January 6
1903 Ogden Standard Examiner Municipal Court page
5 This afternoon complaint was sworn before judge Howell charging “Red” Frank
Harrington with a crime against nature. The complaining witness being a lodger
at the jail.
- 1903 Heinous Offense In Jail- Frank Harrington, an inmate of the [Salt Lake] city jail will be required to face a very serious charge, as soon as the results of his crime are determined. He assaulted a lodger who came to jail and committed the heinous crime against nature. The assaulted man is in such critical condition as a result of the assault that it is believed by the physician that he cannot recover. In view of this fact the county attorney had the man make out a statement before a notary. Deseret News
 |
| Richard & Mildred Loving |
1965 Wednesday-George Roy Moriarty’s brief
obituary sated that he was to be buried at Memorial Gardens of the Valley with
Military rites by American Legion Post 112. A rosary was held for him.
(01/06/65 page 25 col. 6 SLTribune)
1981- Bonnie Bullock, Supervisor of the Salt Lake
City-County Health Department VD Clinic addressed Salt Lake Affirmation
concerning venereal diseases as they relate to the Gay Community
1983- Thursday -" Due to the length of time of a trial
and the strong advise of my attorney's I authorized the proposed settlement.
" [Journal of Donald Attridge]
 |
| Dan White |
1986 Newsweek "Growing Up Gay: The Society's Dilemma- One family's crisis
1986- Cory De Young, an employee of the narcotic
division of the SLC police department claimed that Joe Redburn, owner of the
Sun Tavern referred De Young to a drug dealer.
Redburn claimed that he was out of town on that date and De Young a
former felon was not telling the truth. Incident sets off a vice Squad raid to
close down the Sun Tavern. Redburn dismissed De Young as a thief and a liar. “I
like Joe. But drugs are getting so bad; people are dying right and left, and
you don’t ever hear about it really. It’s too bad that he’s involved because he
could definitely run a nice club.”, stated Cory De Young. Joe Redburn stated,
“I didn’t know my employees were dealing in drugs. They all signed a paper
before they worked here that says they will not sell or use illicit drugs and
will submit to a lie detector test if asked.”
 |
| Russ Lane |
 |
| Deb Rosenberg |
 |
| Ian Charleston |
1993- Russian Ballet dancer Rudolf Nureyev
(1938-1993) died of complications from AIDS in Paris.
 |
| Rudolf Nureyev |
1999 Wednesday By
Marjorie Cortez Deseret News staff writer
Gay couples, lesbian couples, heterosexual couples living in common-law
relationships and polygamists could not adopt children in state custody under a
proposal before the Board of Child and Family Services. The board will conduct
a public hearing on the proposed policy change at 9 a.m. Friday, Jan. 22, at
the Division of Child and Family
Services offices at 120 N. 200 West.
Board chairman Scott H. Clark said state adoption standards are now
silent on the issues. "I don't
believe that given all the alternatives, it is a reasonable choice to permit
people who are not married -- be they man-woman, woman-woman, man-man or living
together in a clan but not legally married -- to be an appropriate adoption
choice," he said. The revision would not "limit or discourage single-parent adoptions," he said.
The proposal would require a "verification that adults present in
the home are legally related to the (prospective adoptive) parent or parents by
blood or legal marriage." Clark and his wife, Mary Beth, are the
parents of 18 adopted children. Clark said he believes that married,
heterosexual couples can provide adopted children the greatest degree of
stability. "I feel it is the duty
and obligation of the division to promote those situations which are probably
the most stable for children," he said. DCFS director Ken Patterson
said Wednesday that "the division
did not seek to put this on the agenda of the board. We think, in fact, there
are more pressing issues for the
division to deal with, like carrying through with the instructions (U.S.
District Court) Judge Campbell gave us in September," referring to the
David C. vs. Leavitt case that challenges Utah's child welfare practices. "We see this as an individual
initiative of the chairman of the board," Patterson said. The division
does not know if gay or lesbians have adopted children in state custody because
caseworkers haven't asked applicants of their sexual orientation. By and large,
more married couples than single parents adopt children in state custody.
However, more adoptions are handled by private agencies than the state,
Patterson said. While the division is not seeking guidance on the point,
Patterson said he believes the policy should originate from the Legislature.
