December 24
1879 The [Utah] penal code thus established
defines and provided punishment for various species of crime and among them are
“Crimes against the person and against public decency and good morals” These are group in Title IX and threat of
rape, abduction, carnal abuse of children, seduction, abortion, the “Crime
Against Nature”, indecent exposure, obscenity, prostitution, houses o f ill
fame, offenses againt public morals etc.
It is as good a code as that of most of the states. True it does not define the
crime of adultery. Deseret News
1912 A report issued by Utah's State Board of
Insanity recommends sterilization of persons convicted of sexual crimes. State
of Utah Report of the State Board of Insanity and Superintendent of the State
Mental Hospital, Provo, (Salt Lake City:The Arrow Press, 1913), Appendix, pages
21-23. Issued Dec. 24, 1912 per The Oregonian, Dec. 26, 1912, 4:3.
Sterilization was recommended in the biennial report of the State Board of
Insanity issued in 1912. The report was moralistic, sexist, and misandrogistic.
Although it began on a gender-neutral note discussing hereditary disease, the
report turned misandrogistic. “For that man who marries, knowing himself to be
affected, no punishment is too great. The moral sense of the public would
approve almost any form of legislation that would insure to the pure wife
protection from conjugal infection, and consequently the mental anguish of
having diseased or defective offspring.” Thus, the state believed only men
could transmit hereditary illnesses. Also recommended was "personal
examination of applicants as to their fitness for marriage and
reproduction." The penal code should be amended "to authorize the courts
of superior jurisdiction, to impose, on recommendation of the board of
eugenics, sentences of castration as the alternative to imprisonment for
certain crimes of sexual perversion" and to make sterilization "a
condition precedent to the granting of pardons, or paroles, from penal
institutions" whenever sterilization "would be advisable." The
use of the term "castration" meant that only men should endure a
penalty such as this.
1924-The State of Illinois issued a charter
to the Society for Human Rights, founded by
 |
| Henry Gerber |
Henry Gerber. It was among the
earliest organizations for homosexuals in North America.
1987- Resurrection Metropolitan Community
Church held a
 |
| Bruce Barton |
Christmas Candlelight service from11 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. Pastor Bruce Barton officiating.
1988 I
saw Russ Lane downtown and he gave me some metaphysical books for Christmas. He
said that he will be joining The Church of Religious Science tomorrow. He also
said that he’s a dedicated pacifist now. Well good. The he held me and it felt
like old times and I cried a little when he whispered in my ear, “If I ever
hurt you or offended you for that I am truly sorry” And then he thanked me for
all the love I had for him and for the work I do in the community. Roads not
taken. What would have life been like
with Russ and I together, with my fight for social injustice and his
organizational skills? (memoirs of Ben Williams)
1988-About 6:30 p.m. Jim Hunsaker and I went
to the In-Between where I saw Jon Merrill dressed as Dixie. I like him so we
sat and visited about metaphysics while waiting for the buffet to begin. It was
rather melancholy however at the bar with all these sad ”blue, blue” Christmas
songs. I thought God half these people are going to kill themselves tonight if
the music doesn’t get any more cheerier, But I suppose its better then having
no place to go at all. The In-Between provided a scrumptious turkey and ham
dinner and seeing all these people being feed I softened towards Bobby Dupree
about that incident last summer about putting that drunken boy out on the
streets. Who am I to set myself up as judge over everyone? (memoirs of Ben
Williams)
1988- Resurrection Metropolitan Community
Church held its annual lighting of the candles.
1988 LEGISLATORS TO CONSIDER BATTLE PLAN IN
AIDS WAR By JoAnn Jacobsen-Wells, Medical Writer The bills will be more
sensational than a year ago, and the debate equally as heated when legislators
next month attempt to mount a battle plan against the deadly AIDS virus, which
already has claimed the lives of 106 Utahns. Since reporting began, the State
Department of Health has recorded 158 cases of AIDS in Utah. Following a recent
departmental appeal to health officials statewide, three new cases were
recently reported. State epidemiologist Craig Nichols said the department has
also received calls from physicians who have additional cases to report.
Nichols estimates that the number of HIV carriers varies widely, from 2,000 to
4,000, and at least 50 percent to 80 percent of those carrying HIV eventually
will contract AIDS. Nationally there has been a steady increase in cases. Utah,
Nichols believes, will follow that trend and AIDS will be a major topic of
discussion at the Legislature. But both human rights advocates and health
officials are confident there'll be fewer of the cultural clashes that marked
lawmakers' first attempt last year to deal with the killer disease.
Off-the-cuff remarks and proposals for AIDS victims to be "painted
red" aren't likely to be repeated, Nichols said. "There are some legislators
who made comments they wish they could have recalled after the fact."
"We have to start treating this like a disease and not a moral
issue," said Sen. Winn L. Richards, D-Ogden, sponsor of two of the three
AIDS-related bills pre-filed for the Legislature's 1989 general session.
However, the bill receiving the strongest criticism is Richard's bill that
would require mandatory reporting of people who test positive for the Human
Immune Deficiency Virus that causes AIDS. Critics contend that homosexuals and
intravenous drug abusers - those at greatest risk of contracting HIV - will
stay away from testing centers for fear their names will not be kept
confidential. "We feel it will drive the problem underground. People who
are beginning to develop signs and symptoms of the disease will refuse to be
tested and could go on to develop full-blown AIDS without the benefit of
therapy, including AZT treatment," said David Sharpton, director of People
With
 |
| David Sharpton |
AIDS Coalition. "This could result in an increase of AIDS patients,
causing a financial burden on the state." Ben Barr, executive director of
Salt Lake AIDS Foundation, said legislators have to realize there are
differences between AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.
"Richards, in particular, needs to recognize that people with AIDS are
frightened, and we have to reassure them that they are going to be protected.
The mandatory reporting bill does just the opposite." Barr said it also
makes him uncomfortable to see the Legislature setting policies for health professionals.
A bill calling for mandatory reporting of HIV was vetoed earlier this year by
Gov. Norm Bangerter on the advice of the attorney general's office, which
concluded the constitutionality of mandatory testing would be difficult to
defend unless some positive benefit could be shown. Richards thinks that
evidence of such benefit has been shown in Colorado, which has the highest per
capita rate of testing for AIDS, despite mandatory reporting. "The trend
in Utah has been to protect the person with AIDS. That's important, but we also
need to keep people from catching the disease," he said. Richards' second
bill calls for mandatory testing of prison inmates. A third AIDS bill,
sponsored by Rep. Joseph Moody, R-Delta, is designed to strengthen laws protecting
the privacy of AIDS patients. "The Department of Health proposed this bill
and strongly endorses it," Nichols said. The bill clarifies the ability of
the health department to do partner notification and to share data with the
National Centers for Disease Control. It also allows the Bureau of Epidemiology
to release the names of individuals suffering from serious infectious diseases
to blood and organ banks, thus reducing the possibility of someone with
hepatitis, malaria, syphilis or HIV from being accepted as donors. Nichols said
the banks would be alerted not to accept blood or organs from a certain person.
However, the disease itself would not be disclosed. The organ or blood bank
would be under the same restrictions of confidentiality as is the Department of
Health. But Sharpton maintains the bill doesn't go far enough. Private
physician records, he said, should be protected in the same manner as health
department records. Nichols said it's too early to suppose that all the AIDS
bills have been filed. The issue of whether to impose mandatory testing of
engaged couples, and others, are still unsettled. "AIDS will clearly be a
major topic of discussion," the health official said. "It's also
clear that AIDS legislation, like many other issues, is complex and it's not
going to be easy to arrive at solutions."
.jpg) |
| Brandon Teena |
1992-Brandon Teena was brutally beaten and
repeatedly raped. Though forensic evidence was available and he was able to
name his attackers, police refused to make an arrest.
1995 2
DISCUSSIONS ON `ANGELS' SET Two more post-play discussions have been scheduled
in January following Sunday matinee performances of Salt Lake Acting Company's
production of Tony Kushner's Pulitzer Prize-winning drama, "Angels in
America, Part One: Millennium Approaches." On Jan. 7, five local drama
critics will take part in an open forum in SLAC's Upstairs Theatre, 168 W. 500
North. Panelists will include Ivan M. Lincoln of the Deseret News, Nancy Melich
of the Salt Lake Tribune, Barbara Bannon of the Event, Ann Jensen of the
Private Eye Weekly and Claudia Harris of the Provo Daily Herald. On Jan. 14,
Alfre Pratte, a professor of communications at Brigham Young University, will
discuss LDS characters in the play and their treatment in Kushner's saga.
Pratte wrote an article about the original Broadway production for the Ogden Standard-Examiner.
Both discussions are free and open to the public. They will begin about 5:30
p.m. In two previous discussions, local attorney Ron Yengich debated the play's
central character, controversial homophobic lawyer Roy Cohn, while Renee
Rinaldi and Kim Russo, representing the Utah Stonewall Center and the Utah AIDS
Foundation, discussed the meaning of the play's subtitle, "A Gay Fantasia
on National Themes" and other related topics. For further information
contact SLAC at 363-0526. © 1998 Deseret News Publishing Co.
1996- Page: A10 Tribune Editorial Can't Dress
Up Bad Law Utah's new school-clubs
rules -- those set by the State Board of Education last week -- seem reasonable
enough in the abstract. But their genesis -- reactionary laws passed last winter
and spring (Gov. Leavitt vetoed the first) --raises doubts about their purpose
and future effectiveness. In a special session last April, legislators ordered
public schools to prohibit any extracurricular clubs that ``involve human
sexuality.'' Legislators claimed their primary aim was to return control of
schools to local communities, which supposedly were threatened by the Equal
Access Act of 1984. Their secondary goal, they said, was to put the rule into
statute so that local school districts would be spared the expense of defending
it in court. But, of course, this issue
never would have come up if a group of homosexual students and friends had not
requested recognition as an extracurricular club at East High School in Salt
Lake City last year. The underlying reason for the new law, as well as the
resulting state school board regulations, is to keep gay and lesbian students hidden in Utah's public
schools. The regulations, which do not
directly address homosexuality, apparently satisfy the local-control issue by
giving school districts guidelines for handling clubs outside the school day.
They call for restrictions on the time and place clubs meet, and on
``disruptive'' club names and activities. They also authorize schools to
require parental permission for club participation. And they shift
responsibility for the regulations' legal defense to the state. But adoption of
these regulations does not settle the issue of gay and lesbian clubs in Utah. That's because the federal law says
schools cannot discriminate against groups of students in extracurricular
activities because of controversial topics they discuss. This presumably would
include topics involving human sexuality, such as homosexuality and social
pressures facing gay and lesbian students. So while the state regulations seem
benign enough on their face, they were developed to thwart a federal law
designed to protect the free-speech rights of all students, including
homosexuals. Therefore, the rules amount to little more than a well-crafted
legal exercise in postponement and, ultimately, futility.
1996 A23
Gay-Club Ban on Utah Law Byline: THE ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOENIX -- State lawmakers past and present
are proposing legislation to ban gay organizations from high school and
university campuses. Under a plan
patterned after Utah legislation, the Arizona Board of Regents would-be
required to bar any group that encourages ``criminal or delinquent behavior''
or ``involves human sexuality.'' School
boards would be required to keep such organizations from meeting or having
faculty sponsors. Under a second proposal, sodomy would be raised from a
misdemeanor to a felony. Rep.-elect
Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, one of the supporters of the proposals, said she has a
problem with having tax dollars in effect sponsoring such groups. ``They [gays]
``want to sodomize, and I don’t want them recruiting [on campuses] for that,'
'Johnson said. ``I can work with a homosexual person . . . on other issues, but
when it comes to that issue I have my feelings.'' In a special session in April, the Utah
Legislature passed legislation enabling school districts to deny access to
clubs that ``materially or substantially encourage criminal or delinquent
conduct, promote bigotry or involve human sexuality.'' The legislative action followed several
months of discussion about a proposed gay and
lesbian student club within the Salt Lake City School District.
Opponents called the bills an attempt to discriminate against gays and said the
proposals could disrupt the Legislature as it tries to deal with such issues as
educational finance.
1999 Sound Ruling in Vermont Vermonters have an independent streak. They
have elected and re-elected the only independent member of Congress, and they
live in the only state that doesn't require a permit for carrying a firearm. So
it was natural that many Vermonters expressed pride that their Supreme Court
took a pioneering step Monday in ruling
that same-sex couples are entitled to the privileges of marriage. Their pride
is well-placed. In a case brought by three homosexual couples who were denied
marriage licenses by their Vermont municipalities, the state's Supreme Court
decided that the couples' rights were indeed abridged by the denial of a
marriage license and that same-sex couples were entitled to the same benefits
that the state extends to opposite-sex married couples. However, the court left
it to the state legislature to decide how to implement the ruling: either by
granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples or by creating a new status of
domestic partnership for them. While
that debate in the Vermont legislature is certain to attract national
attention, Monday's ruling itself may not have far-reaching national resonance
because it is so state-specific. Putting primacy on Vermont's 1777
Constitution, which it noted is almost a century older than the U.S.
Constitution's 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause, the court based
its decision on the state's Common Benefits Clause, specifically that the
government is "not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single
man, family or set of men . . . "
By this standard, the court ruled, "plaintiffs may not be deprived
of the statutory benefits and protections afforded persons of the opposite sex
who choose to marry." Those state benefits are many, and the court listed
a dozen of them, including the right to receive a portion of the estate of a
spouse who dies without a will, the right to a presumption of joint ownership
of property, and the right to hospital visitation. The five justices recognized that there is
little justification in denying these privileges to gay and lesbian couples who
want their commitments enshrined in a legal contract that grants them
marriage-like privileges. It is not politically feasible at this point to call
these relationships marriages; American society is understandably not keen on
changing its traditional definition of marriage. But bestowing the benefits of
the state of marriage to same-sex couples through an inclusive domestic partnership
system, as Vermont legislators seem inclined to do, would create an important
model for the rest of the country. The
Vermont court's arguments should also be instructive to future venues on this
issue, for they effectively puncture some of the common contentions against
same-sex marriage. For instance, the state argued that its interest in
protecting opposite-sex marriage was in promoting a "link between
procreation and child-rearing." The court rejoined that the large number
of opposite-sex, childless couples and the growing number of same-sex couples
with children, through reproductive technology, tend to diminish that
link. As the court pointed out,
"the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal protections incident to
marriage exposes their children to the precise risks that the State argues the
marriage laws are designed to secure against." And, besides, the
"link" is already broken by the significant number of heterosexual
couples who have resorted to reproductive technology. On another point, the court noted that, since
Vermont already guarantees same-sex couples the right to adopt and raise
children, it is illogical for the state to support "a legislative scheme
that recognizes the rights of same-sex partners as parents, yet denies them --
and their children -- the same security
as spouses." Perhaps that was an unspoken motivation underlying the
odious anti-gay adoption rule made this
year by Utah's Division of Child and Family Services: Unlike Vermont, Utah is
now on record against gay adoptions, a position that might buttress its case
should it ever face a court challenge similar to Vermont's. Surely, in any
state, the parameters would be different than they were in Vermont. But the
logic and wisdom of the Vermont justices is transferable. Same-sex couples
should not be excluded from the privileges that flow to opposite-sex couples in
marriage. Their relationship does not have to be called a "marriage,"
but their access to the same privileges as similarly situated opposite-sex couples
should not be denied. (SLTribune Editorial Position 12/24/1999)
2000 The Salt Lake Tribune Page: B1
Corrections: Deseret News City Editor Angie Hutchinson said News officials
never saw and therefore did not reject an advertisement concerning the LDS
Church's treatment of gays and lesbians. A Sunday Salt Lake Tribune article
quoted one of the ad's authors as saying the News rejected the ad, which
appeared in Saturday's Tribune. Petitioners Ask LDS Church to Alter Gay Stance
BY KIRSTEN STEWART A loosely organized
group of more than 300 gay and lesbian Mormons and their family members are
petitioning The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to reconsider its
stance on homosexuality. A copy of the petition, signed "Mormon Advocates
for Further Light and Knowledge," appeared as an ad in the Saturday
edition of The Salt Lake Tribune. The document called upon LDS general
authorities to review, repudiate and remove from church-approved policies and
reading materials statements about homosexuality that are false and misleading.
This would include, the petition said, the church's overall position that
"same-sex attraction is an undesirable and unnatural emotion, which, when
acted upon results in sinful, Satan-inspired behavior." The petition's
 |
| Mac Madsen |
author is Mac Madsen, a former Weber State University healthy-lifestyles
professor and men's golf coach. Madsen, from his Ogden home Saturday, described the petition as a
last-ditch appeal to church leaders for meaningful dialogue about homosexuality.
For two years, said Madsen, he and others have pleaded with Mormon church
officials to hear them out. Indeed, many in the Mormon hierarchy have already
seen the petition. More than a year ago, said Madsen, it was mailed to the
church's top 125 officials. "I received absolutely no response," he
said. The petitioners originally intended to place the $4,000 ad in an October
edition of the newspaper, during the church's conference weekend when a captive
audience of Mormons from outside the state would be more likely to see it. "But
at that time we were short by $2,000," Madsen said. Madsen also
investigated getting the petition printed in at least two other newspapers --
The Deseret News and Provo Daily Herald -- but thus far it has only appeared in
The Tribune. The Deseret News rejected it, said Madsen, who, in the end could
only come up with enough money for one ad placement. Though no names appear in the ad, more
than 300 individuals from 12 different countries and most of America's 50 states
backed it, said Madsen. "We had originally planned to print names,"
he said, "but there wasn't enough space." Some individuals though, he acknowledged,
were frightened to reveal their names for fear of reprisal from the Mormon
Church or being judged harshly by friends and neighbors. Madsen, hoping to
protect his wife and his daughter, who is lesbian, also was hesitant to have
his name printed in the newspaper. But "there is nothing in the petition
that I'm ashamed of or that's inaccurate," he said. The fact that people have spoken out in such
a public way goes to show just how frustrated they are, said Gary Watts, who
signed the petition. Watts, a
radiologist in Provo, and his wife Mildred, have six children. "Four are
straight. Two are gay," said Watts, who wants all his children afforded
the same opportunities in life, including acceptance and full fellowship in the
LDS Church if they so choose. When
asked why he continues to embrace a religious group that doesn't reciprocate,
Watts said, "You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take
the country out of the boy. "It's not just a religion. It's an integral
part of your life and culture and it's very difficult to divorce yourself from
something that's a part of you," said the fifth-generation Mormon. Madsen,
who has received no response to the ad, acknowledges the petition probably
won't result in immediate changes to church practices and policies regarding
gay members. Among other things, the petition asks the church to extend full
fellowship to gays and lesbians, and even support legislation to legalize
same-sex marriage. The LDS Church has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars
into campaigns fighting same sex marriage in Hawaii and other states. The
petition also requests that false and inflammatory remarks made in public or
found in church-sanctioned reading materials be repudiated and removed, citing
church pamphlets, such as To Young Men Only, which implies homosexuals are
predisposed to bestiality. Regardless
of whether the LDS Church heeds these demands, the petition has value, Madsen
said, as an educational tool. Madsen would like to erase some misconceptions he
says the church has about homosexuality, chiefly that it is an alterable
behavioral trait that should be remedied. The petition takes issue specifically
with counseling and therapy practices employed by the church to rid gays and
lesbians of their same-sex desires including: counseling them to marry
heterosexuals, aversion or shock therapy and reparative or conversion therapy,
which is no longer endorsed by most mental health professionals and
organizations. He also hopes Mormons, who might not otherwise be exposed to
information about the church's policy on gays and lesbians, find the petition
insightful. The policy, as the petition points out, "is rather obscure as
far as its origin. It wasn't a revelation and it's not canonized or
anything," he said. There were no policies targeting homosexuals for the
first 125 years of the church's history, he said. "It wasn't up until the 1950s and on
into the 60s when President [Spencer] Kimball started counseling young males
against same-sex desire," and the church began printing handbooks and
policy statements to that end, said Madsen. This effectively means the policy
is amendable, said Madsen, who ended the petition asking for just that.
"President Kimball and other church leaders in the 1970s did not originate
the policy which restricted blacks from holding the priesthood. They inherited
it -- and eventually changed it . . . We encourage you to reconsider and then change
the current church position relative to our homosexual brothers and sisters and
thus welcome yet another disenfranchised segment of our church community into
full membership." Church
spokesman Dale Bills said Saturday evening it was too early to respond to the
particulars of the petition. But, "President Gordon B. Hinckley has
repeatedly expressed the Church's compassion toward homosexuals," he said.
2005 Let Bagley do it Salt Lake Tribune
What's the hubbub over a quarter ("Drop the
.jpg) |
| Chad Keller |
beehive," Tribune, Dec.
17)? Trains, beehives or sego lilies just don't hit the spot for me. For
everything we can come up with, someone's going to have a problem with
whatever. As Utah is traditionally the laughing stock of America, let's give
our public what it deserves. Let's just hand the project to [Tribune
cartoonist] Pat Bagley. I'm sure he will come up with something that will leave
America in stitches. Like his Olympic pins, America will snatch them up. With
the burden of the selection process out of the way, we can get back to the
staging of our annual comedy show, the Utah state legislative session. Chad
Keller Salt Lake City
- Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:34 pm posted by James
Hicks Re: [gay_forum_utah] Letter to SL Tribune Editor by Chad Keller That is excellent! James Hicks
201310th Circuit Court denies same-sex marriage
stay 10th Circuit • The judges in Denver refuse to
grant Utah’s request to put an emergency stop to issuing the licenses. BY MARISSA LANG THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Late Tuesday, the 10th Circuit Court in
Denver denied Utah’s request to put a halt to the marriages, hundreds of which
have been happening throughout the state since Friday. According to the order, the state failed to
demonstrate it was suffering “irreparable harm” as a result of the legalization
of same-sex marriage and also failed to show it had a “significant likelihood”
of prevailing in its appeal to the circuit court. The appeal asks the high court to overturn
U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby’s ruling that overturned Utah’s
constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions. But given Tuesday’s decision, which declares
the state isn’t “significantly likely” to win its appeal to the 10th Circuit,
experts said, a reversal of Shelby’s ruling seems dubious. Acting Attorney General Brian Tarbet told The
Salt Lake Tribune moments after the decision that the state would appeal to the
U.S. Supreme Court, in hopes of obtaining an order to stay, which would
immediately put a stop to gay and lesbian couples being granted marriage
licenses. He said a motion was being prepared and would
be ready to go by Thursday. “I wouldn’t say [the 10th Circuit’s decision]
comes as a surprise,” Tarbet said. Because each circuit court is assigned to a
Supreme Court justice, Utah will be appealing to Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor will have the option of considering
the state’s request herself or referring it to the full court. If she
considers, and subsequently denies, the state’s request for a stay, Utah’s last
option is appealing to the Supreme Court
 |
| Cliff Rosky |
itself. Tarbet said the state is prepared to do just
that. University of Utah law professor Cliff Rosky,
who also serves on Equality Utah’s board of directors, said the standard for
receiving a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court is much higher — and more
difficult — than receiving a similar order from the district court or appeals
court, both of which have already refused to stop same-sex marriages in Utah. The state would have to prove the 10th
Circuit Court “clearly and demonstrably” erred in refusing to halt same-sex
marriage in this case. “It’s basically asking, Was the 10th
Circuit’s decision reasonable? Could a reasonable argument be made for making
the decision the 10th Circuit made?” Rosky said. “It doesn’t matter if the
Supreme Court agrees with the ruling, what matters if it was reasonable. If it
was, it stands.” Thursday’s motion will be Utah’s fifth
attempt at getting a stay imposed to stop gay and lesbian weddings. Peggy Tomsic, who represents
 |
| Peggy Tomsic |
the six
plaintiffs in the Kitchen v. Herbert lawsuit, said the high court’s decision
Tuesday left her speechless, and serves as an early Christmas present to her
clients. “I was just like, ‘wow.’ It gives me such
confidence to see our judicial system following the letter of the law ... in
the face of such a high-pressure, volatile issue,” Tomsic told The Tribune. “It
indicates to me that [the courts] realize the magnitude of this issue.” Included in the denial, issued by Judge
Robert E. Bacharach and Judge Jerome A. Holmes, was an order to expedite the
court’s “consideration of this appeal.” That means the court will waste no time in
moving along Utah’s appeal and could hear the case in a matter of months. “They’re moving ahead quickly and have
already stated — in this most recent denial — that the state is not likely to
prevail on an appeal,” Rosky said. “If the 10th deny’s the state’s appeal, that
would mean not just one court, but two federal courts believe state laws
banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.” Utah filed its emergency stay request with
the 10th Circuit on Monday — barely an hour after Shelby denied a similar move
to halt same-sex marriages due to Utah’s concern over the “status quo” and the
“irreparable harm” these marriages stand to cause to the state and its
citizens. The longer same-sex marriage is allowed to
continue in Utah, the more licenses will likely be issued and the more couples
will likely wed. All but four counties in Utah were issuing same-sex marriage
licenses Tuesday. It was not immediately clear how the
appellate court’s decision would influence the four holdouts. “Time is of the essence to stop these
marriages by staying the district court’s injunction,” according to the state’s
motion. “[Same-sex marriages must be stopped] in order to maintain the historic
status quo of man-woman marriage that the state and its citizens validly
enshrined in the Utah Constitution.” According to an email from Gov. Gary
Herbert’s office to his cabinet Tuesday afternoon, most state agencies are
seeing “minimal or no impact” as a result of same-sex marriages taking place. The appeals court is not expected to decide
whether to overturn Shelby’s decision for at least a few months. Utah was
seeking a stay to prevent more same-sex marriages from happening until that
case is decided. Marriages granted since Friday will be
unaffected by any ruling granting a stay, according to legal experts. “Right now,” Tomsic said, “the status quo in
Utah is hundreds and hundreds of same-sex couples have been granted licenses
and are now married.”
2013 Couple suing Utah County for refusal to grant
marriage license Courts • Woman says she and partner have
faced years of hostility. BY ERIN ALBERTY THE SALT LAKE
 |
| Shelly Eyre |
TRIBUNE Shelly Eyre says Utah County’s denial of a
marriage license to her and her longtime partner was “the last straw in a
 |
| Cheryl Haws |
long
line of insults.” Eyre and her partner, Cheryl Haws, have
notified Utah County that they intend to sue because the county refused to
grant them a marriage license — even after U.S. District Court Judge Robert J.
Shelby reaffirmed Monday that gay marriages should proceed without a stay. Utah County is among five counties not
providing licenses despite Shelby’s Friday decision overturning Utah’s ban on
gay marriage. “The point of going to Utah County is that
this is where we live and pay taxes and raised our kids and have a business,”
Eyre said. “We wanted to get married here.” Eyre and Haws have been a couple for 8½ years
and have had a commitment ceremony in Hawaii. While there, they gathered sea
stones and shells to represent friends and family who could not make the trip.
They took the shells and stones with them to the Utah County clerk’s office
Monday, where they hoped to marry. Instead they received a notice of refusal
from County Clerk Bryan Thompson. “This just put us
 |
| Bryan Thompson |
around the bend,” Eyre
said, recalling years of hostility she and Haws have faced. Eyre and Haws together reared Haws’ two
youngest children of seven, Eyre said, but the community has struggled to
accept Eyre as part of the family. When one of Haws’ sons died, Eyre’s name
“mysteriously” disappeared from the obituary, she said. At the funeral,
mourners who had known Haws for 20 years walked right past the grieving mother
and refused to speak to her. At another son’s Eagle Scout ceremony, Haws
and Eyre sat down only to have several other guests stand up and move away from
them. “I was in the bathroom,” Eyre said, “and
heard people say, ‘I can’t believe those lesbians would come and desecrate the
church.’ ” Even day-to-day business is disrupted, she
said. Their insurance requires a separate policy for each woman, for example. When the Utah County clerk denied them a
marriage license, they decided to fight the decision. The couple returned to the office with a
notice of claim — a required document alerting a government agency that a
plaintiff intends to sue. Thompson confirmed Tuesday that he received
the notice of claim and denied further comment.
2013 Denying same-sex marriage licenses illegal, says A.G. office Courts • Despite ruling, four counties still refusing to
issue same-sex marriage licenses. BY JIM DALRYMPLE II AND MATTHEW PIPER THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE The law now requires Utah counties to marry same-sex
couples, the Utah attorney general's office said Tuesday, but officials in some
jurisdictions continued to flout the new status quo. Though the attorney general's office wasn't specifically
advising county clerks on Christmas Eve, spokesman Ryan Bruckman pointed out
that U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby "has put out his ruling that
anyone who denies a marriage license [could be] in contempt of the court and in
contempt of the law." "According to that," Bruckman said, "everyone
should be [issuing licenses]." Despite Shelby's ruling, Utah County — the state's second
largest — continued to turn down same-sex couples. Utah County Clerk Bryan
Thompson issued a statement Tuesday, reiterating that he is seeking
clarification from the state and the Utah County attorney's office. "Until I receive further information, the Utah County
clerk's office will not be making any policy changes in regards to which we
issue marriage licenses," according to Thompson's statement. Attempts to reach Thompson and other county clerks were
unsuccessful after the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the state's request
for a stay about 6 p.m. Tuesday. It is unclear whether any counties will
continue to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples in light of the fourth
court ruling confirming that same-sex marriages should proceed. Thompson said "probably a handful" of same-sex
couples have shown up to be married, and he has been issued a notice of claim
by one, Shelly Eyre and Cheryl Haws. The couple moved to sue the county after
having a door slammed in their faces Monday while trying to obtain a marriage
license. In addition to a lawsuit, Thompson's response also sparked a
protest Tuesday. Filmmaker Kendall Wilcox was present at the protest and said
about 20 people gathered at 10:30 a.m. near the county clerk's office. About 30
minutes later, the group moved a half-block down to the more visible corner of
University Avenue and Center Street. Wilcox said the response to the protest from passers-by was
positive. Most people honked in support and only one person drove
antagonistically, forcing a large pickup truck to belch black exhaust toward
the group. Wilcox said the generally warm reception was a sign that, despite
Thompson's response, many people in Utah County support same-sex marriage, or
