contributions of our many LGBTQ+ trailblazers whose tireless advocacy allowed us to reintroduce this critical bill. We look forward to working alongside Reps. Bonamici, Pocan, and Davids, and our LGBTQ+ pioneers nationwide to pass this legislation.ā€

ā€œLGBTQI+ seniors should be able to access services and care that meets their unique needs, regardless of where they live,ā€ said Rep. Bonamici, Chair of the Equality Caucusā€™ LGBTQ+ Aging Issues Task Force.ā€Those who live in rural areas frequently face increased barriers, which Congress can break down. The Elder Pride Act will increase resources for programs and services that will improve the lives of LGBTQI+ elders.ā€

ā€œThe Elder Pride Act will improve the overall health and social and economic well-being of LGBTQI+ older adults and seniors living with HIV in rural areas by better equipping senior service providers with resources to address the unique needs of these communities. Iā€™m pleased to introduce this important legislation with my colleagues and co-leaders on the Equality Caucus, Reps. Pocan and Davids,ā€ Bonamici added.

ā€œRural LGBTQI+ seniors have been lacking access to necessary services and care for too long,ā€ said Pocan, Co-Chair of the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus. ā€œThe Elder Pride Act creates opportunities for LGBTQ+ seniors in rural communities, benefiting everyone in the region. I look forward to advancing this important legislation.ā€

ā€œMany of our LGBTQ+ elders fought tirelessly for equality in a world that refused to accept their identity,ā€ said Rep. Davids. ā€œWhile they overcame tremendous odds to give future generations the rights they deserve, our elders, particularly those in rural communities, continue to face discrimination when accessing long-term care and healthcare. I am proud to support the Elder Pride Act because who you are and who you love should never increase your risk for isolation, poverty, and poor health outcomes as you age.ā€

The Elder Pride Act complements the Older American Act, which was updated under Bonamiciā€™s leadership, by establishing a rural grant program designed to fund care and services for LGBTQI+ seniors. The grant would also support programs that:

ā€¢ provide services such as cultural competency training for service providers;

ā€¢ develop modes of connection between LGBTQI+ older adults and local service providers and community organizations;

ā€¢ expand the use of nondiscrimination policies and community spaces for older adults who are members of the LGBTQI+ community or another protected class; and,

ā€¢ disseminate resources on sexual health and aging for senior service providers.

A fact sheet on the legislation can be found here, and the full text can be found here.

Continue Reading

Virginia

Youngkin vetoes bill that would have expanded Va. bullying definition

Bisexual state Del. Joshua Cole introduced House Bill 536

Published

on

Republican Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin speaks at a CNN Town Hall on March 9, 2023. (Screen capture via CNN)

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin on Friday vetoed a bill that would have added sexual orientation, gender identity and expression to the state’s definition of bullying.

Lawmakers earlier this year approved House Bill 536, which bisexual state Del. Joshua Cole (D-Fredericksburg) introduced. 

“While I agree with the general purpose of the legislation, regrettably, the General Assembly did not approve my amendments,” said Youngkin in a statement. “Those recommendations would have expanded the definition of bullying to encompass all possible motives.”

“School administrators must work to prevent bullying and support our students’ mental health through a healthy learning environment, but the narrow definition provided in the legislation could be interpreted to exclude groups not included in the Virginia Human Rights Act, such as bullying victims raised with traditional values or those who are in foster care,” added the Republican.

Continue Reading

Congress

House ethics complaint filed over GOP staffer’s anti-trans email

Rep. Carol Miller’s chief of staff defended his actions

Published

on

Matthew Donnellan, chief of staff to Republican U.S. Rep. Carol Miller (W.Va.), in 2012. (Screenshot/YouTube San Diego City Beat)

A federal government employee has filed a complaint to the U.S. House Ethics Committee over an email they received from Matthew Donnellan, chief of staff to Republican U.S. Rep. Carol Miller (W.Va.), which contained combative and anti-trans language. 

The Washington Blade has seen the correspondence between the parties, in which the confrontation was apparently kicked off when the congresswomanā€™s top aide received an email that included the senderā€™s preferred pronouns in the signature box, triggering his reply.

Donnellan wrote, “As a father, it is disgusting that anyone would ever tell my son or daughter that something is wrong with them and they should take sterilizing hormones or have surgery to cut off their genitals.”  

“The fact that you support that ideology by putting pronouns in your signature is awful,ā€ he said, adding, ā€œYouā€™re disgusting and should be ashamed of yourself. Donā€™t email me or anyone from my office ever again.ā€ 

A senior government official told the Blade in a written statement that the email was not out of character for Donnellan:

 ā€œIā€™ve heard from two colleagues several months apart about two separate transphobic emails, using identical language, from Matthew. Unfortunately these emailsā€”though inconsistent with the typical collegiality one would expect from a Chief of Staff on the Hillā€”is likely a reflection of both increased partisanship on the Hill and a rise in anti-LGBTQ rhetoric from the right.

