Matt Aune and Derek Jones, photo by Scott Sommerdorf Salt Lake Tribune
The Salt Lake Tribune reports that two men, Matt Aune, and Derek Jones (above) were cited by the Salt Lake City Police Department for tresspassing on private religious property:
A gay couple says they were detained by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints security guards after one man kissed another on the cheek Thursday on Main Street Plaza. “They targeted us,” said Matt Aune, 28. “We weren’t doing anything inappropriate or illegal, or anything most people would consider inappropriate for any other couple.” Aune and his partner, Derek Jones, 25, were cited by Salt Lake City police for trespassing on the plaza, located at 50 East North Temple, according to Sgt. Robin Snyder.
They targeted them? Who’s they, and what on earth does that mean? Of course, there is much more to this story:
In a written statement, church spokeswoman Kim Farah denied the two were singled out for being gay. The church contends the couple was “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. They were arrested and then given a citation for criminal trespass by SLPD.”
So, these two men were asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior. They became argumentative and used profanity. One can easily imagine this part of the confrontation. This apparently, according to these two men, what constitutes “targeting” and discriminatory behavior.
The Tribune noted the history of this particular piece of property:
Though Salt Lake City sold the property to the church in the late 1990s, it remains a popular pedestrian thoroughfare, and a site where couples often pose affectionately for photos.
The Salt Lake Police Department on Friday denied a Salt Lake Tribune request for a full police report on the incident, citing Utah laws giving them five business days to respond to records requests. Snyder refused to name the reason security guards gave for alerting police, saying it is “irrelevant.”
I’m just a little confused. Is that what Monsieurs Anne and Jones were doing–posing affectionately for photos? I don’t think so. What about the Tribune? Is it their custom and practice to go to press with every tresspass story and request the full police report? When would they ever have time or room to print real news?
Snyder refused to name the reason security guards gave for alerting police, saying it is “irrelevant.” “If a person is asked to leave private property for whatever reason and refuses to do so, that is technically trespassing,” she said.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Aune said the incident started when he and Jones were walking back to their Salt Lake City home from a Twilight Concert Series show at the Gallivan Center. The couple live just blocks away from the plaza in the Marmalade district of the Capitol Hill neighborhood.
The pair crossed the plaza holding hands, Aune said. About 20 feet from the edge of the plaza, Aune said he stopped, put his arm on Jones’ back and kissed him on the cheek. Several security guards then arrived and asked the pair to leave, saying that public displays of affection are not allowed on the church property, Aune and Jones said. They protested, saying they often see other couples holding hands and kissing there, said Jones. “We were kind of standing up for ourselves,” Jones said. “It was obviously because we were gay.”
This is where I think the fundamental and potentially unresolvable conflict arises. Yes, countless couples (comprised of a man and woman) do pose affectionally on Temple Square for wedding photos. They’ve been doing that for decades–and hopefully will be able to continue. Is that wrong? Is that a discriminatory policy, subject to constitutional challenge? That is exactly what genderless marriage proponents want to convey and more importantly it is what they want society to believe. Nevermind that it is a lie.
Sexual orientation is one thing. Public displays of affection reflecting that sexual orientation extend further than mere “orientation”. It extends to behavior that based on religious beliefs (constitutionally protected religious beliefs) offends many people. These two men were not singled out for “being gay” (whatever that might mean in this context). Rather, they were singled out for engaging in certain conduct that was prohibited on this particular parcel of private property–religiously owned private property. The Church has every right both under the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution to prohibt certain types of conduct on its property. It is really that simple.
The problem is that genderless marriage advocates want societal acceptance of a certain lifestyle, and they want it at all costs. It is clear from this small incident on Temple Square that certain segements in society would impose very clear and disturbing limitations on the most protected of fundamental Constitutional rights: The right to the free exercise of religion. Monsieurs Anne and Jones and many more like them urge the abrogation of religious liberty and freedom in order for them to engage in certain conduct they find acceptable, but that others find unacceptable. We were told over and over before, during and even after the Proposition 8 battles that people of faith would not lose their religious liberties.