at least obeying the law. "Some people are caught between doctrinal beliefs about
sexuality," he said, "and their religious beliefs about the
law." Pictures of the protest bear out that conclusion, with
several people holding signs citing LDS scripture about "honoring and
sustaining the law." According to Wilcox — who is gay and Mormon — the
protest also included Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage. "This shows that the cultural climate of Utah County is
not as monolithic as people would believe," Wilcox added. Shelby clarified Monday that county clerks were legally
obligated to issue marriage licenses. The clarification was part of Shelby's
denial of the state's request for an emergency stay on his Friday ruling that
struck down Amendment 3, a ban on same-sex marriages. Shelby wrote that the ban
was unconstitutional. In response, most other Utah counties had fallen in line
with Shelby's ruling by Tuesday. The Cache County clerk's office began issuing marriage
licenses to same-sex couples Tuesday. Two couples were married as of 9:35 a.m.,
according to a clerk's office worker. The office closed at noon Tuesday. Cache County Attorney James Swink had issued a statement
Monday saying the clerk's office was closed for business to all couples, gay or
straight. But Swink said Tuesday that, all along, he advised the
clerk's office that a decision had been made by a federal judge and they had to
abide by the law. They closed Monday because of "confusion" that
Swink believes was largely cleared up by Shelby's comments. Juab County also changed its policy Tuesday and announced it
would issue same-sex marriage licenses. However, the office closed at 2 p.m.
and no same-sex couples had applied for licences, according to a county
employee. As of Tuesday afternoon, Utah County was among four of
Utah's 29 counties that were not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The other three counties were: Box Elder, Piute and San Juan. "We're still at the same spot," Box Elder County
Attorney Stephen Hadfield said. " ... The clerk's concern is that if she
violates state law, it's a misdemeanor." Late Tuesday, the governor's office sent an email to cabinet
members regarding issues stemming from the recent federal court rulings. "For those agencies that now face conflicting laws
either in statute or administrative rule, you should consult with the assistant
attorney generals assigned to your agency on the best course to resolve those
conflicts," the email states. "Where no conflicting laws exist you
should conduct business in compliance with the federal judge's ruling until
such time that the current district court decision is addressed by the 10th
Circuit Court." Officials in Juab and Piute say that although they are
awaiting further clarification from the state, demand for same-sex marriage has
been scant. Many county clerk offices were only open until noon Tuesday. Garfield County officials have not responded to repeated
request for comment. It is not known if they are issuing licenses to same-sex
couples.
2013 Despite rumors, KSL has not
banned video of gay kissing KSL is not against kissing, although Channel 5
reporters were apparently told to avoid showing it when reporting on the court
decision overturning Utah's ban on gay marriage. But that, according the top KSL news executive,
is not station policy. "While we don't seek to include it in the news, KSL
has no official policy on kissing - either heterosexual or homosexual,"
said Tanya Vea, KSL's executive vice president of news and cross-platform
development. It's sort of a weird sidebar to the story that has dominated the
news in Utah since the judge issued his ruling on Friday. But rumors have run
rampant that KSL has banned gay kissing on its newscasts, despite the fact that
Channel 5 has aired video of just that since Friday. "I can guarantee you
we have aired people kissing on our air," Vea said. "And, yes, we do
have complaints about it.... We wouldn't have those complaints had we not aired
the video." She said it's not uncommon for reporters to be cautioned about
what video to use - that "as a matter of daily business, there are
frequently cautions on video of all sorts." There are copies of an email floating around
that includes just such a caution. It instructs KSL staffers to "avoid
using kissing videos in your stories about Amendment 3" — both gay and
straight kissing — because that is "the number one complaint we've been
receiving." Vea, who's on vacation, said she had not seen that email, but
acknowledged that it could be genuine. "There may have been a caution that
went out on this, but there is no policy - that's definitive," Vea said.
"And if there's a policy, that would have come from me or higher. There is
no policy on this." She also lamented that KSL itself had become part of
the story - at least in the minds of some.
"It seems in a story of this magnitude, with emotions so high on
both sides, this is a silly diversion at best," Vea said. "Or, at
worst, an attempt to further a personal agenda and incite controversy that
doesn't exist."
.jpg)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment