SALT LAKE CITY — Sevier County Clerk/Auditor Steve Wall hasn't given much thought to whether he would perform a wedding for a same-sex couple who comes to his office.
But under a new Utah law that takes effect May 12, he doesn't have to marry anyone unless a he can't find a person in the county to conduct the civil ceremony, making county clerks the "marriers" of last resort.
While clerks could opt out of officiating a same-sex wedding, SB297 obligates their offices to ensure that they or a "willing" designee is available during business hours to marry any couple who has a valid marriage license. Designees don't have to work in the clerk's office, according to the bill.
"That's what I need to look at in the law. If we have to have someone available everyday all day long, in these rural areas, that's tough to do," said Wall, who lives in a south central county of about 20,000 residents.
Wall isn't alone in needing to study the law. County clerks throughout Utah are figuring out what it means for them and their offices.
The Utah Association of Counties is working to create a template policy that counties could use when they implement the law next month.
"As we looked at the legislation, we realized there are some pretty straightforward ways to handle this," said Adam Trupp, executive director of Utah Association of Counties. He said he'd like to see uniform guidelines among the state's 29 counties.
Though county clerks issue marriage licenses, state law never required them to officiate at weddings. Some opted to do so over the years, but others chose not to even before same-sex marriage became legal in the state.
Offering couples a list of designees seems to be the route many county clerks are going, though the definition of "designee" might be open to interpretation.
Some county officials believe it would allow them to delegate a person of their choosing such as a family member or friend to perform the ceremony on a one-time basis, something county clerks could do until the Legislature took that authority from them 10 years ago.
But that also raises the possibility that if a grandfather, for example, were designated to marry his granddaughter and her fiancé, he would be obligated to marry any couple who asks from then on.
Senate Majority Whip Stuart Adams, R-Layton, sponsor of SB297, said that scenario did not come up during discussions about the bill.
"To me, that's probably a policy issue for the counties," he said.
Adams said the main focus of the law is to make sure everyone is treated equally and fairly.
Weber County Clerk/Auditor Ricky Hatch said he really doesn't want to be back in the wedding ceremony business, though he enjoyed the role of officiant. He performed about 10 marriages a week until he realized how much of a burden it was on him and his staff.
The county lists on its website five judges and a court commissioner who are available for wedding duty. But Hatch wants to designate community members outside those kinds of officials as well.
"I guess the question is, what does 'available' mean?" he said.
Hatch said he doesn't think the intent of the law is to all of a sudden make county clerks "marriage coordinators on call." He said he expects couples seeking to get married would make appointments.
"In the past, even before same-sex marriages were legal in Utah, we required appointments because it's just burdensome to have someone available to come in," he said. "They just want to make sure that if I want to get married and I have some situation, whether it's a same-sex couple or because of religious reasons or whatever, that I can't be discriminated against, that I have at least one option."
There isn't much demand in Piute County — population 1,500 — for the clerk to perform marriages.
First-term Clerk/Auditor Kali Gleave said her predecessor performed only a handful in 28 years. But Gleave, who said she hasn't decided yet whether she would conduct marriages, recently had a request from a same-sex couple — not for the clerk to marry them, but for a list of who would be available.
"Me and my deputy clerk are actually both new, so we kind of scrambled to figure what we were going to do there," she said.
Gleave said she arranged with the Sevier County justice court judge, who also serves Piute County, to schedule a time with the couple. "They seemed pleased with the results we gave them," she said.
For the future, Gleave said she's leaning toward providing a list of marriage officiants like other counties are doing.
Davis County Clerk/Auditor Curtis Koch said he's reaching out to religious leaders willing to perform all marriages as well as judges and mayors. Like Hatch, he also wants to broaden the list beyond those officials and said he's conferring with the county attorney's office to see if that's possible.
The new law hasn't changed anything in Utah and Salt Lake counties.
The Utah County Clerk's Office will continue not to solemnize marriages as it has done since 2013, said Clerk/Auditor Bryan Thompson. It offers couples a list of judges and others willing to conduct the ceremonies.
Salt Lake County will stay with the opposite approach.
"We've been performing the ceremonies all along anyway. It's been seamless," said Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen. The county has a ceremony room where deputy clerks marry couples who pay a $40 fee and bring at least two witnesses over age 18.
Deputy Salt Lake county clerk LaDonna Harris has solemnized 2,567 marriages in her seven years on the job. She's married people wearing everything from tuxedos and wedding gowns to Red Sox jerseys to pajamas.
Ceremonies have picked up since other Wasatch Front counties stopped performing them in recent years, she said.
Harris said she was glad when same-sex couples were able to marry.
"I don't think anyone here has a problem doing any ceremony," she said.
Though SB297 won't change much for Salt Lake County, Swensen said, it appears to undo a 2004 law that prohibits county clerks from delegating people outside their offices to conduct weddings. That means they could authorize someone whom a couple wants to marry them such as a family member or friend on a one-time basis.
"I don't see anything to preclude that," Swensen said, adding she has asked the district attorney's office to look into it. Hatch and Trupp also read the law that way.
Swensen said she was disappointed when lawmakers removed that option because it provides a "wonderful" public service for couples who want a person who means something to them to conduct the ceremony.
Koch said he also is seeking advice from his county attorney on that issue. He said he would like the opportunity to make the ceremony more meaningful by letting couples choose who marries them.
Email: romboy@deseretnews.com, Twitter: dennisromboy