Kissing on Temple Square? Everybody?

[Traveler]

From the LDS Newsroom:

Church Clarifies Record on Plaza Incident - LDS Newsroom

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

My position all along is that the LDS church has right on its own private property to deal with unwanted intruders; "passionate kising" and "groping" aside. Anyone that support private ownership of property and feels that the LDS church acted unjustly or out of place is expressing a double standard - which is the very defination of prejudice.

The Traveler

[DigitalShadow]

From the LDS Newsroom:

Church Clarifies Record on Plaza Incident - LDS Newsroom

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

I'm glad they clarified that, but unfortunately I think the public opinion damage is already done. News outlets are quick to pick up a story that casts the LDS church as oppressive against homosexuals, but the story of how it actually appears to have happened is much less "interesting" to the public so for the most part it will go unheard. Most non-LDS probably just saw a small new blurb about a homosexual couple being harassed near the temple and let that erroneously color their view of the church. I really do feel for the church in situations like these.

[Guest]

Okay, okay... I haven't read all the posts...

But here's my 2 cents. Temple Square is private property, correct? If so, then it doesn't matter if it was a peck on a cheek or making out or whatever. And it doesn't matter if hetero couples can do it while homos can't. THERE IS NO LAW that says a private entity cannot impose their PERSONAL VIEWS on their own property. If I tell you that you have to leave my house because I don't like your hair, try suing me for discrimination.

[Traveler]

Okay, okay... I haven't read all the posts...

But here's my 2 cents. Temple Square is private property, correct? If so, then it doesn't matter if it was a peck on a cheek or making out or whatever. And it doesn't matter if hetero couples can do it while homos can't. THERE IS NO LAW that says a private entity cannot impose their PERSONAL VIEWS on their own property. If I tell you that you have to leave my house because I don't like your hair, try suing me for discrimination.

My point is that you can ask anyone to leave and you do not have to give a reason. If they refuse to leave you can use force to remove them - and I believe most states view what-ever force is necessary - not excluding deadly force if necessary. My recommendation is if you are having an argument with your neighbor and they told you to get off their property - that it would be most unwise to display a lethal weapon and say, “Try it.” Or to push them (making first physical contact) and indicate that you have no intention of leaving (which BTW was done at the dedication of the Seattle temple).

The Traveler

[cofchristcousin]

From the other side of the fence.... This was a public protest/civil disobedience against an institution they believe was instrumental in loosing the fundamental right to marriage in California. It got publicity, put the conversation back in the news, put the church in an awkward position, forced them into public statements that would also serve their purposes. And it worked as they had planned.

This is not something I would do, but I understand the frustrations and anger and the reasons for doing it.

[prisonchaplain]

coc, I appreciate both that you understand why they did it, and also that you would not have. Your frankness about accepting that they were not unintentional victims is refreshing.

[JohnnyRudick]

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.

In no way can I see the Church handling it in any other way.

What else could the guard Do?

From all I have read on the subject I have come to believe these two

would have escalated to the point that would have at some point forced

us to do anything to stop them.

They were arrested in time to keep it from turning into something far

worse I am sure.

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

I'm glad they clarified that, but unfortunately I think the public opinion damage is already done. News outlets are quick to pick up a story that casts the LDS church as oppressive against homosexuals, but the story of how it actually appears to have happened is much less "interesting" to the public so for the most part it will go unheard. Most non-LDS probably just saw a small new blurb about a homosexual couple being harassed near the temple and let that erroneously color their view of the church. I really do feel for the church in situations like these.

It will get far worse.

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

From the other side of the fence.... This was a public protest/civil disobedience against an institution they believe was instrumental in loosing the fundamental right to marriage in California. It got publicity, put the conversation back in the news, put the church in an awkward position, forced them into public statements that would also serve their purposes. And it worked as they had planned.

This is not something I would do, but I understand the frustrations and anger and the reasons for doing it.

"fundamental right to marriage":confused:

Two guys?

How do two guys "marry"?

Again, words are being redefined.

Bro. Rudick

[Just_A_Guy]

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???

Oh, I agree that they probably would.

But the LDS spokesperson said nothing about "making out". She said "public displays of affection". This was patently misleading.

I had a family member who used to work on Temple Square, and she and her co-workers frequently referred to the Church Office Building as the "Telestial Kingdom". Stunts like this on the part of the PR Department illustrate the point, and reinforce the lesson that there is no such thing as a perfect bureaucracy.

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.

Fully concur.

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.

Ditto.

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

Just to clarify the record: The Church bought the Main Street Plaza subject to a pedestrian-access easement by the City of Salt Lake, on the understanding that the Church could limit certain behaviors by visitors to the property. When the ACLU pitched a hissy fit over the whole thing, the Church went ahead and bought the easement too--an action that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in the face of a separate ACLU challenge. So there is no public right-of-way over the Plaza; the Church could demand visitors to the property stick out their tongues and hop on one foot if it wanted to.

It's poetic justice. If the ACLU hadn't meddled with the original deal the City would still hold the easement, the courts would probably rule in favor of the gay couple, an unholy war would erupt if Salt Lake City thought of giving the easement to the Church now, and the Main Street Plaza would become a focal point for gay rights protesters--quickly turning into Salt Lake's own Castro District. Right on the Salt Lake Temple's front doorstep.

Thanks, ACLU!

Edited July 18, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Heavenguard]

Just thought I'd point out my observation: The couple was asked to stop.

If the kiss (or display of affection) were a peck (or perhaps a quick hug), there would be no way to ask them to stop, because the action would have been over by the time the request were made. One can only be asked to stop if the action is still being sustained or repeated. It'd be like telling someone to stop sleeping after they've woken up.

Well, that's logically speaking, anyway. Of course you can tell someone to stop sleeping after they've woken up, but it just wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, is all.

[Misshalfway]

In no way can I see the Church handling it in any other way.

What else could the guard Do?

From all I have read on the subject I have come to believe these two

would have escalated to the point that would have at some point forced

us to do anything to stop them.

They were arrested in time to keep it from turning into something far

worse I am sure.

Bro. Rudick

Well, when I wrote that I hadn't understood that the two boys in question were drunk and that there was groping involved. I think Wingnuts post helped me see more of the church's positioning.

[Misshalfway]

From the other side of the fence.... This was a public protest/civil disobedience against an institution they believe was instrumental in loosing the fundamental right to marriage in California. It got publicity, put the conversation back in the news, put the church in an awkward position, forced them into public statements that would also serve their purposes. And it worked as they had planned.

This is not something I would do, but I understand the frustrations and anger and the reasons for doing it.

Well, I think we all understand that there is frustrations on both sides of this issue. The very group that is demanding tolerance can't seem to give it unless it benefits them.

And I think I could sympathize here IF the two weren't interviewed on TV stating that they were merely walking home at the end of the day when stopped by the security guards.

If they were staging some kind of spontaneous protest, what did they think would happen? In my opinion, they counted on it happening and played their victimhood roles very well.

In short, it was a cheap shot. I don't care how frustrated you are. It certainly isn't a step in the right direction in terms of negoitating mutually beneficial solutions.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Misshalfway

[prisonchaplain]

Miss halfway, you're right on. In fairness though, CoC did say that SHE wouldn't have expressed herself that way. I remember a song from the late '80s that went, "Fools who march to win the right to justify their sin...every nation that has fallen has fallen from within!" And some say contemporary Christian music is vacuous and all platitudes.

[JohnnyRudick]

Well, when I wrote that I hadn't understood that the two boys in question were drunk and that there was groping involved. I think Wingnuts post helped me see more of the church's positioning.

Yes, I know.

I wrote that comment on yours

before I got to what you were reading.

Did not know it was already pointed out.

Wasn't really talking at you in particular

just thinking on line:p

I should wait to post till I read all the posts but I

will forget what I wanted to say earlier if I don't

jump in when I think of it.

Bro. Rudick

Bro. Rudick

[Moksha]

So there is no public right-of-way over the Plaza; the Church could demand visitors to the property stick out their tongues and hop on one foot if it wanted to.

This plaza was a major street in Salt Lake City (it was Main Street after all). When this originally got pitched to the Salt Lake City Council, many were up in arms about selling a chunk of street to any church. Public Streets after all are for the public.

During the series of hearing the Church stated many times that a pedestrian thoroughfare would be maintained. When challenged specifically by Councilwoman Deeda Seed as to their veracity, the Church made the assurance that they would indeed honor this committment.

Now here is a pointed question that needs some judicial ruling: Are gays not allowed to show affection in the same location that straights regularly show affection.

If the ACLU hadn't meddled with the original deal the City would still hold the easement, the courts would probably rule in favor of the gay couple, an unholy war would erupt if Salt Lake City thought of giving the easement to the Church now, and the Main Street Plaza would become a focal point for gay rights protesters--quickly turning into Salt Lake's own Castro District. Right on the Salt Lake Temple's front doorstep.

The Council was split along religious lines. I suspect the ACLU intervening or not intervening would have had little impact on a done deal.

:)

[Just_A_Guy]

This plaza was a major street in Salt Lake City (it was Main Street after all). When this originally got pitched to the Salt Lake City Council, many were up in arms about selling a chunk of street to any church. Public Streets after all are for the public.

During the series of hearing the Church stated many times that a pedestrian thoroughfare would be maintained. When challenged specifically by Councilwoman Deeda Seed as to their veracity, the Church made the assurance that they would indeed honor this committment.

The Church's assurances were based on reciprocal assurances from the City. Once the ACLU upset the apple cart and forced the city to renege on its own promises, there was no reason--moral or legal--for the Church to uphold its end of the deal.

Now here is a pointed question that needs some judicial ruling: Are gays not allowed to show affection in the same location that straights regularly show affection.

Private property rights makes the question moot.

Of course, several people are now arguing in favor of a bizarro-world where you can have "religious freedom" while simultaneously barring organized religions from owning property. Go figure.

The Council was split along religious lines. I suspect the ACLU intervening or not intervening would have had little impact on a done deal.

If the ACLU had let the original deal stand, the City would have the easement and the Church would be legally bound to maintain public access even after the City had essentially (if unwillingly) welshed out of a crucial condition of the deal.

[Just_A_Guy]

This plaza was a major street in Salt Lake City (it was Main Street after all). When this originally got pitched to the Salt Lake City Council, many were up in arms about selling a chunk of street to any church. Public Streets after all are for the public.

During the series of hearing the Church stated many times that a pedestrian thoroughfare would be maintained. When challenged specifically by Councilwoman Deeda Seed as to their veracity, the Church made the assurance that they would indeed honor this committment.

The Church's assurances were based on reciprocal assurances from the City. Once the ACLU upset the apple cart and forced the city to renege on its own promises, there was no reason--moral or legal--for the Church to uphold its end of the deal.

Now here is a pointed question that needs some judicial ruling: Are gays not allowed to show affection in the same location that straights regularly show affection.

Private property rights makes the question moot.

But if people are seriously arguing that gay-equality trumps (or should trump) the constitutionally-protected right to property, then one of the fundamental arguments in favor of Prop 8 is pretty much vindicated. If gay rights can trump the Seventh Amendment, why can't they trump the First?

The Council was split along religious lines. I suspect the ACLU intervening or not intervening would have had little impact on a done deal.

The sale of the easement was not a done deal--nor was it even on the table--until the ACLU got involved. We owe Rocky Anderson more than we ever imagined we might. Maybe we should send him a thank-you note?

Edited July 19, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[pam]

JAG did you really have to ruin my day by even mentioning the name Rocky Anderson?

Edited July 21, 2009 by pam

[MorningStar]

Would these guys fry up some bacon on Jewish property?

[cofchristcousin]

These guys are not fighting for the right to kiss at the Temple. I seriously doubt they care about that. The LDS institution's prominent and vocal participation in the Prop 8 fight that resulted in the loss of the marriage right has made it the symbolic icon of gltb oppression. It used to be Jerry Falwell, now it's the LDS and Fred Phelps. (Although most people realize Phelps is in a category all his own)

When gltb marriage advocates protest by way of civil disobedience the LDS will often be the focus because of the symbolic power that gives the protest. It wasn't about the kissing, it's about marriage and using a kiss and arrest at the hands of the LDS to bring gltb marriage into the headlines and remind the public of the LDS role.

Edited July 19, 2009 by cofchristcousin

[prospectmom]

I think the security guard was over-zealous ........ If they were walking through as was reported . I have read this thread and boy have some assumed more than what is reported. I have read all the news reports and read this thread. i think it is just getting blown out of porportion by all sides.

[MissyP]

I love that lady who brought her children.

It's always comforting when parents encourage their children to trespass on private property.

[prisonchaplain]

When gltb marriage advocates protest by way of civil disobedience the LDS will often be the focus because of the symbolic power that gives the protest. It wasn't about the kissing, it's about marriage and using a kiss and arrest at the hands of the LDS to bring gltb marriage into the headlines and remind the public of the LDS role.

I'm surprised you would consider what this couple did to be civil disobedience. Further, doesn't it concern you that they attack a distrusted minority in order to gain support for themselves?

1. If they are pretending to be victims, having merely stolen an innocent kiss, then they are not traditional nonviolent resisters. MLK and Ghandi were very open about disobeying unjust laws. This couple lied, practicing the worst in shady politics, in order to make an already distrusted minority religious group even more ostracized by the public.

2. The couple, and the same-sex marriage proponents in general, choose to make LDS a target, rather than Catholics or socially conservative evangelicals. Why? Even I know that LDS are seen as a subculture, a close knit, somewhat separated group. Divide and conquer? Use distrust and prejudice to fight distrust and prejudice?

IMHO, gltb lose credibility when they are willing to play on distrust of one group (i.e. stoke prejudice) in order to being themselves closer to the mainstream.