Kissing on Temple Square? Everybody?

[tubaloth]

So there has been some news here in utah about this. (I hope this hasn't already been posted)

ksl.com - Protesters stage "kiss-in" near LDS temple

[deseretgov]

Seeing a bunch of men/women passionatly kissing other men/women gives me the Heebidiby Jeebies!

[prisonchaplain]

Here's the incident that started the controversy: Gay couple detained near Mormon plaza after kiss - Yahoo! News

IMHO the gay couple thought it would be funny to smooch in the heart of prop-8 land. They likely have no respect for the sanctity of the place, because they believe the Church to be a promoter of hate, and therefore unworthy of basic decent treatment. It just all seemed rather "in your face," rather than an innocent act of two people who did not quite realize where they were. Their confrontational attitude towards the security people only enhances my suspicions.

This protest is not about smooching on Mormon grounds. It is about further efforts to humiliate and cause to cower political enemies of the same sex marriage proponents.

[Wingnut]

"It doesn't matter what they were asked to leave for," Snyder said. "If they are asked to leave and don't they are ... trespassing."

Exactly.

Sounds like everything was handled appropriately.

[john doe]

Exactly, PC.

[Ezequiel]

I'm always really proud to see how the church deals with situations like this. Its done in a very diplomatic way.

[freckleface]

Here's the incident that started the controversy: Gay couple detained near Mormon plaza after kiss - Yahoo! News

IMHO the gay couple thought it would be funny to smooch in the heart of prop-8 land. They likely have no respect for the sanctity of the place, because they believe the Church to be a promoter of hate, and therefore unworthy of basic decent treatment. It just all seemed rather "in your face," rather than an innocent act of two people who did not quite realize where they were. Their confrontational attitude towards the security people only enhances my suspicions.

This protest is not about smooching on Mormon grounds. It is about further efforts to humiliate and cause to cower political enemies of the same sex marriage proponents.

Word.

[its_Chet]

This headline very quickly caught my attention, and here's why:

Years ago, when my wife and I were still courting within the frame of a long distance relationship, we met up in Salt Lake City on one of our get togethers, and went to Temple Square, which I do every chance I get.

We were sitting in the Tabernacle, and kind of forgot about everything else around us. I'll just say it, we were kissing for some time. Next thing I know, a sister missionary was sitting in front of asking us to take it outside because they were trying to share the Gospel with some visitors to Temple Square, who were staring at us. She was VERY tactful and polite, and I was VERY embarrassed. I don't know if I apologized enough, but I tried.

Color me naive, but my first thought when I saw the headline was that it was hetero kissing.

I was just remarking to my sister in law yesterday how I came across a blog written by a member of the LAPD, who is also a member of the Church. He says that he was part of a team that was stationed near the LA Temple during the protests, to make sure it didn't become a riot. He was with a group of police who were watching the protest and one of his group said "I hope they jump the fence and burn that place down." Yes, that was a member of the LAPD who said that. I suppose nothing should be shocking now.

But for me it is.

PS: Hats off to PrisonChaplain, he nailed it.

[Bettina]

To my opinion they did it on purpose to catch attention to the world. I am sure, they knew the rules very well and broke them to make a loud cry over the world.

I am from Germany. I know very well all about this issue. But my country fellows only see what the news bring. And what bring the news? Mormons would be intolerant, worldly innocent, prude, uptight and so on. Nobody is interested in the real facts.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Bettina

[DigitalShadow]

Here's the incident that started the controversy: Gay couple detained near Mormon plaza after kiss - Yahoo! News

IMHO the gay couple thought it would be funny to smooch in the heart of prop-8 land. They likely have no respect for the sanctity of the place, because they believe the Church to be a promoter of hate, and therefore unworthy of basic decent treatment. It just all seemed rather "in your face," rather than an innocent act of two people who did not quite realize where they were. Their confrontational attitude towards the security people only enhances my suspicions.

This protest is not about smooching on Mormon grounds. It is about further efforts to humiliate and cause to cower political enemies of the same sex marriage proponents.

I will say that I have had many walks with my wife through Temple Square and probably more than a few times had her kiss me on the cheek and saw many other couples there giving similar public displays of affection without rousing any concern from security. I think that statements like "politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior — just as any other couple would have been" are blatantly false from my experience, especially with something like a kiss on the cheek. I don't think either side is claiming they were sitting in Temple Square sucking face or anything like that.

Yes, they should have left when asked since it is private property, but I also have no doubt they were singled out for being homosexual as well and I would have much more respect for the people involved if they simply said that the reason they were asked to leave was because the they are not comfortable with public displays of homosexual affection.

So yes, it is entirely possible that the couple came to Temple Square specifically to make a point and/or draw media attention, but in my opinion it is also quite possible that they were simply enjoying the beauty of Temple Square and became somewhat understandably confrontational after feeling blatantly discriminated against.

Edited July 14, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[freckleface]

How sad it seems that Temple Square is used to be the "whipping post" for anyone who has their panties in a ruffle. If it's not people making fun of garments and waving them around, then it's someone flaunting their "rights" in front of a sacred place of worship. They have no idea what people have sacrificed to make Temple Square what it is today. Sad. Very sad.

They just don't get it.

[john doe]

I don't think the LDS Church objects to someone stealing a kiss while walking through the Plaza. What they probably object to is making out, and also making a spectacle of themselves while doing so. Gays going to a place owned by a church that the gays deem as their enemy and publicly kissing and refusing to stop when asked to by security are there to cause confrontation. They were looking for trouble and it found them. Now they are using the situation to try to make the church appear intolerant to them, which is not the case.

[Just_A_Guy]

The problem is, the press release said the Church objected to all public displays of affection on the Plaza--which simply isn't true.

The couple deserved what they got. But IMHO, the LDS Church's PR department has handled a crisis in a very amateurish way. Which, frankly, seems to be par for the course over the past year or so.

[bytebear]

The problem is, the press release said the Church objected to all public displays of affection on the Plaza--which simply isn't true.

The couple deserved what they got. But IMHO, the LDS Church's PR department has handled a crisis in a very amateurish way. Which, frankly, seems to be par for the course over the past year or so.

I though I had read a post from someone else who said they were told to stop kissing in the tabernacle. I think the rule is applied equally. The difference is the gay couple escalated the situation by becoming hostile to the request to stop.

(and I personally think their behavior was intentional and meant to cause a scene)

[Gwen]

just because some public displays of affection don't get caught doesn't mean they don't have a policy to discourage (or object to) public displays of affection.

speeding is against the law, does everyone that speeds get caught? no. that doesn't change the law that you "can't" speed.

i can understand why the church would have a policy to say no to public displays of affection. for me going very spiritual places or having very spiritual experiences with my husband builds certain feelings. i assume the same kind of thing happens with non lds. with that many visitors it could become a problem if everyone was sitting around making out. combine that with the only one that enjoys public displays of affection are the ppl doing it. everyone else is pretty much turned off by it, which does interfere with the spirit and missionary work. lol

i don't see anything unreasonable or untruthful about the churches reaction. however i do think there might have been a more sinsitive way to handle it knowing the amt of descrimination most same gender couples feel and knowing that they probably wouldn't know or understand the rule about no pda on the grounds. it's not unthinkable that they would assume it was all about the fact that they were same gender.

[DigitalShadow]

There's a HUGE difference between stealing a kiss and making out. A lot of people here seem to assume that the couple was making out but that doesn't seem to be the claim from either the couple or the people involved in the situation.

Whether they were same sex or opposite sex, if they are making out I think it is perfectly appropriate and to ask them to either stop or leave, but from experience, I find it extremely hard to believe any opposite sex couple would be pulled aside and given a talking to for stealing a kiss on temple grounds.

If the church is trying to say that any couple seen stealing a kiss would get the same treatment, yes the are being purposely untruthful about it.

[bytebear]

There's a HUGE difference between stealing a kiss and making out. A lot of people here seem to assume that the couple was making out but that doesn't seem to be the claim from either the couple or the people involved in the situation.

Whether they were same sex or opposite sex, if they are making out I think it is perfectly appropriate and to ask them to either stop or leave, but from experience, I find it extremely hard to believe any opposite sex couple would be pulled aside and given a talking to for stealing a kiss on temple grounds.

If the church is trying to say that any couple seen stealing a kiss would get the same treatment, yes the are being purposely untruthful about it.

Actually we don't know that. Only the couple has made a statement saying it was a kiss on the cheek. Neither the church nor the security personnel to my knowledge has issued any statement regarding the extent of the affection. The church was clear on the fact that the couple "became argumentative and used profanity" which is what led to this being news. They escalated the situation. Now you can speculate as to why they chose to do that, but I think the reasons were clear.

From the article

Church spokeswoman Kim Farah said in a statement Friday that the men were "politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior — just as any other couple would have been."

"They became argumentative and used profanity and refused to leave the property," she said. The church did not immediately respond to a request for more comment.

Edited July 14, 2009 by bytebear

[DigitalShadow]

Actually we don't know that. Only the couple has made a statement saying it was a kiss on the cheek. Neither the church nor the security personnel to my knowledge has issued any statement regarding the extent of the affection. The church was clear on the fact that the couple "became argumentative and used profanity" which is what led to this being news. They escalated the situation. Now you can speculate as to why they chose to do that, but I think the reasons were clear.

That's exactly my point. The church isn't claiming the couple was making out or disagreeing with their statement, yet people are assuming the couple was making out or otherwise intentionally provoked this situation. While that could be the case, I think that's a large assumption to make.

Obviously I think escalating the situation was the wrong thing to do, but I also think it was wrong to hold a homosexual couple to a different standard than they hold heterosexual couples to at the Temple grounds which is certainly the case if the couple's statement was accurate (the article and statements from the church give no reason to believe otherwise).

Edited July 14, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[bytebear]

That's exactly my point. The church isn't claiming the couple was making out or disagreeing with their statement, yet people are assuming the couple was making out or otherwise intentionally provoked this situation. While that could be the case, I think that's a large assumption to make.

Obviously I think escalating the situation was the wrong thing to do, but I also think it was wrong to hold a homosexual couple to a different standard than they hold heterosexual couples to at the Temple grounds which is certainly the case if the couple's statement was accurate (the article and statements from the church give no reason to believe otherwise).

It's all about the escalation. They were politely asked to stop. They got belligerent. There are first hand accounts of heterosexual couples being given the same polite request, so I don't believe for one second that they were held to a double standard. And I do believe that if a straight couple got uppity about being told to stop, they would be treated exactly the same way. There is no double standard. Sorry, that dog just won't hunt.

[DigitalShadow]

It's all about the escalation. They were politely asked to stop. They got belligerent. There are first hand accounts of heterosexual couples being given the same polite request, so I don't believe for one second that they were held to a double standard. And I do believe that if a straight couple got uppity about being told to stop, they would be treated exactly the same way. There is no double standard. Sorry, that dog just won't hunt.

The first hand account you mentioned was in regards to a couple sitting in a place and kissing (also known as making out), which is far different from a peck on the cheek (which no statements given are contradicting). Do you really see no difference between those two situations?

I work about 5 blocks from Temple Square, I go there quite often and have seen many heterosexual couples there innocently steal a kiss while walking (and have even done so myself) without anyone pulling them aside, so if you don't believe for one second that there is a double standard here, you must believe they were doing more than just a peck on the cheek, and if that is the case, what brought you to that conclusion?

edit: I agree completely the a straight couple would be treated the same way if they escalated the situation, the double standard is that a straight couple would not have been approached in the first place with just a kiss on the cheek.

Edited July 14, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[Traveler]

That's exactly my point. The church isn't claiming the couple was making out or disagreeing with their statement, yet people are assuming the couple was making out or otherwise intentionally provoked this situation. While that could be the case, I think that's a large assumption to make.

