Kissing on Temple Square? Everybody?

[Wingnut]

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).

For the sake of argument, let's say that security does hold same-sex couples to a different standard. What's the problem? It's private property. It's a religious site. Same-sex couples engaging in affectionate behavior is offensive to the diety to whom the religious site is dedicated. What's the problem in singling out the same-sex couple (other than it being a PR nightmare)?

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.

Perhaps the original couple didn't do it intentionally, but the kiss-in was definitely staged and deliberate.

[DigitalShadow]

For the sake of argument, let's say that security does hold same-sex couples to a different standard. What's the problem? It's private property. It's a religious site. Same-sex couples engaging in affectionate behavior is offensive to the diety to whom the religious site is dedicated. What's the problem in singling out the same-sex couple (other than it being a PR nightmare)?

As I said originally, I would have a lot more respect for the church if they simply said that they found the same sex affection offensive rather than trying to claim any couple with public displays of affection would have been treated the same way. If their belief is that same sex affection is more offensive (for whatever reason), why not present that to present to the public rather than poorly trying to "spin" the situation?

I personally think that if you are going to allow the public to visit private property and have rules for what is appropriate and what is not, they should be enforced equally between same sex and opposite sex couples, but the church is well within their rights to impose any set of arbitrary rules they want.

Perhaps the original couple didn't do it intentionally, but the kiss-in was definitely staged and deliberate.

The kiss-in is deliberate and I don't think it's a particularly good idea either.

Edited July 14, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[DigitalShadow]

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.

In light of that information, I would have to say I'm leaning much more toward this situation being at least semi-intentional on behalf of the couple. If they indeed were drunk enough to be slurring words and it was 10:30 pm as john doe indicated, that alone would be enough to politely ask them to leave. I still think the church is doing a horrible job of handling this situation, but at this point I don't really feel sorry for couple either.

[talisyn]

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.

Stealing a kiss would not get someone escorted off church property, homo or hetero or what not.

I do think it was innocent(ish). If it was staged we would have seen the footage from someone videotaping it by now.

Edited July 14, 2009 by talisyn

[talisyn]

ok that was weird. never try to edit when your pc is laggy

Edited July 14, 2009 by talisyn
double post

[Bob_Blaylock]

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.

It's no longer Politically Correct to say so, but someone needs to say it: There is also a huge difference between a man and a woman engaging in public displays of affection, and a same-sex couple doing the same thing.

Homosexuality is wrong, period. And expressing it on church grounds is inappropriate in a way that a similar expression of heterosexuality is not.

[john doe]

A copy of the arrest report can be found here: http://media.bonnint.net/slc/1273/127399/12739934.pdf .

[prisonchaplain]

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

So, if my wife and I were engaging in enough kissing that security had time to take notice, and walk over to ask us to stop, you don't think they would bother, since we were hetero??? Granted we don't know the timing. But I seriously doubt that the gay couple had barely started to smooch, when the LDS gestapo jumped out from behind fake trees to nab them. It's likely they saw security coming, winked at each other, and contined with even more gusto.

Color me cynical, but I don't see how these two, especially post prop-8, could have innocently stolen a peck, only to be humiliated by the brutish LDS goon squad. They went into the belly of the beast looking to create an incident.

[Moksha]

Does anyone feel that this was public relations fiasco?

[prisonchaplain]

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's good to try to understand others. However, I think you go too far. You assume their's was a short peck, because they said so, and nobody specifically contradicted. Yet, common sense tells me that a quick peck is not likely to draw attention quickly enough. If they'd done so and already stopped, why did security bother to come over???

As to whether homosexual displays might be noticed more quickly and responded too in same manner, most likely so. Is it "fair" that police will pull over a fire red sports car for speeding more quickly than a tan Buick? I'm willing to give law enforcement that much discretion.

[prisonchaplain]

As I said originally, I would have a lot more respect for the church if they simply said that they found the same sex affection offensive rather than trying to claim any couple with public displays of affection would have been treated the same way. If their belief is that same sex affection is more offensive (for whatever reason), why not present that to present to the public rather than poorly trying to "spin" the situation?

This is naive and wrong. Earlier I posted the analogy of a fire-red sports car vs. a tan Buick. Ask an officer which he'll pull over for speeding first, and his answer is likely to be, "All things being equal, a speeder will be pulled over for violating the law." If he said, "I don't trust sports car drivers, and I'll pull them over in a heartbeat," he'd likely face at least temporary suspension.

If your church says, "We find homosexual displays of affection on our holy grounds to be an abomination, and will indeed put a stop to it far sooner than if loving heterosexual couples smooch on our grounds," the result would be a cacophany of ridicule, gay protests, and non-LDS heteros taking advantage of the implied permission...