ā€œNot only is this virtual, hate-filled temper tantrum unbecoming of a Chief of Staff, inappropriate, and unprofessional, it also hurts his bossā€™s constituents. DC is built on congressional staff, members of Congress, and executive officials being able to put aside their differences to find unlikely areas of commonality where they can work together. 

ā€œEven some of the most progressive members, like [U.S. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) and Jerry Nadler (N.Y.)] have partnered with some of the most conservative members, like [U.S. Reps. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) and Jim Jordan (Ohio)], respectively, when they can find common ground. 

ā€œMatthewā€™s refusal to work with an agency department or office just because a staffer has pronouns in their signature isnā€™t just hatefulā€”it means heā€™s cutting off opportunities to deliver results for his bossā€™s constituents, especially in a divided Washington.ā€

Donnellan told the Blade by email that his response to the government employee is ā€œa reply I send to anyone who uses pronouns or pushes gender ideology in any way.ā€ 

ā€œNo one is ā€˜born in the wrong bodyā€™ and it’s horrific to tell anyone that they need genital mutilation surgery or sterilizing drugs,ā€ he said. ā€œPeople who push gender ideology, actively or passively, are awful and should be confronted every single time.ā€

ā€œIf the blunt reality of the terrible things that they are pushing is offensive to them then they should strongly reconsider what it this they believe and the harm that they are doing rather than simply trying to conform to liberal luxury beliefs,ā€ Donnellan said. 

Addressing the complaint filed against him, Donnellan said, ā€œI haven’t heard anything from Ethics and doubt that I will, they generally don’t waste their time with sheltered progressives being forced into the real world for the first time.ā€

A House Ethics Committee spokesperson declined to comment when asked if they could confirm receipt of the complaint.

Asked whether Miller might object to the way that she and her Congressional office are represented with these confrontational email exchanges, Donnellan said his bossā€™s ā€œmotto is ā€˜cut the bullā€™, and gender ideology is some of the biggest bull there is.ā€   

On Friday, the congresswomanā€™s son Chris Miller placed third in the Republican primary contest for West Virginiaā€™s gubernatorial race, where the stateā€™s Attorney General Patrick Morrissey secured his partyā€™s nomination in a decisive victory with 33 percent of the vote. 

Leading up to the election, trans issues had emerged as a dominant focal point as the GOP candidates squared off against each other, with Millerā€™s campaign attacking Morrissey with allegations that he had profited from ā€œthe trans agendaā€ and backed a drug company that ā€œhelps turn boys into girlsā€ when working as a healthcare lobbyist in Washington.  

In one ad that was paid for by a super PAC chaired by his father, Miller said the pronouns used by Morrissey are ā€œmoney-grubbing liberal,ā€ an interesting charge to level at the conservative Republican attorney general of West Virginia (even notwithstanding the fact that those three words are not pronouns but, rather, nouns and verbs.)

Declaring preferred pronouns in workplace email signatures has become commonplace in both the public and private sector, whether for purposes of sending an affirming message to transgender and gender expansive employees and officers or to mitigate the chances that either they or their cisgender counterparts might be unintentionally misgendered. 

The Biden-Harris administration has pushed for agencies to adopt the practice along with other measures and policies to advance the rights and wellbeing of trans and gender expansive employees across the federal government. 

In a 2021 announcement of the U.S. Department of Agricultureā€™s issuance of updated guidance on the agencyā€™s email signature block, Michael Watts, director of civil rights for the U.S. Forrest Service, noted that ā€œThere are plenty of gender-neutral names out there, or names from other cultures that might not give you enough information to know their gender.ā€ 

While the inclusion of pronouns was not made mandatory at USDA, he urged employees to ā€œstrongly consider taking this small but important step toward supporting inclusiveness in the workplace.ā€ 

ā€œThe use of pronouns in our email signatures and getting into the habit of including pronouns in our introductions doesnā€™t really cost us anything,ā€ Watts added, arguing that the move constitutes ā€œa meaningful exchange to others and makes it easier for people to be respectful in how they address each other.ā€

ā€œI just think itā€™s the right thing to do,ā€ he said. 

Official guidance published by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which is responsible for administering policies across the U.S. federal civil service, stipulates that agencies should “take steps to provide the option for employees to include the pronouns they use in employee systems and profiles, including email signature blocks, employee directories and employee profiles.”

Some have gone further, such as by adding pronouns to email signatures for all employees, as the U.S. Department of State did in 2023, while others like USDA have established, as official policy, that “employees are encouraged to include their pronouns in the first line of their email signature block (e.g. he/him/his). Signature blocks are a simple and effective way for individuals to communicate their identified pronouns to colleagues, stakeholders, and customers.”

“For example,” the USDA writes, “adding pronouns to signature blocks also has the benefit of indicating to the recipient that you will respect their gender identity and choice of pronouns.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular