News
Gay Mormons relish the opportunity to marry in Utah
Same-sex couples marry in state following court decision
Gay Mormons relish the opportunity to marry following the Utah court ruling. (photo from wikimedia by Joe Ravi)
For lesbian couple Terri Henry and Perry Kirby, the court ruling instituting marriage equality in Utah and granting them the ability to wed allowed them to affirm the Mormon values with which they were raised.
Although Henry, 51, and Kirby, 47, no longer identify as members of the Church of Latter-day Saints, they say their upbringing compelled them to marry at Salt Lake County on Monday.
Henry, who left the church after it filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court in favor of Proposition 8, said LDS teaching showed her the importance of marriage — even if it’s to someone of the same gender.
“Being raised in a very strong community that values family, that values commitment and sacrifice to one another, that was something I wanted to continue with my life,” Henry said.
For Kirby, who went on a mission for the church to the Netherlands in the mid-1980s, she wanted to marry her partner of four years because she came to learn through the Mormon Church that “family is so important.”
“I was ingrained with family being one of the most important things in life,” Kirby said. “The ability to serve another, and to sacrifice for each other is important, and having that connection makes that expectation more cemented.”
The couple initially tried to obtain a marriage license in Utah County on Friday, but they were turned away. According to media reports, that county was still denying marriage licenses as of Monday.
Although the Mormon Church is known for being a stalwart advocate for family and marriage, that ideology isn’t supposed to apply to same-sex couples. The church has been a leading opponent of same-sex marriage, donating millions to oppose its legalization.
Upon the news last week that U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby had issued a decision instituting marriage equality throughout the state, the Church of Latter-day Saints reaffirmed its position against same-sex marriage.
“The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect,” the statement says. “This ruling by a district court will work its way through the judicial process. We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court.”
In 2008, during the battle over California’s Proposition 8, the Mormon Church took a lead role in organizing support for an amendment that stripped marriage rights for gay couples. Although the church largely sat on the sidelines over the 2012 ballot initiatives on marriage, Mormons leaders took an active role in attempting to stop the legalization of same-sex marriage in Hawaii.
Kirby said she’s sad for the church because it doesn’t extend its support of strong families to gay and lesbian couples seeking to wed.
“There’s is a church that was founded coming out of oppression and they have now turned into the bullies themselves,” Kirby said. “They, of all people, should be supportive and understanding and be able to step away from their dogma.”
That’s the same sentiment that Perry expressed with regard to the Mormon Church’s opposition to gay nuptials.
“I feel like everything that the Mormon Church has gone through, from their early ages of persecution, now I think because of the fear that they have, they really, really don’t know how to handle gay couples,” Perry said.
As Kirby noted, the decision brings the issue to the doorstep of the church headquarters in Salt Lake City.
“This shift that has happened on their home turf hopefully will speak to them that this is miraculous in a good, positive way and that we can all be OK, we can all be fine, no one’s threatened,” Kirby said. “All families have space to be together.”
Spencer Clark, executive director of Mormons for Equality, affirmed that the ruling from the district enabled gay Mormons to gain access to the institution they hold dear as part of their values.
“While Mormons have organized to advocate for the equal treatment of families across the country, it is particularly sweet to have this decision come down in the heartland of our faith,” Clark said. “We pray with confidence that it will be upheld as the inevitable appeals ensue, but take this time to express gratitude for the progress that this ruling represents – particularly for the many families who will ultimately be stronger and more secure as a result.”
What is the couple’s next plan? Kirby said it’s simple, “We’re going to take a nap.” The couple had camped out before the clerk’s office in Salt Lake City early in the morning to ensure they’d be able to receive a license Monday morning. There will be time to celebrate at a candlelight vigil later in the evening and during Christmas at home.
“We have a really great new ornament that says, ‘Our first Christmas together in 2013,” Kirby said. “While we’ve shared Christmas together, this is our first married Christmas, and that is an amazing thing.”
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
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
Trump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