Although adoptions are handled by juvenile court judges in closed proceedings,
some polygamist groups have moved to adopt children from other polygamist
families. In 1991, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that practicing polygamy does
not automatically make a couple ineligible to adopt, even though plural marriage is against the law. In a 3-2
opinion, the court found that "neither
the statute, the Constitution, nor good public policy justifies a blanket
exclusion of polygamists from eligibility as adoptive parents."
Department of Human Services legal director Kate Lahey told the board in
December that the policy revision may conflict with state adoption statutes,
Utah case law and licensing rules. There also could be constitutional
challenges to the amendment. Otherwise, the Department of Human Services has
not taken a stand on the issue. Roz McGee, executive
director of Utah Children,
objects to the proposal. "I would be
really disappointed to see this board take this kind of narrow position, which
will surely involve you in a lot of
public attention, media attention and perhaps litigation. It will distract your
attention from some critically important areas you are addressing and should be
addressing," McGee said. Martha Matthews, an attorney for the National
Center on Youth Law, urged caution. A heterosexual couple living together who
wanted to adopt could marry if they needed to fill the requirement. That option
is not available to gay couples or lesbian couples, said Matthews, explaining
she was speaking as an individual, not on behalf of the NCYL. She attended the
meeting to address an unrelated matter. "You
want to consider what you're doing when
you adopt a policy that absolutely prohibits a certain group of people, which
may be 5 percent of the population, from ever adopting a child." Clark
said he is "not concerned about
whether or not people will disagree. We might have a lawsuit or something else.
That's always the case. If this initiative fails, I think there will be enough
public attention for the matter to go to the Legislature." Some
members of the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, have
expressed concerns about the issue, Clark said. He hopes the board of Child and
Family Services, which establishes policy and codifies regulation for the
division, will handle the matter itself, Clark said. In 1996, the Legislature wrestled with the issue of
whether gay and lesbian student organizations should be allowed to meet in public schools. That
debate spawned student walkouts, a march on the state Capitol and lawsuits.
"My intent is not to divide the
community. I want to make sure children are placed in optimal families,
Clark said.
 |
| Roz McGee |
.jpg)
2004 Queers Kick Ash meetings began to help youth quit
smoking. A one of a kind, smoking cessation program specifically designed for
GLBTQ youth and implemented at Oasis. The Queers Kick Ash program uses a
variety of techniques including peer education, role modeling, support groups,
media materials and vouchers for medical cessation services to encourage youth
to reduce or quit smoking.
.jpg) |
| Mark Swonson |
 |
| Larry Miller |
2006 - Polar Bear Party at Club Try Angles
starting at 10 pm. The Theme is Polar
Bear and that means "WHITE".
We would like everyone to wear some sort of white, be it pants, shorts,
underwear, t-shirts or whatever you have in white. There will be raffle for prizes and a special
drink called the "Polar Blue Martini" for $4, great dancing and all
your friends to enjoy the evening. Many of our bear friends are coming back to
share in this fun night so lets make it
great. The Board of the Utah Bear Alliance (Noal, Ken, Scot, Ron, and Jake)
would like to thank you all for a great year and hope that you will join us for
all of the fun activities we have planned this week. We hope to see you all
there. Noal President, Utah Bear Alliance (technically not any longer but what
the hell for a couple more days.)
2014 Supreme Court halts Utah gay marriages pending appeal Marriage • Utah AG says the stay puts married gay couples in ‘legal limbo.’ BY BROOKE ADAMS AND LINDSAY WHITEHURST THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE The court said the stay would be in place until the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver makes a decision on Utah’s appeal.
