Connect with us

National

Utah’s 1,300 gay weddings spark change in attitudes

Marriage equality in conservative state impacts public opinion, LDS Church

Published

on

Utah, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, gay news, Washington Blade
Utah, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, gay news, Washington Blade

Utahns rally in support of marriage equality. (Photo courtesy J Seth Anderson)

Although the 18-day period during which Utah allowed same-sex marriages has ended, observers say the visibility of gay couples marrying there made an indelible impression on one of the nation’s most conservative states.

Utah’s flirtation with marriage equality began on Dec. 20 when a district court ruled in favor of marriage, allowing more than 1,300 same-sex couples to marry in the state before the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay on the weddings pending appeal of the litigation.

Gov. Gary Herbert has said the state won’t recognize the same-sex marriages, but the federal government had pledged to view them as legitimate, and the events have shaken the state government, the view of state residents and even the Mormon Church.

Michael Ferguson, who wed his partner in Salt Lake City on Dec. 20 and became one-half of the first same-sex couple to marry in Utah, saw a sharp transition in support for marriage equality on social media in just two days of having marriage equality in Utah.

“I saw people who were posting some pretty horrible things about bestiality and pedophilia, and the slippery slope of world corruption, that’s going to ensue with same-sex marriages being solemnized in Utah,” Ferguson said. “Within two days of social dialogue, those same people were apologizing, and saying, ‘I can see that I was wrong and speaking from a place of ignorance, and I’m going to keep a more open-minded position in this conversation.'”

Mark Lawrence, director of the Utah-based Restore Our Humanity and the individual behind the marriage equality lawsuit, also noticed a distinct change in public opinion as the weddings took place.

“So many more people are, ‘OK, this is going to happen,” Lawrence said. “They’re coming around. They still may not agree with it, they still may not be happy with it, but I don’t think they see it anymore as the sky is falling and this is going to be the destruction of society.”

Evidence that attitudes have shifted on marriage equality in Utah is more than just anecdotal. Two new polls reveal significant growth in support for same-sex marriage in the state.

A new consumer poll made public on Sunday reveals that for the first time ever, a bare majority of Utah residents — 51.3 percent — support marriage rights for gay couples. In comparison, 43.7 percent oppose legal relationship recognition.

David Baker, a Mormon and gay D.C. activist, ran the poll over the course of last week using Google’s digital platform system, which is deemed an accurate method of polling by statisticians.

Baker said he “absolutely” believes the events in Utah in the past few weeks — especially Herbert’s decision not to recognize the marriages performed in the state — has had an impact on the perception of marriage equality in the state.

“I feel that Gov. Herbert’s decision to continue to put the rights of LGBT couples, who are legally married in the state of Utah, in a legal limbo has caused Utahns to face this issue that they may not have thought of before in the same context of legal rights for LGBT couples,” Baker said.

The results of Baker’s latest poll are along the lines of a poll published Tuesday by the Salt Lake Tribune that found Utah residents are now evenly split on whether same-sex couples in Utah should be allowed to marry — 48 percent were for it and 48 percent against it — and nearly three-fourths said same-sex couples should be allowed to have civil unions.

It’s hard to say that new support for marriage equality in Utah is the result of people seeing firsthand same-sex marriages happening in the state because no other data exists immediately before the weddings took place. However, the findings assert strong support for gay nuptials never before seen in the state.

Perhaps the most visible demonstration of this support for same-sex marriage came on Friday — coincidentally the day U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Obama administration would recognize the same-sex marriages — when an estimated 1,500 people rallied in Salt Lake City to urge Herbert to drop his appeal before the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Among the speakers was a 12-year-old boy, Riley Hackford-Peer, who said seeing his lesbian moms being able to marry in Utah was the second-happiest day of his life — right after the birth of his younger brother — and “felt like fireworks bursting in my heart.”

“Some people do not believe that I’m from a loving family because my moms are gay; they are wrong,” Riley said to applause. “I love my moms, and my moms love me and my brother, unconditionally.”

Troy Williams, a Salt Lake City gay activist and one of the organizers of the rally, said the event was intended to build off online petitions at Moveon.org calling on Herbert to let the court ruling stand in favor of marriage equality in Utah. At the time of the rally, the petitions had a total of 58,000 signatures.

“There’s so much excitement and energy right now,” Williams said. “Utah’s LGBT community is on fire and we are united like I have never seen before. There is such a sense of momentum and it was just happy coincidence that Friday morning Eric Holder announced the federal government would be acknowledging our marriages.”

Another institution showing signs of change — albeit subtle — is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is headquartered in Utah and nearly six years ago led the fight against same-sex marriage when California’s Proposition 8 came on the ballot.

In a statement the church issued on Friday, it reaffirmed its opposition to same-sex marriage, warning church officers not to employ “their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex” and forbidding the use of church property for same-sex marriages.

Still, a portion of the statement advises members of the church to treat everyone with respect.

“While these matters will continue to evolve, we affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same-sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully,” the statement says. “The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility — even when we disagree.”

The words came the day after news broke that the Mormon Church wouldn’t file a friend-of-the-court brief in the Utah case seeking marriage equality now before the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals — a change in trajectory for the church after it joined the religious right in making filings before the U.S. Supreme Court when it considered Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.

Spencer Clark, executive director of Mormons for Equality, said the statement is notable because it could have come out when same-sex marriages started advancing throughout the country, but instead is happening now.

“But given the rapid spread of civil marriage equality over the past couple years it’s evident that the church has recognized that this is something that is not going away and with which they will have to co-exist,” Clark said. “The fact that this letter came out now, and not in 2001 or even 2004, is a tacit admission that the climate has incontrovertibly changed and that we as Mormons must confront reality.”

And there’s optimism going forward about the lawsuit. It’s pending before the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has pledged to consider the case on an expedited basis and is expected to render a decision this spring.

J. Seth Anderson, the other-half of the first gay couple married in Utah, said the short-lived nature of marriage equality in Utah demonstrates that the issue needs to be at the federal level and not left to the states.

“The states cannot be trusted to treat fairly, equally and lawfully their gay and lesbian citizens,” Anderson said. “There’s no statute in Utah law that allows the governor to select a group of marriage licenses and just declare them not recognized. It places Utah at the center of a very important national debate, and shows, I think, Utah digging its heels into keeping its position as a far right-wing rogue theocracy.”

The lawsuit may be the first to reach the U.S. Supreme Court among others seeking the court to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

But Lawrence said he’s hoping the case ends with the Tenth Circuit ruling — with no appeal by the state of Utah to the Supreme Court — so that gay couples in Utah can continue marrying yet again as soon as possible.

“There are many people who want to this to go to SCOTUS, and if it does, we feel very strongly if we go to the Supreme Court this is going to be the end-all for the whole country,” Lawrence said. “That would be great, but I don’t want to keep our people in limbo for that long.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

State Department

Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban

Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment

Published

on

Secretary of State Marco Rubio during his confirmation hearing on Jan. 15, 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.

California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.

Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.

“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.

A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.

An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.

MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”

Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.

“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”

U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.

A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget

‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.

HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.

Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”

“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”

Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban

Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit

Published

on

The Supreme Court as composed June 30, 2022 to present. Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Photo Credit: Fred Schilling, The Supreme Court of the U.S.)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.

The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.

The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.” 

The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.

Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.

“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.

“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”

“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”

Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.

U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.

“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.

“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.

“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”

SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:

“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.

“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.

“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.

“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”

Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:

“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service,  signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.

“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of  pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently  to meet its recruiting goals.

“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to  separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest  for more and more power. This  appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is  just a means to an end.”

Continue Reading

Popular