Public Displays of Affection are inappopriate at most religious holy sites. That religious security might naturally notice gays more quickly is no condemnation of policy, nor is it even proof of any signficant inconsistency.

[john doe]

According to the statements in the police report, the men were 'kissing and hugging'. This tells me they were engaged in an embrace, much more than an innocent or quick peck on the cheek. The reason they were cited is that they refused to stop their behavior and/or leave when security identified themselves and requested them to do so. That resulted in a trespassing citation, not a 'hugging and kissing' citation. The resulting media firestorm is designed to embarrass the church, and going around calling it a PR fiasco is contributing to that misunderstanding of the facts. Call it what it was: two people who hate the LDS Church were asked to leave private LDS Church property and refused, which resulted in a trespassing citation. End of story. Giving this garbage more credence than it deserves only serve to make the opposition appear stronger. The church has no business apologizing for its actions as it and its representatives did absolutely nothing wrong in this case. If you come on my property and I ask you to leave and you refuse, I could call the cops and they will cite you for trespassing as well. You can scream and yell and cry all you want, that's the way it is.

[DigitalShadow]

It's good to try to understand others. However, I think you go too far. You assume their's was a short peck, because they said so, and nobody specifically contradicted. Yet, common sense tells me that a quick peck is not likely to draw attention quickly enough. If they'd done so and already stopped, why did security bother to come over???

As to whether homosexual displays might be noticed more quickly and responded too in same manner, most likely so. Is it "fair" that police will pull over a fire red sports car for speeding more quickly than a tan Buick? I'm willing to give law enforcement that much discretion.

My posts are for the most part saying that if it was a simple peck on the cheek as the couple claims, the security guard was in my opinion out of line though perfectly within legal rights. My common sense also tells me that it is entirely possible for a security guard who is personally disgusted with any homosexual behavior to target a homosexual couple while ignoring heterosexual couples engaged in the same activities. That doesn't mean it was the case, but it shouldn't immediately be ruled out either.

As more is revealed about the incident (thank you john doe), I think that you are probably right that there was more going on here and it's difficult to tell exactly what went on, but I don't think it went down as innocently the homosexual couple is stating.

[DigitalShadow]

This is naive and wrong. Earlier I posted the analogy of a fire-red sports car vs. a tan Buick. Ask an officer which he'll pull over for speeding first, and his answer is likely to be, "All things being equal, a speeder will be pulled over for violating the law." If he said, "I don't trust sports car drivers, and I'll pull them over in a heartbeat," he'd likely face at least temporary suspension.

If your church says, "We find homosexual displays of affection on our holy grounds to be an abomination, and will indeed put a stop to it far sooner than if loving heterosexual couples smooch on our grounds," the result would be a cacophany of ridicule, gay protests, and non-LDS heteros taking advantage of the implied permission...

Public Displays of Affection are inappopriate at most religious holy sites. That religious security might naturally notice gays more quickly is no condemnation of policy, nor is it even proof of any signficant inconsistency.

Yes, public displays of affection are inappropriate at most religious sites, but something as vague as "public display of affection" can range from simply holding hands or giving a hug to being joined at the mouth. The extent of what went on that brought about this reaction is important.

As I said earlier though even before your replies, other reports are more revealing toward what actually went on and I now seriously doubt it was an "innocent" mistake on the part of the couple.

[Bob_Blaylock]

But I seriously doubt that the gay couple had barely started to smooch, when the LDS gestapo jumped out from behind fake trees to nab them.

Godwin's Law invoked.

[Misshalfway]

Frankly, I think the two doing the kissing were milking this for all it was worth.....but having said that I do believe that the security guards probably over reacted and that the church didn't handle the situation well at all! I think the church shot themselves in the foot and it kinda makes me feel a little sick inside.

[Misshalfway]

I bet those two guys will be future guest stars on The Ellen Degeneres show.

[its_Chet]

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.

Guilty as charged. Man was I embarrassed.

And therein lies the difference. It's only now, years later, on an internet forum with at least some measure of anonymity, that I'm comfortable talking about it. I felt like such an idiot at the time, and still consider it to be one of my "least proud" moments. What I did was I quickly and sheepishly darted out of there after apologizing. What I didn't do was bang a drum in public about what unfair treatment I'd received and demand that the public accept my behavior. I was embarrassed about my behavior.

Common sense would have told these two malcontents not to do what they did. Their behavior after the act, to me, proves they had an agenda.

[its_Chet]

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).

With respect, I couldn't agree less.