Obviously I think escalating the situation was the wrong thing to do, but I also think it was wrong to hold a homosexual couple to a different standard than they hold heterosexual couples to at the Temple grounds which is certainly the case if the couple's statement was accurate (the article and statements from the church give no reason to believe otherwise).

The purpose of the homosexual couple was to provoke. And if we are wondering about different standards? If homosexual couples really want to make a statement why not go to a mosque in Tehran and make a statement.

One of the age old laws concerning private property in our society is the right of “quite enjoyment”. This means that you are free to use your property for your purposes as you see fit as long as you are not breaking any other established laws. It also means specifically that you have the right to remove anyone from your property that you think is harassing you; including a official government individuals like a police officer that has come onto your property without your permission or a warrant. Note that the determining factor of harassing is the property owner which means that an intruder on private property is the one obligated to prove there was no harassment – not the owner.

In this case the law is clearly on the side of the LDS church. The party harassing admitted to coming to Utah specifically to harass because of Prop 8. Those that then demonstrated against the LDS Church place themselves directly in opposition to old English law to which the laws of this country are dependent. To expect that the law not apply in this situation is the very definition of “prejudice”. Also if we consider the current interpretation of “hate crimes” I do not see how the actions of the homosexuals is not only a violation of standing law but the very definition of a hate crime.

The Traveler

Edited July 14, 2009 by Traveler

[DigitalShadow]

The purpose of the homosexual couple was to provoke. And if we are wondering about different standards? If homosexual couples really want to make a statement why not go to a mosque in Tehran and make a statement.

One of the age old laws concerning private property in our society is the right of “quite enjoyment”. This means that you are free to use your property for your purposes as you see fit as long as you are not breaking any other established laws. It also means specifically that you have the right to remove anyone from your property that you think is harassing you. Note that the determining factor of harassing is the property owner which means that an intruder on private property is the one obligated to prove there was no harassment – not the owner.

In this case the law is clearly on the side of the LDS church. The party harassing admitted to coming to Utah specifically to harass because of Prop 8. Those that then demonstrated against the LDS Church place themselves directly in opposition to old English law to which the laws of this country are dependent. To expect that the law not apply in this situation is the very definition of “prejudice”. Also if we consider the current interpretation of “hate crimes” I do not see how the actions of the homosexuals is not only a violation of standing law but the very definition of a hate crime.

The Traveler

I don't believe that the church broke the law in any way, but I do believe that the couple was possibly singled out because they were homosexual and that the church is being dishonest in its statements of how they apply the rules against public displays of affection.

It is quite possible that the couple did this with the intention of provoking a response from the church, in which case I think the behavior of the guard was completely warranted but from the article I don't think there is enough information to assume either way and regardless of how it actually happened, the church is still being dishonest about how they apply the rules against public displays of affection.

Edited July 14, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[bytebear]

The first hand account you mentioned was in regards to a couple sitting in a place and kissing (also known as making out), which is far different from a peck on the cheek (which no statements given are contradicting). Do you really see no difference between those two situations?

I work about 5 blocks from Temple Square, I go there quite often and have seen many heterosexual couples there innocently steal a kiss while walking (and have even done so myself) without anyone pulling them aside, so if you don't believe for one second that there is a double standard here, you must believe they were doing more than just a peck on the cheek, and if that is the case, what brought you to that conclusion?

edit: I agree completely the a straight couple would be treated the same way if they escalated the situation, the double standard is that a straight couple would not have been approached in the first place with just a kiss on the cheek.

I simply do not believe the gay couple's story that it was just a kiss on the cheek. Given the hostile reaction to the security guard, I believe they were purposely making a statement. I just don't find them credible.

[DigitalShadow]

I simply do not believe the gay couple's story that it was just a kiss on the cheek. Given the hostile reaction to the security guard, I believe they were purposely making a statement. I just don't find them credible.

I certainly don't condone their hostile reaction, but I can imagine how easy it is to lose your temper when you feel like you are discriminated against. I can see the situation happening either way.

[john doe]

The arrest report also points out that this was around 10:30 at night, the two had been drinking to the point where the responding officer states that at least one of the men smelled of alcohol and was slurring his speech.