This is where this debate is headed. It extends far beyond “gay marriage.” It goes to the fundamental conflict and collision between the so called new civil rights movement and their newly created “fundamental rights” and the most traditional and protected rights under the First Amendment. Buckle up–there’s more to come.
(Update 6:15 p.m.) The Deseret News reports on a follow up demonstration which took place both near Temple Square, and some of it spilling onto Temple Square:
A “kiss-in” drew about 60 people sporting pink paper hearts to the sidewalk just off of LDS Church property near Temple Square on Sunday to protest actions taken by the LDS church’s security late last week.
Dozens of gay and straight couples smooched, posed for photos and talked with reporters while a few reminders to stay on the sidewalks were issued by church security personnel.
But, as the gathering was beginning to disperse, about 35 protesters crossed onto LDS church property and walked around the reflecting pond, eliciting a call to police by church representatives.
Kim Farah, spokeswoman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued a statement about Sunday’s action.
“Church security asked the demonstrators repeatedly not to come onto the plaza to demonstrate,” Farah said. “Though the requests were issued calmly and respectfully, demonstrators ignored the requests, and the police were phoned.”
Salt Lake Police Lt. Lamar Ewell said he and another officer responding to the call asked those involved to move off of church property and explained that the plaza and walkway through the plaza were private property. Ewell said demonstrators complied with directives from police and no citations were issued.
Further demonstrable evidence that genderless marraige proponents are not the least bit interested in respecting the Constitutionally protected religious liberties and rights of those who have differing view points.
Former Salt Lake City Councilwoman Deeda Seed launched the idea from her Facebook page after two gay men, Derek Jones and Matthew Aune, were asked to leave the church-owned pedestrian walkway between North Temple and South Temple Thursday because of “inappropriate behavior.” The men said they had been holding hands and kissed. Church officials called police, who cited the men for trespassing, after they became argumentative, used profanity and refused to leave the private property, said Farah.
Seed called the actions “heavy-handed,” and invited people to meet downtown Sunday morning near Main Street and South Temple to “engage in gentle, tasteful displays of public affection.” Friends and couples did just that at the feet of a statue of Brigham Young near the entrance to the plaza just after 9 a.m.
Heavy handed? Really? How would Ms. Seed like for the Elders to come knocking on her door, forcing their way inside to her living room and begin teaching from Preach My Gospel? She would have no problem with that–I’m sure. Her comments are ludicrous.
Seed said the idea behind the gathering was to illustrate the innocence of a simple display of affection, no matter where it occurs.
“We’re giving a visual demonstration of the power of love,” Seed said. “And, saying that it should be OK for people to show affections regardless of their sexual orientation or age.”
Well, the implementation of the idea into action and further physical tresspass on privately owned religious property again reflects the absolute truth that genderless marriage advocates do not recognize Constitutionally protected fundamental rights such as the freedom of religion, and the freedom to hold and protect certain religious beliefs. For Ms. Seed and others it’s all about what’s in it for me and my cause? It doesn’t matter which or whose rights upon which they trample. How far is it OK to show affections? Even Salt Lake City likely has laws against certain displays of public affection even on public street corners. There is no such thing as absolute rights without some accompanying and concurrent responsiblity. This concept is completely lost on Ms. Seed and those like her.
Salt Lake City Councilman Luke Garrott’s comments were even more obnoxious:
Salt Lake City Councilman Luke Garrott attended the event but was less pragmatic than Seed in his evaluation of the incident that sparked the demonstration.
“It’s another instance of indignity being visited on gays and lesbians,” Garrott said. “I knew this couple personally, they’re friends of mine, so it hits close to home.”
Garrott said the way church security officers handled the situation with Jones and Aune was reflective of a pattern of intolerance.
“The big picture seems still to be lost on the church leadership,” Garrott said. “The church is coming across not as defending traditional marriage but as being cruel to gay and lesbian couples. … I represent downtown Salt Lake City and it’s unacceptable to me.”
West Jordan couple Eric and Leia Jones attended the protest Sunday and said they were motivated, in part, by the rhetoric they read in comments posted on local newspaper sites reporting on the Thursday incident.
“Some people’s words and comments were pretty awful,” Eric Jones said. “We came down to be part of something more positive.”
It was indeed kind of Mr. Garrott to share his wisdom and counsel with The Brethren. The problem is that it is Mr. Garrott upon whom the “big picture” is lost. The big picture is not the ability of individual persons with private agendas to be able to tresspass at will on privately owned religious property. Rather, Mr. Garrott, the big picture is embodied in the concept of fundamental rights. Rights that are
objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.
By encouraging this type of protest and trespass you are sacraficing rights that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty on the altar of popular political opportunism. This is where the battle lines are being drawn. This is where the true erosion of religious freedom and liberty is taking place–right in our back yard on Temple Square.
Messenger and Advocate 
July 12, 2009 at 9:28 pm
With your indulgence, here’s my humorous take on what happened.
“Genderless marriage” is an odd term. Gender plays a rather large role in my relationship with my boyfriend, for what it’s worth.
Best wishes to you and your readers.
July 12, 2009 at 9:51 pm
MoHoHawaii:
Thanks for sharing your point of view. And, certainly you have every right to express it, even though, and probably more importantly because it differs from mine. I would argue strenuously to preserve your fundamental right of free speech–despite our obvious disagreements.
Apparently where we differ is your belief that my fundamental right of religious belief is not as deserving of protection as some non existent right of any individual or couple to engage in any conduct they deem appropriate on private religious property.
I think “genderless marriage” is not nearly as odd a term, as the concept that any two persons regardless of same gender status can form a union and call it “marriage.”
November 21, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I think it’s really cool that you are showing respect to the opposing side of the argument. Butting heads is indeed easier than trying to cooperate and find a logical solution, so I really praise you for not engaging in that. Here is my viewpoint, for what it is worth:
Every individual in America is born free, and is entitled to the pursuit of happiness, wealth, and whatever else their hearts may desire (The church is indeed entitled to buy land). This pursuit stops when infringement on somebody else’s God given rights occurs. (The right for one man to kiss another man on the cheek, however socially unacceptable and backwards that may be) From the security tape I saw, the men in church suits acted first, and did not do so politely (By definition of the word “polite”). In short, (this is strictly my opinion) I think that any founding father would agree that a church has no right to buy commonly used public ground and then use the property deeds to discriminate against a minority.
July 12, 2009 at 10:12 pm
OK, Guy, I’m calling you out for word abuse. You have stretched the term “religious liberty” to the point where it is no longer recognizable. Property rights are in no way part of religious liberty. Neither is the right to be free of protest or mockery. There are four elements of religious freedom: the freedom to believe, to preach, to congregate, and to participate in rituals. Just because a right may be useful to a religion (such as a property right in this case) does not make it part of religious freedom. Likewise, just because a policy would be beneficial to a religion (I give an example here) does not mean that the policy helps religious freedom–in fact, some policies that benefit religions, such as limiting protest near churches, are profoundly inimical to religious freedom.
The Church, of course, is well within its legal rights to keep anyone out of its property. However, this is not a legal question–it’s a PR question. In my opinion, this was a blunder by an overzealous security person that was responded to inappropriately by somewhat inebriated visitors. The Church’s spokespeople, however, could have nipped this in the bud. First, they should not have said something as transparently false as all mild PDA is inappropriate, regardless of the gender of the participants, should have constructed a more savvy response that laid out exactly what standards of conduct the Church expects of visitors to its grounds, and should have suggested that while perhaps security personnel were a bit overzealous in enforcing those standards, the Church does not tolerate the verbal abuse of its employees. I think that would have done a lot more to diffuse this controversy than what happened here.
I hope, for the sake of an institution that, while I am no longer an active part of, I nonetheless respect and love, that they can find some folks as good at diffusing controversy and doing image control as President Hinckley.
July 27, 2009 at 8:20 am
I find it intriguing that those who would oppose the beliefs of any religious organization often feel the need to “convince” followers of that same sect, as well as those friendly to such, that the principles and governance of that organization are intolerant of others.
Is it not intolerance that causes these very demonstrations and outcries? Is it not a lack of tolerance that feeds the need to prove to the world that someone’s beliefs and practices are wrong? I have listened intently to many stories from those who have felt hurt, abandoned, or wronged by the preaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I have felt their pain and wept with them as they have felt so alone in a predominantly-LDS society. I still feel sorrow for those who are offended or feel unwelcomed because of the strict adherence of faithful followers to unchanging principles.
In the midst of all this pain and suffering, in the wake of offense and isolation, one fact remains—when everyone is tolerant of others’ beliefs and practices there is no need to prove one another wrong. I find irony in the cry of “intolerance” as it is typically those crying foul who are the least tolerant of conservative practices. Is this not equally offensive and destructive to society? Why should one people be expected to be “tolerant” and another allowed to tread on the established virtues of others?
I give it as my opinion that arguments of prejudice, exclusion, intolerance, and insensitivity are always worth hearing and evaluating to find any level of truth and room for improvement. I also offer the suggestion that anyone willing to hurl such accusations be willing to examine their own motives and actions for the same prejudice, exclusion, intolerance, and insensitivity.
July 27, 2009 at 12:38 pm
My response to this post is printed at comment 40.
July 12, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Guy,
By dismissing Garrott, and his comments, as obnoxious, you have shown why you have become irrational on this issue. Anything the other side does or says, you always paint them with the worst of motives and intentions. I used to like this blog.
July 12, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Hi Guy,
I’m all for property rights, and I absolutely concede that the LDS Church owns, without restriction, what used to be Main Street between South Temple and North Temple. The Church has the legal right to do what it wants with that property and allow whomever it chooses to pass through. The Church has the right to build a wall and block all passage, if it so chooses.
What complicates this particular situation is that the sidewalk in question is an important urban thoroughfare connecting two city neighborhoods. Pedestrians need to cross it or face a 10 minute detour. The free public use of that sidewalk has 150 years of history behind it.
Imagine if Church security evicted a mixed-race heterosexual couple from that sidewalk. Of course, the Church has every right to do that as the owner of private property. Nonetheless, there would be a public uproar at the unfairness, racism and heavy-handedness of such a policy. (Not that the Church would ever do this, it’s just an example.)
Many people think that gay couples are a bit like mixed-race couples of 40 years ago. That’s the consensus that’s developing on the complicated issue of same-sex domestic partnerships. Many of those who don’t approve of same-sex marriage agree that committed same-sex couples shouldn’t be harassed or persecuted. I think the debate is not so much over the Church’s legal rights (it’s clear they have them); it’s about whether a powerful land owner shows a sense of fair play and decency toward this kind of nontraditional couple and whether this land owner honors the spirit of the promise they made to provide free passage consistent with that land’s traditional use.
Again, I want to reiterate my respect for your free practice of religion and for the Church’s recently acquired legal right to the strip of land in question. While I disagree with the city’s decision to cede the public easement, that’s what they did, and I respect that. The public no longer may no longer presume *any* legal right to pass through that traditional thoroughfare.
Best regards.
July 13, 2009 at 5:26 am
I wasn’t there during this incident, so I don’t exactly know what happened. If the the couple’s story is the correct one (I haven’t heard anyone dispute it), that they were holding hands and one of them gave the other a peck on the cheek, I can tell you that I have done the exact same thing with my wife while walking on temple grounds. I don’t recall getting warned by security guards not to have any public displays of affection.
I think that, legally, the church is in the right. They should be able to win this battle in the court of law. In reality however, this was probably a bad move by some overzealous, possibly homophobic security guards. The church may not win the battle in the court of public opinion.
July 13, 2009 at 6:42 am
Guy,
I would agree with Chris H. that you are definitely becoming more irrational about the gay issue as time moves on. If I understand your posting correctly, you are stating that it infringes upon your religious liberty if you are exposed to any public displays of affection by those persons you deem as not obeying the law of the gospel (as defined by whom?).
If we follow your train of thought to its logical conclusion, then that would mean no PDAs from those persons co-habitating without being married? No PDAs from those persons who are fornicators? No PDAs from those who are not actively trying to procreate? No PDAs from those involved in polygamous marriages? No PDAs from those who are separated from their old spouses but not yet legally divorced?
Better yet, if you define the gospel to ban mixed racial marriages or mixed ethnic marriages, you can also ban all PDAs from those groups.
The logic is just not holding up. If you wish to avoid seeing anyone who is in a sinful state commit PDAs then you are advocating a departure from modern society into the wilderness. Who would join you in such an adventure?
July 13, 2009 at 11:10 am
I would.
July 13, 2009 at 10:03 am
Nate #3
Hi Nate. Your original comment was caught in the spam filter because of the links. I have freed it from its prior prison and will leave it up, and probably delete the duplicate. They look to be essentially the same.
Yes, property rights are an element in this particular instance; but, the argument as it has been framed by the LGBT community is much broader than just property rights. It is one of fundamental Constitutional rights with gay marriage as the focal point. This isn’t happening in a vacuum.
The LGBT community will not be satisfied unless and until the LDS Church agrees to ratify, accept, and acquiesce to gay marriage and the gay lifestyle. That is where the infringement on religious liberty and free exercise fits into this debate–in my view.
Chris #5 My intent was to dismiss Garrott’s comments as obnoxious. I don’t know the man as an individual. My apologies if I was not more clear in my post. His comments were obnoxious to me because:
1. He insists the Church is treating gays and lesbians with indignity;
2. The Church and its leadership is intolerant and cruel to gays and lesbians.
These comments are absurd on their face. This incident does not support either of those comments. These guys were kicked off Temple Square because they became abusive and intolerant themselves after engaging in conduct the Church does not allow on its property.
Sorry you no longer like the blog.
MoHo #6
See my comments to Nate above re: the property rights. It extends far beyond just property rights.
I’m not one of them.
I am one of them; but, don’t believe the two men in this case were harassed or persecuted. This was a completely avoidable event. The two men in question escalated it to the point where SLPD became involved. I think Church security would have reacted much the same if anyone had become disruptive and used profanity, regardless of gender.
Ian #7 I think it went a bit further than that. The two men in question became argumentative and profane after being asked to leave because of their innappropriate conduct.
Michael #8. Please see my response to Nate above on the religious liberty discussion. I believe you have mis characterized my post, based on your comment. I hope I have explained it better in my subsequent comments.
July 13, 2009 at 10:19 am
There has been a lot said about property rights here. I think this public walk way is much different than say a church building or the temple it’s self. When the church bought this property there was an agreement that it would still be used as a public walk way. I do not believe it would be legal for them to require a current temple recommend to walk there for instance. I may be mistaken.
Second the behavior in question is something that as a straight man I have done with male family members and close male friends. A kiss on the cheek is between those of the same sex is not something that is sexual or even necessarily romantic in nature. This is privet property and yes some reasonable restrictions can legally be imposed. My question is it reasonable for the church to impose a restriction on kissing someones check. I also wonder how reasonable was it for the church to restrict individuals that participated in the kiss-in from walking on this section of property. According to the report they were not continuing to engage in this “horrific” kissing behavior.
Third, I believe this whole issue is a way to justify working to take away rights of people that are not members of the church. To target behavior because it could be homosexual even though it is not sexual in nature. Also this blog highlights this by continuing to reference “genderless marriage”. To pretend that this very innocent behavior is somehow about a political issue is only a way to make the issue political yourself. The individual kissing someone else on the cheek is not doing so to attempt to further there own political agenda. It is those that chose to rant, rave, and arrest over this innocent behavior are doing so to further their political agenda.
Finally, the use of the word “genderless marriage” is attempt to tie the issue of same sex marriage to the proclamation. This document does not address same sex marriage or homosexuality directly. The term “genderless” also make is sound like the advocates of same sex marriage are some how attacking our genders.
July 13, 2009 at 10:24 am
Love is all you need, you who is without sin cast the first stone, judge not lest ye be judged, unconditional love is the true christ like love, singled out or not, breaking constitutional rights of private religious property or not, where is the christ like love being demonstrated and supported here by the “only true church” its pretty inconsistent isnt it? Definitely homophobic security guards who need some quality lovin.
July 13, 2009 at 10:32 am
A question:
It takes maybe three minutes to cross the plaza from north to south. Even at 11:00 at night, the plaza is not swarming with security guards. The most likely scenario is that these two were on Church property long enough a) to elicit a complaint from a bystander, b) for that bystander to seek out a security guard, and c) for that security guard to find the couple and initiate a confrontation.
And, if some of the comments here are correct (though I hadn’t heard this before)–the couple was drunk. So why are we taking their “innocent peck on the cheek” story as gospel?
July 13, 2009 at 10:42 am
JimD,
There is an easy way for us to discover what really happened. If the Church would just release the video of the event from its security cameras, we would be able to determine if the gentlemen were seeking to make a scene or if it was just a leisurely walk from the theatre to their house using the right of way as a shortcut.
Guy,
Why don’t you just ask the Church to release the video?
July 13, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Guy,
Engage Luke’s ideas. I felt the same way about you when you were ardently defending the polygamists in Texas.
You disagree that is fine. Say so.
I realize that you do not know Dr. Garrott. I have known him for a decade know. I had him my first semester at the University of Utah. Later, when I started graduate school, I was his TA. He is a great man.
July 13, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Guy,
Yes, they went further than the “peck on the cheek”, but only after they were asked to stop doing it.
I guess the real question is, what happened that night? No real judgement call can be made until one sees the security video.
If they were making out and being loud and obnoxious, I think security was obligated and justified to get them off church property. If there was just a little kiss, the church may have been justified, but it was probably unwise to to take the actions they did.
I’m not as concerned about what they did after the arrest.
July 13, 2009 at 12:35 pm
If the video actually served to show the two men being drunk, obnoxious, obstinate, disrespectful, or groping in an inappropriate manner, it would serve to support the public affairs office’s claims. Why wouldn’t they release it then?
What purpose would it serve to keep it confidential unless it did not support the claims made by Ms. Kim Farah?
July 13, 2009 at 1:39 pm
assuming the couple is telling the truth…
why would the church be justified of their actions if it was just a little kiss?
what good does it do for the church to prohibit same sex pecks/hand-holding/hugs on the main street plaza?
perhaps, they should ban all homosexuals from the premises? (that’s not meant to be snarky)
July 13, 2009 at 1:40 pm
p.s. i don’t have an real opinions, just lots of questions.
July 13, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Guy,
I think that the answer to this question will serve to clear things up: Do you believe that speech by a non-governmental actor can take away your religious freedom?
If you do not believe this, then how am I to interpret this statement: “The LGBT community will not be satisfied unless and until the LDS Church agrees to ratify, accept, and acquiesce to gay marriage and the gay lifestyle. That is where the infringement on religious liberty and free exercise fits into this debate–in my view.”
If your comment is that the gay community were to use the power of the government to mandate that the Church believe in a certain way or to force the Church to perform rituals for people that it does not count as members in good standing, etc., then I agree with you–any such attempt would constitute a big problem with regard to religious freedom. I would reject any attempts by the gay community to force churches to do much of anything. However, if your comment is that the gay community will not rest in its efforts to apply pressure, both directly and indirectly through bad publicity, on the church to change its doctrines, policies, and/or practices, then I would say that this in no way violates anyone’s religious freedom.
If you want to say that you don’t like what the gay community is doing to pressure the Church, that’s fine. If you think that it violates the principles of civil debate, say that. Even if you want to indulge in some post-modern criticism of their tactics on the grounds that the liberal assumptions of the lines between government action and private speech are not nearly as clear as they seem, I can even respect that. But accusing private citizens of violating religious freedom by speech is using the term “religious freedom” in a way that contradicts the very notions upon which the concept of religious freedom is based. If you’ll forgive the egregiously out-of-proportion simile, it’s like Sarah Palin saying that people who criticize her are violating her right of free speech.