2014 Same-sex couples denied Utah marriage licenses in court order’s wake BY
MATTHEW PIPER AND LINDSAY WHITEHURST THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Kevin
Chrisman and James Gerena were a moment too late for a lifelong pledge. After
learning of U.S. District Court Judge Robert Shelby’s decision to strike down
the state’s same-sex marriage ban, the Boise, Idaho, couple took their first
opportunity to drive six hours and marry at the Salt Lake County clerk’s office
Monday morning. But as they pulled in, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of
Utah’s motion to stay Shelby’s ruling. The window — for same-sex couples, at
least — was now closed. “It’s like having a treasure map with an ‘X’ and
finding there’s nothing there at the end,” Chrisman said. Fifteen minutes after
hearing the news, the pair sat dazed in the hallway. Chrisman, 28, proposed to
Gerena, 24, a year and a half ago, and since then, they’ve worn their bands on
and off, depending on the politics of the crowd. Even though they have been
together for six years — and Gerena moved to Boise from his hometown of
Savannah, Ga., to be with Chrisman — some friends and family still refer to
them as friends. “It’s upsetting,” Gerena said. “We go through terrible years
of trying to come out of the closet, to make a point that we are not scared
anymore. And we get told by someone that thinks that they have the right to
say, ‘No, you can’t be happy in your life.’” When a county worker informed a
nearby lesbian couple, Chrisman says, one broke down crying. The older couple
began to call family and friends who had been planning on attending their
wedding from out of state. “Don’t bother,” they told them. “You cannot tell me
that is fair,” Gerena said. “To give them a ‘No,’ yet we saw a [straight]
couple that looks like they’re both 18 years old just walk out of there, gonna
go and get married.” Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen estimates that four
couples had been turned away Monday as of 11 a.m. As Chrisman and Gerena
composed themselves, a lesbian couple walked into the clerk’s office, where a
county worker told them about the stay. “What’s that?” one asked. “What I’m
saying is … we were issuing licenses until 15 minutes ago, then we were told by
the Supreme Court …” “Oh, come on!” The couple declined to identify themselves
to the media. They’d be going to Washington, they said. John Netto, interim
director of the Utah Pride Center, said that on the whole, the state’s lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender community (LGBT) had prepared for this
possibility. “We’re very confident, ultimately, that the issue will be decided
in our favor,” he said. “It’s the only right thing to do.” Seth Anderson and
Michael Ferguson, the first couple to be married at the Salt Lake County
clerk’s office Dec. 20, have been advised that the stay may affect their
ability to file taxes jointly. But, “We didn’t get married for that purpose,”
Anderson says. “As it stands, we are legally married in Utah,” he says. “I will
not easily allow anyone to take that away from me at all.” In the 17 days
same-sex marriage has been legal in Utah, about 1,000 same-sex couples have
been wed. Swensen said her office is still looking for clarification on what to
do about licenses that have been picked up but not yet returned, as Utah
couples have 30 days to get married after picking up a license and an
additional 30 days to return it to the clerk. Michael Braxton, who legally
performed a marriage for a same-sex couple Saturday, was able to register the
marriage certificate Monday shortly after the stay. Because the marriage took
place before the stay, the clerk’s office recorded it. “It’s sort of like the
red line, you cannot go forward because the ruling does not have the authority
to go forward,” said Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill. “Our commitment is to follow the law … we
basically go back to the pre-Dec. 20 days,” Gill said. “Right now, what the state
of the law in the state of Utah is now, is you cannot perform that marriage.” Anderson
pointed out that whichever side wins at the 10th Circuit, the case likely will
go to the U.S. Supreme Court. And that, he thinks, could take a few years. “People
were so shocked we had marriage ... that a good number of people that were
ready took action,” Netto said. “Frankly, I think we’re winning, and I think
we’re winning in a major way. … I see these interim skirmishes as an
opportunity to sharpen our swords and figure out what to do next.” When Marina
Gomberg heard the ban on same-sex marriage had been struck down, she left work
early and rushed to the Salt Lake County clerk’s office with her partner,
Elenor Heyborne. Though she’s disappointed by the stay, she said, “this doesn’t
invalidate what took place over the last couple weeks here, and it can’t
diminish the commitment of loving same-sex couples. I sort of feel like this is
part of the process of change, and we have to be patient and hopeful.”How many
same-sex couples were married? There’s no definitive number for same-sex
couples married in Utah since U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby’s landmark
ruling. For starters, the licenses only have fields for “bride” and “groom.” In
larger counties that have issued hundreds of licenses since Dec. 20, all they
can do is estimate. Calling all 29 counties, The Tribune compiled a total of
1,324 — with a significant flaw: It excludes Utah’s second-most populous
county. Utah County Clerk Bryan Thompson simply refuses to hazard a guess. “This
was all supposed to be about equality,” says Thompson, who notably denied
marriage licenses for five days after Shelby’s ruling while he sought legal
clarification. “There wasn’t supposed to be any differentiation between
heterosexual and homosexual marriage licenses.” The most licenses were issued
in Salt Lake County, at 800, followed by Weber (about 175), Davis (about 150),
Washington (58) and Summit (41) counties. Other county totals include: Tooele
(28), Grand (13), Cache (12), Box Elder (10-12), Uintah County (9), Carbon (5),
Wasatch (5), Iron (4), Kane (3), Sanpete (3), Duchesne (2), Juab (1), Millard
(1), San Juan (1), Sevier (1) and Wayne (1). Seven counties did not issue a
same-sex marriage license, according to county workers: Beaver, Daggett, Emery,
Garfield, Morgan, Piute and Rich. — Matthew Piper
2014 Supreme Court halts Utah gay marriages pending appeal Marriage • Utah AG says the stay puts married gay couples in ‘legal limbo.’ BY BROOKE ADAMS AND LINDSAY WHITEHURST THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE The court said the stay would be in place until the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver makes a decision on Utah’s appeal.
The
state’s stay application was filed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who referred
it to the whole court, according to the order issued Monday. Sotomayor is
assigned to the 10th Circuit Court, which rejected Utah’s request for a stay
three times. U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby also denied the state’s
request that he stay his Dec. 20 order overturning Amendment 3 while Utah
appealed. The order from the U.S.
Supreme Court means clerks in Utah no longer will be allowed to issue marriage
licenses to same-sex couples. It is not immediately clear what the order means
for couples who have already married. Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, who met
briefly with reporters Monday, said that this was the “uncertainty” the state
hoped to avoid with a stay. “We don’t know the answer yet as to marriages
already performed,” Reyes said, adding that the state wants to carefully
evaluate the implications. “There is not clear legal precedent for this
particular situation.” Reyes said it was unfortunate that many Utah citizens
are now in “legal limbo.” The state,
currently being assisted by Boise attorney Monte N. Stewart, has three weeks to
file its initial briefs with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. It expects to hire
outside counsel to assist with that effort, which could cost as much as $2
million, as quickly as possible; firms interested must submit applications by
Tuesday. Reyes said he believes the decision from the Supreme Court indicates
it has an interest in the case. “Pursuing the legal process to get a final
answer from the highest court benefits all citizens of Utah,” he said. Utah
Gov. Gary Herbert praised the Supreme Court’s order as the “correct decision.” “Clearly,
the stay should have been granted with the original District Court decision in
order to have avoided the uncertainty created by this unprecedented change,”
Herbert said in a statement. “As I have said all along, all Utahns deserve to
have this issue resolved through a fair and complete judicial process. I firmly
believe this is a state-rights issue, and I will work to defend the position of
the people of Utah and our State Constitution. In his decision, Shelby said
Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage violated equal protection and due process
rights of gay couples and demeaned their dignity for no rational reason. His
order was the first federal decision on a state law banning same-sex marriage
since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. Windsor,
which struck a provision in the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In its
stay application filed with the Supreme Court on Dec. 31, Utah said the refusal
of lower courts to grant its request for a stay was “an affront” to the state’s
and public’s interest “in being able to define marriage through ordinary
democratic channels.” In a reply filed by the state Monday with the U.S.
Supreme Court, Utah said Shelby’s ruling is the “starting point for resolution”
of what it has described as the “historical and essential” right of Utah and
other states to define marriage. Until the “recurring” question of whether the
U.S. Constitution requires recognition of same-sex marriages is resolved, Utah
should not be forced to license, perform and recognize such marriages, it said.
The state said attorneys for three same-sex couples who challenged Utah’s ban
on same-sex marriage “quibble around the edges” and fail to offer any
persuasive rebuttal to its argument that Shelby’s Dec. 20 order should be
stayed while it appeals the ruling. The plaintiffs filed their response before
the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, arguing that a stay would perpetuate the
“undisputed” harm to same-sex couples identified by Shelby and the high court
itself in the Windsor decision. They argued that constitutional rights of
individuals supersede those of the state when the two are conflict. The
plaintiffs’ attorneys expressed disappointment at the stay on Monday. “This
stay is obviously disappointing for the families in Utah who need the
protection of marriage and now have to wait to get married until the appeal is
over,” said James E. Magleby, who with attorney Peggy A. Tomsic represents the
plaintiffs. “Every day that goes by, same-sex couples and their children are
being harmed by not being able to marry and be treated equally.” He said the
stay is temporary and is not unusual while an appeal is pending, and it has no
bearing on the eventual outcome. “We were confident when we filed the case in
2013, we were confident when we presented the arguments to the District Court
and we remain equally — if not more — confident about our defense of marriage
equality before the 10th Circuit,” Magleby said in a statement. Carl Tobias, a
University of Richmond law professor and federal court expert, said the Supreme
Court order doesn’t reveal much except that the stay was granted. “It does not
say that the justices were unanimous,” he said, as some have inferred. “In
fact, it could have been 5-4, but the dissenting justices could have chosen to