First, we have to remember the nature of the environment. It's Temple Square. Not downtown San Francisco. Not Greenwich Village. There is a strong sense of what is acceptable and what is not in certain communities, and common sense will tell anyone what it is.

Second, a peck on the cheek between a hetero couple is not the same thing as a peck on the cheek between a homo couple. The majority of the people who come to Temple Square inherently know this. Personally, my opinion is that if the homo couple had smeared dog poo all over faces, it would have been less gross than what they did. The Church has a right to ask that people not do disgusting things on its private property. The purpose of Temple Square is to provide an environment in the heart of the global LDS community for people to learn more about it and see its beauty. This is not done when people are behaving in a way that suggests they are filming the next Jack@&! or CKY movie.

Third, if common sense is to be shown the door, and we decide we're going to split legal hairs over this, there is such a thing as disturbing the peace. If I went to downtown Berkeley with a bullhorn, and started reading scriptures at the top of my voice, I'm pretty sure at some point I would provoke a violent reaction. And I'd have nobody to blame but myself. Common sense would have told me to expect that. If I choose to be that insensitive of the community's sensibilities, and I provoke that communty's wrath, what happens next is my fault. If I'm not smart enough to understand that, it shouldn't keep local law enforcement or private security firms from demanding that I cease and desist. If they failed to do so, there could eventually be a riot. Of course, the citizens of Salt Lake City are not prone to riot when persecuted, but I hardly think that should count against the Church when they seek to put down a disturbance of the peace.

I'm glad the Church did that. It has shown an abundance of tolerance for malcontents over the years, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Edited July 15, 2009 by its_Chet

[Misshalfway]

Ok. Yes this is private property and owned by a religious and conservative organization. BUT....the church did open this park for the benefit of all people. So to say that everyone "knows" the unspoken rules is a a stretch.

[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.

As I posted the church is under no obligation to prove or demonstrate that they were or were not enforcing rules correctly. Under the law of property ownership the obligation is for the intruder on private property to demonstrate that they meant no infraction against the "Quiet enjoyment" clause of ownership. Also since this is not commercial property but property held for specific religious enjoyment which is specifically protected under the constitution I cannot see why any honest person that understands and cares about constitutional law should have any sympathy for those that deliberately want to exclude someone from their rights because they do not like their opinions.

We do not live in a country of thugs that are not bound by law. Nor should we blame someone for expecting that rights granted to everyone else do not apply to them because they are Mormons, or Catholics, or even homosexuals that have their rights to quiet enjoyment of their private property as long as they do not break the law.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

Ok. Yes this is private property and owned by a religious and conservative organization. BUT....the church did open this park for the benefit of all people. So to say that everyone "knows" the unspoken rules is a a stretch.

There was much consternation to begin with that the City should not sell this section of Main Street to the Church, despite the assurances by the Church that the rights of pedestrians would not be curtailed. The vulgar street preachers forced the Church's hand on this and apparently Church dislike of Homosexuals is causing a further clamp down.

On the other hand, I have seen much heavier displays of public affection from newly married couples at the Temple than this "holding hands and a kiss on the cheek" when crossing this pedestrian accessway.

On tonight's KSL news, City Prosecutor Sim Gill said there was not currently enough evidence to warrant a charge.

.

[DigitalShadow]

As I posted the church is under no obligation to prove or demonstrate that they were or were not enforcing rules correctly. Under the law of property ownership the obligation is for the intruder on private property to demonstrate that they meant no infraction against the "Quiet enjoyment" clause of ownership. Also since this is not commercial property but property held for specific religious enjoyment which is specifically protected under the constitution I cannot see why any honest person that understands and cares about constitutional law should have any sympathy for those that deliberately want to exclude someone from their rights because they do not like their opinions.

We do not live in a country of thugs that are not bound by law. Nor should we blame someone for expecting that rights granted to everyone else do not apply to them because they are Mormons, or Catholics, or even homosexuals that have their rights to quiet enjoyment of their private property as long as they do not break the law.

The Traveler

And as I've posted before, I do not believe that the church or security guard acted unlawfully, nor have I made that claim. If the story happened as the couple presented it (which I do not believe is the case after seeing the police report), I personally believe the security guard would have been out of line, but I am fully aware of the rights people have regarding private property, and given the most likely scenario of how it actually played out, I believe the security guard behaved appropriately.

[Wingnut]

From the LDS Newsroom:

Church Clarifies Record on Plaza Incident - LDS Newsroom

Note the indications of "passionate kissing" as well as "groping."

[Misshalfway]

Thanks Wing. That certainly clarifies things. The church seems to have acted appropriately.