(This post has been recently updated toward the end with additional links) The Church has released this news update on the “kissing” incident on the Plaza, now an extension of Temple Square and Church Headquarters: (Hat Tip Geoff B.):
SALT LAKE CITY 17 July 2009 There has been a good deal of publicity surrounding an incident where two men were cited for trespassing because of belligerent and profane behavior on the Church Plaza, which is an extension of the Salt Lake City Temple grounds and Church headquarters. While this property is owned by the Church, we want it to be a place of beauty and serenity in downtown Salt Lake City for everyone.
As we said earlier on this matter, these men were asked to stop engaging in behavior deemed inappropriate for any couple on the Plaza. There was much more involved than a simple kiss on the cheek. They engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language, and had obviously been using alcohol. They were politely told that the Plaza was not the place for such behavior and asked to stop. When they became belligerent, the two individuals were asked to leave Church property. Church security detained them and Salt Lake City police were called.
There is nothing satisfying in learning that there have been problems for anyone on Church property. We hope the Plaza will continue to be an asset to the community and enjoyed by the many that cross it each day.
I am pleased to see the Church clarify what actually happened on Temple Square, and to reiteriate how important that location is not only to faithful LDS the world over but also as an intregal part of downtown Salt Lake City. It is extremely unfortuante that those with rank political and social agendas seek to further besmirch the Church and its image by telling lies not only about the incident but the motivations for the clearly justified expulsion of these two obnoxious and belligerent men.
I liked Geoff’s comment below and the original over at M* and wanted to highlight it in this main part of the post. I agree wholeheartedly.
There will be some who will cast aspersions on Church regarding this issue. My perspective is the exact opposite — it is Church critics, especially on the gay marriage issue, who have acted in an uncharitable and dishonest way. The fact that Church critics have not come under greater scrutiny or criticism is just a sign of our times — when good is called bad and bad is called good.
I simply would like to point out that I worked with Church public affairs for several years. I know most of the people who work in Church public affairs in SLC, and I know how they operate. I would trust my life with them — without a doubt. In this particular case, given my experience, there is no doubt in my mind that what happened is that Church public affairs and/or Church counsel interviewed the security guards extensively to double and triple-check their story. They decided to release this statement several days after the incident so they would have time to check it. After interviewing the security guards, the Brethren were consulted, and, very likely, several meetings were held to discuss the matter.
If such a statement was released, it is supported by the Brethren completely and has been cleared by probably dozens of people. That’s definitely good enough for me.
Amen, preach it brother.
Update 07/18/09 Voice of Deseret has a good post up with further details and eyewitness accounts.
Further Update 07/18/09 From today’s Deseret News:
In the wake of one “kiss-in” protest carried out last Sunday and ahead of another one planned for this Sunday, the LDS Church issued a statement Friday defending its Main Street Plaza property rights and its actions involving a pair of men cited there last week for their public displays of affection.
Echoing previous comments made by a church spokeswoman following the July 9 incident, Friday’s statement said the pair were asked “to stop engaging in behavior deemed inappropriate for any couple of the plaza,” which was “more involved than a simple kiss on the cheek.”
“They engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language and had obviously been using alcohol,” the statement continued. “They were politely told that the plaza was not the place for such behavior and asked to stop. When they became belligerent, the two individuals were asked to leave church property.”
The two — Derek Jones and Matthew Aune — were detained by church security, cited by Salt Lake police for trespassing, an infraction of city ordinances, and later released.
It is good to get the facts out to the media in light of these ridiculous “kiss in’s” planned. These guys were not cited for a kiss in–they were cited for demonstrably obnoxious behavior–not the peck on the cheek lie perpetuated by many.
Jones did not return repeated calls from the Deseret News seeking his response to the church’s statement.
Why not? Mr. Jones, why so shy now? I’m sure the public would love to hear your version of the facts. Looks like what started as a stunt to make the Church look bad has now taken an enexpected turn for these two guys as more and more evidence emerges contradicting their intial claims.
Meanwhile, Salt Lake City prosecutor Sim Gill said his office plans to examine the case thoroughly to ensure that the charges are valid and his office has all the evidence it needs to proceed with a prosecution.