not write [to explain their position].” Nor does it reveal whether the court
would be inclined to hear the case after the 10th Circuit Court rules on the
matter, which is likely to be in the spring. “The court may be content to wait
for other cases or to see the reasoning in other circuits,” Tobias said. “We
shall know more after the 10th Circuit decides.” About 1,300 same sex couples
have wed in 28 of Utah’s 29 counties since Shelby’s ruling. Utah County did not
provide marriage statistics. Though it isn’t clear how the stay might affect
those unions, making them no longer legal would be unprecedented, said Clifford
Rosky, a University of Utah law professor and Equality Utah board chairman. “Ultimately,
the courts will decide what happens to those marriages,” said Rosky, but “never
in the history of this country has a court retroactively invalidated a marriage
that was legal when it was entered.” The stay is difficult news for those
couples and their families, Rosky said, including their children, parents,
brothers and sisters.” Bill Duncan, president of the Utah County-based Marriage
Law Foundation, which joined in an amicus filing in District Court, called the
order appropriate. Shelby acted “rashly” in allowing his decision to take
effect without granting a stay while the state appealed, he said. “I’m pleased
the state has been given time for that appeal to work itself out rather than
rushing ahead,” said Duncan, who also is director of the Sutherland Institute’s
Center for Family and Society. He noted that U.S. Supreme Court order “suggests
that the issue is so important that the court recognizes that there needed to
be more deliberation on the question.” “It’s interesting and also helpful from
my perspective that whole court endorsed the idea that it is not up to one
federal judge to overturn Utah’s marriage laws without much clearer direction
from the U.S. Supreme Court,” Duncan said. As for what happens now to marriages
performed while Shelby’s decision was in place, Duncan said “we really don’t
know and no one will know until a later ruling.” The confusion “could have been
avoided if Shelby had issued a stay,” he said. “That was one of the unwise
aspects of his decision.” Jim Dabakis — chairman of the Utah Democratic Party,
state senator and newlywed to longtime partner Stephen Justesen — failed “to
see what good comes by getting down on one knee and telling children [of LGBT
couples], ‘Your state really doesn’t believe you are a family and you’re really
a second-class kind of people and you’re not as good as the rest of us.’” “People
have the religious right to marry or not to marry whoever they choose, but the
state of Utah ought not to be making those decisions when you consider all the
wonderful benefits to children that come from the security of having two legal
parents,” Dabakis said. LGBT activist Troy Williams said the stay will “raise
the stakes” and “help us organize more effectively.” “This changes the dynamic
because once you try to stop or take away a person’s individual rights and
liberties, then you will see our community so fired up unlike ever before,” he
said. “If you thought the LGBT community was mobilized or organized in the
past, you ain’t see nothin’ yet.” The Sutherland Institute, a conservative
nonpartisan policy think tank in Salt Lake City, said the issue also has fired
up its supporters. David Buer, communications director, said that after
Shelby’s ruling, its network of supporters grew more than 100 percent — largely
due to an online petition it sponsored asking Utahns to voice support for the
state’s position. The debate now will largely center on the 10th Circuit Court.
The appellate court has agreed to hear Utah’s appeal on an expedited basis,
with all filings in the case due by the end of February. In its filing Monday,
the state said the respondents did not dispute that the Utah lawsuit squarely
addresses the question left open in Windsor. Neither do they dispute the
Supreme Court is “highly likely” to hear the case if the 10th Circuit affirms
Shelby’s decision, the state said. Utah
also said the respondents failed to address the state’s “common-sense”
argument, based on sociological studies, that children do better when parented
by a mother and father and that permitting only opposite-sex unions increases
the likelihood children will be raised in such families. That provides “at
least a rational basis for and, indeed, a compelling interest in the Utah laws
that the district court wrongly enjoined,” the state said. And every same-sex
marriage that occurs in Utah as a result of Shelby’s “unlawful injunction”
undermines the right of a state and its people to define marriage in the way
they believe will best further the public welfare, it said. Allowing such
marriages to continue “irreparably injures the state, by interfering with its
enforcement of its own laws,” the state said. Meanwhile, the respondents failed
to identify any “concrete” harm to themselves or other same-sex couples that
would occur if a stay is granted, Utah said.
2014 Same-sex couples denied Utah marriage licenses in court order’s wake BY
.jpg) |
| Kevin Chrisman & James Gerena |
No comments:
Post a Comment