“It appears there are some missing pieces that still need to be gathered,” Gill said. “We want to make sure there was sufficient evidence in the police report and make sure the charges are appropriate.”
Gill said the case against the pair is set for a routine arraignment hearing July 23 before Salt Lake City Municipal Court Judge John Baxter. Gill said infractions of city ordinances do not carry jail time as potential sentences, but fines up to $500 can be imposed.
This is interesting, and is the first media report to note the upcoming legal proceedings against these individuals. Some have suggested the videos be produced. Perhaps, the Church is waiting for the prosecution to release the videos. Or perhaps they have already been turned over to law enforcement. I wonder what the “missing pieces” are–the video tapes? How fitting too, these two hoodlums will be prosecuted just before Pioneer Day. Can you imagine this happening in say 1899 rather than 2009? My how times have changed.
I hope the prosecution goes forward and further evidence of the incident is released to the publice via the media reports. And, more importantly–I hope they are convicted and fined up to $500.00.
From today’s Salt Lake Tribune:
Derek Jones and Matt Aune were cited July 9 for trespassing on the plaza on their way home to the Marmalade neighborhood from a Gallivan Center concert.
“I guess they consider hugging groping,” Aune said Friday. “Regardless of if a kiss is on the cheek or on the lips, it still is not inappropriate — unless you are gay, according to the LDS Church.”
Aune said he held Jones’ hand in the plaza and gave him a kiss on the face.
“These men,” the church statement said, “were asked to stop engaging in behavior deemed inappropriate for any couple on the plaza.”
Aune and Jones have acknowledged they had been drinking at the Gallivan show earlier, and that they refused to leave the church plaza, using profanity, after they were stopped by the guards. Both were handcuffed by the guards and Jones, Aune said, was thrown to the ground. (The guard denied any roughness when asked by a police officer.)
“As far as being lewd and profane [in language],” Aune said, “I think anyone who was detained against their will in the way we were … would be upset.” Aune said the couple plan to contest the trespassing charges in court.
So, the peck on the cheek has graduated to a kiss on the face–nice backtracking there Mr. Aune. Going to contest the charges in court? Outstanding–the impeachment material–by the time the hearing arrives should fill volumes. I wish I could attend the hearing personally. Anyone who lives in Salt Lake area available to attend this hearing? Please let me know–would love to hear your report and post it online. Let me know.
Messenger and Advocate 
July 17, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Guy, I would like to paraphrase something I wrote on M* regarding this incident:
There will be some who will cast aspersions on Church regarding this issue. My perspective is the exact opposite — it is Church critics, especially on the gay marriage issue, who have acted in an uncharitable and dishonest way. The fact that Church critics have not come under greater scrutiny or criticism is just a sign of our times — when good is called bad and bad is called good.
I simply would like to point out that I worked with Church public affairs for several years. I know most of the people who work in Church public affairs in SLC, and I know how they operate. I would trust my life with them — without a doubt. In this particular case, given my experience, there is no doubt in my mind that what happened is that Church public affairs and/or Church counsel interviewed the security guards extensively to double and triple-check their story. They decided to release this statement several days after the incident so they would have time to check it. After interviewing the security guards, the Brethren were consulted, and, very likely, several meetings were held to discuss the matter.
If such a statement was released, it is supported by the Brethren completely and has been cleared by probably dozens of people. That’s definitely good enough for me.
July 17, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Thank you for the clarifications, that this updated story gives.
tDMg
July 17, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I suppose the pair will now deny this happened, or else claim the church has defamed them by releasing this description. Too bad — if they hadn’t been deliberately courting this, they wouldn’t have been exposed.
July 17, 2009 at 2:38 pm
On one hand, it is entirely conceivable, though not probable, that the security guard had reason to embellish his report in order to justify over-aggressive force. Recall that the news video showed bruises on the arm of one of the subjects.
On the other hand, it would have been very tempting for the gay couple to reduce their account to a mere peck on the cheek. That way the Church would appear bigoted and discriminatory toward gays.
I’m inclined to believe the account provided by the newsroom. At least, that is my gut reaction.
What I find interesting about the official LDS statement is the mention of groping. Now that may come off to some as the church trying to buy into the false stereotype that gay people are sex-crazed and unable to control their behavior. It sounds very similar to the police accounts of the Rainbow Lounge in Ft. Worth June 29th, where the police claimed that club patrons made sexual advances and groped officers. Or consider the episode at “Chico’s Tacos” in El Paso, where gay patrons were ejected July 5th for kissing. In that situation, the chief of security claimed that it wasn’t the kiss, but because a “member of the group started to dance around in the aisle like a ballerina, that our officer approached them and asked them to settle down or they would be asked to leave.”
If the couple on Main Street Plaza really did engage in groping and passionate kissing as the Newsroom report indicates, I do not think it was because they were out-of-control, sex-crazed degenerates. After all, haven’t they been a couple for several years? Wouldn’t the passion be routine by now? More likely, it would indicate a slightly intoxicated, post-Prop 8 deliberate provocation on their part.
July 17, 2009 at 2:47 pm
As to the various factul disputes in this story (i.e., the nature of the PDA, the behavior of the security guards, etc.), would not there be security videotape? I have heard one media source say that one of the trespassers has suggested that these tapes (if they exist) be viewed to corroborate the various elements of his story. I tend to believe the church’s version of the events, but the suggestion by the trespasser that we view the tapes makes me wonder . . .
July 17, 2009 at 4:21 pm
The likelihood of videotapes is pretty high, it seems to me. I think it highly unlikely that Church public affairs would have released this statement (with claims of groping and other inappropriate behavior) if they didn’t have some pretty good corroborating evidence, such as videotapes or eyewitnesses.
August 5, 2009 at 6:35 am
You know that the church had videos of the incident. Why would they have just “part of the video?” The fact that they only released part is very suspect. A release of the whole thing could confirm the account of the security men on the “groping” part. I’m disappointed that did not happen. We’re big boys now, we can handle the truth.
August 5, 2009 at 7:40 am
Bart,
Not everything that is true is useful–get with the program
July 17, 2009 at 4:24 pm
How do we know the church’s statement is accurate?
Without an objective, factual, independent report, we will never learn what really happened.
July 18, 2009 at 8:48 am
Guy,
Would that there was some way to determine objectivity — but there is only the evidence we have in hand. How do we know the church makes accurate statements? It matters who we are predisposed to believe, in this as in so many other such matters. Do we have prior experience with testimony in these matters?
July 17, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I have it from a well-placed but totally hearsay source that there are tapes that corroborate the Church’s story and show that the couple was clearly trying to attract attention with their behavior. The Church is (allegedly) hesitant to release the tapes because they would then be criticized for doing that. For what it is worth.
July 17, 2009 at 5:26 pm
OK, I am not sure why I have nothing better to do than surf the web on this story, but I did find the foloowing interesting account here (http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/07/11/gay-couple-arrested-by-mormon-%E2%80%98morality%E2%80%99-police/)
“How funny that these guys try to claim that they were victims. I witnessed the whole thing. First of all, these two gentlemen did much more then hold hands and kiss, they were completely all over each other. Second of all they were given ample opportunities to leave, these security guards told them politely they could stay on this easement as long as they weren’t all over each other. The two men turned things around quickly, they were drunk and completely obnoxious and rude to the security guards, cussing at them and calling them all sorts of names. That’s when they arrested them for trespassing not kissing. Funny how these two “victims” claim to be victimized, when in reality they were just picking a fight, and wanted some attention which they got.”
Again, for what it is worth.
August 5, 2009 at 6:39 am
Teancums’s post on # 5 and # 9 do not compute. What gives here?
July 17, 2009 at 5:31 pm
According to the original report, security guards approached this couple because of “kissing and hugging.” The belligerent behavior didn’t start until the gay couple was asked to stop kissing and hugging. I don’t recall “groping” in the original report. Where does that show up?
Again, I don’t care for the legal ramifications of this incident, but rather the social/political, which makes me lean on the conclusion I stated earlier, that gays are not welcome in LDS settings. I’d like to see a report that shows the amount of times security guards go to heterosexual couples that happen to be hugging and kissing on the similar church property. If it is true that it is consistent across the board, that any and all are asked to stop their PDAs, then I won’t have a problem with it. My gut feeling tells me this will not be the case.
July 17, 2009 at 7:14 pm
I tend to agree that it is incredibly likely that the Church has tapes, and that it would solve absolutely nothing if they released them.
To state the obvious, this story is not about the events of that night. The story acted as a symbol that represented the predetermined narratives of the respective camps:
a) the Church is oppressive toward gays.
b) gays are engaging in political theater to make the Church look bad.
Obviously, facts matter little in this kind of atmosphere. I will admit to taking the claim of the couple at face value, while putting my own spin to it, because it fits perfectly with my perception that the Church post-Hinckley has really failed to manage their public image on this issue.
Ultimately, we have two well-meaning groups (speaking generally, not about each specific member) that legitimately feel threatened by one another and view one another as completely “other.” Even those of us who have a foot in each world find it hard not to pick sides. I wish I knew how to set up some sort of Oslo Accords or something (not sure where to hold the summit though–suggestions?). As a gay citizen of Salt Lake City and as a lover of the LDS Church and its members, I have to believe that rapproachment is possible. There’s too many good people on both sides to keep us apart forever.
July 17, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Nate W #11
Don’t have much time to respond at this moment–hopefully later. Despite our disagreements; I very much like your approach, and tenor in your comments here, on your own blog and elsewhere. I don’t see you as just a “gay citizen.” I see you more as a brother with whom, at least I, can have meaningful discussions on these issues. Thanks!
July 17, 2009 at 8:14 pm
In the unlikely event that I go to Salt Lake City with my wife, and we happen to take a stroll in this neighborhood, and I happen to give my wife a kiss, I should expect a church security guard coming over and asking me to stop kissing my wife…
November 6, 2009 at 6:05 am
You have a wife? Cause you look gay in your picture..
July 18, 2009 at 2:03 am
As a non Utah (or even US) resident, I honestly don’t understand why the Church owns what was a public thoroughfare? If people now use the Plaza, does that mean they have to act in accordance with Church standards whilst doing so? It’s quite a toughie for me to get my head round, to be honest. Isn’t Church supposed to be a Church – not a property management company? It’s very perplexing from afar.
July 18, 2009 at 5:24 am
Release the video. It will serve a good purpose!
July 18, 2009 at 7:16 am
“…Church counsel interviewed the security guards extensively to double and triple-check their story.”
Did it really take an investigation to come up with this level of spin?
Whatever those gay guys were doing they wouldn’t have asked any straight couples to leave for doing the same thing. Of that I am sure.
July 18, 2009 at 9:06 am
playasinmar, there’s _nothing_ a heterosexual couple could do that would get them expelled? Nothing? And you’re sure? Seriously?
July 18, 2009 at 10:20 am
Anne: I will grant that this is a pretty confusing story if you were not around for the historical development. Suffice it to say that the Church acquired the property from the city, that other SL churches have acquired city property ion the past, and that all churches are “property managers” to the extent that they control and manage their own facilities and grounds.
Daniel and Playa: I am pretty sure that if I were passionately making out with my wife on the Plaza, I would be asked to leave. I am not saying that that is what was going on here, I am just saying that there are heterosexual behaviors that would not be tolerated on that particular piece of proeprty. For what it is worth, the strespassers seem to be backing off thier story (in today’s SL Trib) that this was an innocent peck on the cheek.
July 18, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Guy:
One day I hope you’ll like my approach enough that you’ll pause before you say things like this–from your update:
You insist on calling this a stunt, when the more reasonable interpretation of the facts as we know them is that these folks were walking home from the Gallivan Plaza and used the Main Street Plaza as a thoroughfare–as most of us Salt Lakers are wont to do (a block in Salt Lake City is 1/8 mile square–which means walking around the Church campus will add a quarter mile to your journey). They were reasonably asked to stop behavior that Church Security felt was inappropriate, refused, and were arrested for trespass. At this point, it appears that they engaged in self-justifying behavior, which is common among all of us (look at both sides of this discussion for examples of this).
I know that this interpretation of the facts does not have the moral clarity that many of us would like, and does not fit perfectly into the Church v. gays narrative that both sides have constructed, but it has the advantage of assuming reasonableness and good faith when there is no real evidence of bad faith. This is a standard that we all must adhere to if there is going to be progress on this issue (I really do try my best to adhere to this myself, even though I occasionally slip).
This is a trespassing case–pure and simple. It does not reveal any deep truth about the Church or the gay community. Any blame to be had does not extend beyond the immediate participants in the events. And appealing to “the other side did it first” is more self-justifying behavior that doesn’t get us anywhere. This isn’t Israel and Palestine, people–making these concessions does not affect your security or your power. “Winning” this issue gains you nothing. The irony of this battle is it is a battle over who is more empathetic, loving and tolerant. Pointing out the other side’s flaws will never get you there.
July 18, 2009 at 3:09 pm
teancum,
I’d love a heterosexual couple to test this theory out. However, because this test would occur after this incident, it wouldn’t really test whether or not it is the natural case that every couple, heterosexual or homosexual, would be asked to leave under otherwise similar circumstance. Still, I’d love to see a heterosexual test this theory out. Wanna give it a try teancum? 😉
November 6, 2009 at 6:08 am
Wait..are you trying to get with Teancum? this prove my point in post #13
July 18, 2009 at 3:17 pm
I am always up for a passionate make-out session with my wife. I am just not sure I can convince her that the Main Street Plaza is the place! Watch for me on the news!
July 18, 2009 at 7:31 pm
So, release the tapes. The excuse that the church will be criticised if they are released seems pretty silly, as it would exonerate them. If, however, the couple was engaged in the sort of behavior that heterosexual couples not only engage in, but pay professional photographers to document on the church grounds, then, ahhhh,….
As no tapes have been released, what can one assume other than that a double standard is being employed. Oh, and as to the trespassing charge; the church can kick anyone they want off their property for any reason, as its private.
So, omnipotent web masters, shouldn’t everyone stay off church property because they could end up with a perfectly valid trespassing charge? I think so. Why risk the $500. fine?
July 18, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Just off the top of my head, I can probably come up with at least a half dozen perfectly rational reasons why tapes of people groping on the plaza might not as of now been released to the public. And I’m not even a lawyer.
Exactly how many hours have to elapse without tapes being released before we get to “assume…that a double standard is being employed” and assert that the contents of these hypothetical tapes support whatever version of events we happen to believe in?
July 18, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Yeah, I do not see reticence to release the tapes, or a lapse of time in making a full statement, necessarily as evidence of untruthfulness. I can think of lots of reasons that the Church might have waited to present its side of the story – – making sure it knew all the facts seems at least as likely a motive as a cover-up. I am a lawyer, and I would want to interview all my witnesses before I made a public statement. Among other things, I would want the public statment to be accurate. Especially if I thought there were other folks around who saw the event.
July 19, 2009 at 4:07 am
So Joseph Smith and Brigham Young could each have a dozen underage wives each, but two portly middle age guys cant kiss? That holy ghost of yours sure gives you guys an interesting moral compass.
July 19, 2009 at 7:09 am
Richard,
Your comment has nothing to do with the above conversation. Invoking BY or JS does nothing more than poison the well. That’s a good technique if you don’t have anything substantive to say.
July 19, 2009 at 10:06 am
Release the tapes! Release the tapes! The true story will win out if the tapes are released. The credibility on either side is stretched thin and the tapes are the only way to get to the bottom.
July 20, 2009 at 6:21 am
Don’t have time to respond to all the comments, though I appreciate everyone who has commented, even if I disagree with some. Just a quick couple of points:
1. I believe the Church’s Newsroom account to be accurate. I believe Church Newsroom statements are reviewed before posting, by at least some members of the FP, Q12 and/or Q70 the highest Church governing bodies. These are comprised of men who are very bright, including some exceptional legal minds. The Church is a major international religious body. I do not believe for one second they would knowingly post facts to the LDS Newsroom which were false in anyway. To suggest the Church is making false statements on its official website is to suggest its leaders who approve such statements are likewise lying to the world.
Nate #11:
A couple of quick questions:
1. Are you willing to allow the Church, from a theological and doctrinal perspective to continue to teach that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, including gay marriage?
2. Or, does rapproachment in your perspective require the Church to change its doctrine and teaching on homosexual behavior–accepting the behavior and allowing gay Mormons to marry and enter the Temple and participate in all Temple ordinances now available to heterosexual couples?
July 20, 2009 at 8:03 am
It’s depressing how much so many are keen to have surveillance tapes released to the public. That pervasive monitoring happens in the first place is bad enough without the spectre of such things easily escaping the security office for the sake of public voyeurism.
Also, for what its worth, a Baltimore policeman once interrupted me kissing my wife in public, and I was once at Temple Square with a friend who did something stupid and was asked to leave. These sorts of things happen to all kinds of people and don’t have to be treated like a big deal or evidence that the world hates you personally. My favorite was when the MP at Nellis AFB drew his sidearm and held me and a few friends at gunpoint.
July 20, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Guy (28):
No, it does not, in my opinion. I think that this battle is at its heart a political rather than a doctrinal battle. All I see as necessary for rapproachment is for the Church to declare non-opposition to civil marriage rights to same-sex couples and for the gay community to take no organized campaigns to protest against the church for its religious beliefs.
For what it’s worth, my idea of a “full and final settlement, to cover all outstanding claims” would work something like this:
1. The Church reiterates its religious opinion that “marriage is between a man and a woman,” and that they will continue to only recognize and perform temple and non-temple marriages for opposite sex couples.
2. The Church also notes that marriage is both a secular institution and a religious institution. To the extent that the State would attempt to impose upon the Church the obligation to accept practices that are against its doctrines, the state would be committing a grievous violation of the “sacred freedom of conscience” and the Church would actively resist any efforts to have such an obligation imposed on them.
3. However, the Church also notes that marriage is the institution that the government has chosen to regulate and organize secular society. The Church admits that, even though they may not believe that homosexual behavior is consistent with God’s will, as a matter of good policy and fairness, these relationships should be equal under the law. While the Church had hoped that a parallel institution would protect the rights of same-sex couples wile recognizing the religious importance of marriage, if the civil authorities, including the legislature, electorate, or the judiciary, decide that such a parallel institution cannot be equal, the Church will not oppose the use of the term marriage to describe these relationships for governmental purposes.
4. The Church issues this statement with the full cooperation with Joe Solmonese or some other mucky-muck from a prominent gay-rights group. Said person will make some appropriate conciliatory gesture, including apologies for intemperate rhetoric and lack of civility, the importance of the freedom of conscience, which protects both the Church and the gay community (explicit reference to the 11th article of faith would be appropriate), the mutual commitment to protecting the integrity of all families, and the commitment to work together in unity.
This is just off the top of my head and may be far too weak and capitulatory as far as the Church is concerned. I admit that this may look as though they are bowing to outside pressure, so any and all adjustments to this hypothetical scenario are welcome. Regardless, I think that if the Church took the position that the Church’s only interest is in protecting its rights of conscience and worship, it would defuse the situation pretty handily. Most people, including the majority of the gay community, understand and support those principles and I think there would be a lot of sympathy with the Church in that way.
You can’t stop certain people from being uncivil, but I think that the attacks move to the level of women and the priesthood. Americans, including gays, are prepared to accept that conservative churches may not accept openly gay members, just as they are not prepared to accept women priests. Gays claiming that they are being injured by not being allowed into conservative congregations are about as likely to be taken seriously as women claiming that they are being injured by not being able to enter the Catholic priesthood. It would totally change the debate.
August 5, 2009 at 6:51 am
Thanks Nate. I think that this is an intelligent and judicious solution to the problem that exists. The church cannot keep attacking things that are set up by the government to be secular. Let them accept who they may and leave the others alone.
July 23, 2009 at 2:01 pm
It is interesting to think about this incident in comparison with the recent arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home.
They are both cases where lots of people are weighing in opinion-wise without having been at the scene. Somehow we just assume we know what happens even though we weren’t there, because we are more apt to believe the side we sympathize with. We have only the word of the two parties involved.
It reminds me of sitting in the bleednose seats at a ball game and hearing people complain about the ref’s ability to call the strike zone.
July 24, 2009 at 6:52 am
Nate #30
I have pondered your response here for a couple of days now. I actually like much of what you say.
It has become so; however, I truly believe that at heart, at least for the Church it is doctrinal, but has spilled over into the political. I don’t know the wisdom of the destination of where we now find ourselves–but we are where we are.
I don’t know whether the Church will do this or whether the gay community would reciprocate in kind, were this to happen. It may be my own bias, but assuming the Church were to take this step, the reaction of the gay community to the Prop. 8 campaign gives me pause about whether the gay community is capable of what you suggest. But, again, my perception here is very likely colored by the gay community’s response to Prop. 8.
No argument here.
Also complete agreement here.
This is where I wonder whether the gay community will be on board with the idea that their behavior is somehow wrong–obviously the Church won’t have a problem with this. I do think the Church is in a tough political spot. They have now come out, at least in CA, in support of domestic partnerships. And, in CA under the law they are the same as marriages. So, the argument of distinction without a difference actually cuts both ways. Why should the Church care? Or, in the alternative, why should the gay community care? Of course, in Utah, it’s a different story since Utah doesn’t recognize domestic partnerships. I concede the argument that if the Church is going to support such arrangements say in CA, shouldn’t they also support them elsewhere. i think once you take that political stance you are pretty much locked into it down the road as well.
Again, possibly my post Prop. 8 bias but I just don’t see the gay community on board with this proposal. I don’t see any apologies for any conduct in the past. I could be wrong–but that’s my perception. I think your approach to these issues, Nate, is rare and unconventional from what I have seen of those in the gay movement. And, I mean that as a compliment. I wish there were more like you.
Anyway, I hope you are right. I hope there is a future of possible reconciliation. You seem to have genuine concern and love for gay people as well as Mormons, and for those who happen to be both. Your ideas are thought provoking. Let’s hope for better relations in the future for all involved. Thanks for your thoughts.
July 24, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Thanks for the reply Guy. When I say that this is a political rather than a doctrinal battle, I mean it on the part of the majority of the gay community. For every gay former Mormon in the U.S., there are probably 100 gay former Catholics or Evangelicals. No other church was protested as vociferously as the LDS Church, even though some other churches have the even harsher restrictions on gay membership. This is because the LDS Church was seen as the prime mover of the pro-8 movement. To the extent that there are any attacks on LDS doctrine, I believe that they are mostly subsidiary to the political concerns of the protesters.
In other words, if the Church is not active in the political arena with this issue, I would predict that most gays do not care enough about the interpretation of scripture or what a comparatively small religion preaches in private to continue with protests. Speaking just for myself (though I would guess that most other people feel this way too), It’s too exhausting to be outraged about something that doesn’t really affect me at all. All that will be left that would target Mormonism would be the Affirmation crowd, and they’re about as scary as a box of kittens.
August 5, 2009 at 6:56 am
I must know the Affirmation crowd better than you, Nate. At least many of them anyway. My take is that most gays would have no trouble accepting the premise of your earlier post. And Guy, you don’t really know, right?
July 24, 2009 at 3:20 pm
One more thing…
I think the only reason why the Church should care is if using the term marriage rather than domestic partnership or civil union affects their ability to preach, congregate, and worship as they please. The only reason the gays should care is if using the term domestic partnership or civil union creates an unequal status. I have previously argued that the Church’s liberty remains protected and that civil unions really are unequal.
July 26, 2009 at 12:10 pm
O/T, but I happened to come across a reference to Elizabeth Pennell’s 1893 line about “the new sham sexlessness of emancipation” in the course of some casual reading this past week, and it reminded me that I needed to pop over and catch up with what was going on here at M&A.
You’ve been busy! And I’m now off to read the Patheos.com posts.
October 15, 2014 at 12:41 pm
[…] The Rest of the Story?Church Plaza Incident Messenger and Advocate – July 17, 2009 […]
November 1, 2015 at 2:03 am
Hi everyone, it’s my first pay a quick visit at this
web site, and piece of writing is in fact fruitful
for me, keep up posting these content.