P.S.–Thanks for releasing my comment from prison.
July 13, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Newsflash to Gail: The church also had to purchase the easement. Now it is fully private property, and under absolutely NO legal requirement that it be treated any differently than any other private LDS property.
It would be just as legal for the church to require temple recommends on this property, as it is on any other temple property.
July 13, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Gail #9
1. It’s not a public walk way;
2. It’s no different if the Church says it’s not.
Mark #10
Isn’t that a Beatles song?
Jim #11
I haven’t heard anything about being drunk. If you have a link or source I’d love to read it. I’m not questioning it–just haven’t read it is all.
Michael #12
Dear Pres. Monson. Michael requests that I ask you to please release the video–OK?
Regards,
Me
Chris #13
OK. Help me out here Chris. Exactly what “ideas” am I to engage here? He comes out and says:
I don’t see ideas here, Chris. I see what you have accused me of in your comment #4:
Isn’t that what Councilman Garrott has done? I better understand your high regard for him after your explanation. I appreciate that clarification.
I feel similar respect for the men who comprise the FP and Q12. So for the councilman to call them intolerant, cruel and the like–I’m likely to give some push back.
So, help me out–to what ideas are you referring that I should engage? I’m happy to engage ideas–I just didn’t identify any–only accusations.
Ian #14
I think both components are important and relevant. I don’t think they would have called SLCPD absent the profanity and argumentative confrontation afterwards. And, given the aftermath of Proposition 8 it is not at all hard to imagine what was said.
mfranti #16
This, I agree is a big assumption–one I’m not necessarily willing to accept at face value.
What good does it do for the Church to prohibit such conduct on the traditional Temple Square proper? What about at the front door to the Temple itself? What about inside the lobby where anyone off the street can walk even without a recommend? One can get all the way to the recommend desk before being turned away at any temple. Should the Church be able to prohibit any such conduct at any of these places–and if so why?
And, what about the conduct? Is simple admiration gazing between same gender couples offensive? When does conduct become offensive? Is it the simple cheek peck? What about a simple lip peck? What about full lip lock . . . and on and on and on?
What about banning homosexuals? Should the preference the individual feels be the criteria? Or, should it have to be manifest in some type of conduct? And which conduct then becomes offensive, and where must it occur for it to become offensive?
I have a few questions myself. Help me out–let me know what you think. You are an extremely bright and articulate individual. Share some thoughts–if you are so inclined.
Nate #18
I don’t really think your question addresses the issue fully. My opinion, Nate, is that what is going on here is a carefully orchestrated movement by the LGBT community to utilize the court system as an agent for social change and societal acceptance. The community has effectively wrapped itself in the flag of the Black Civil Rights movement comparing itself to the Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s, claiming the issues are the exact same, that the status between Blacks and Gays is indistinguishable.
The community is further making the legal argument, at first in various state court venues and now in the federal courts to raise the status of “sexual orientation” to be a Constitutionally protected class on par with racial protected classes and religious protected classes. In the federal legal challenge to Proposition 8 they are using the classical equal protection and due process arguments.
In my opinion the end result the community hopes to achieve is complete societal acceptance of their lifestyle, by the force of constitutional mandate if necessary. If they can persuade courts to accept the logical extension of their arguments, I do believe they would challenge the right of the Church to ban certain conduct on their property. I do believe they would and will make the argument that any treatment of any LGBT couple that is in any way different from say a man-woman couple is an impersissible and discriminatory classification prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. I further believe the community will attack tax exempt status if they achieve their Constitutional aim of a protected class with a fundamental right to genderless marriage.
This argument was successfully made in CA even though pre proposition 8 LGBT couples had the same rights under CA law afforded to all other married couples. So, yes, I do believe religious liberties are and will be affected by this movement and community.
There is a difference between a man and woman (regardless of racial make up) kissing on Temple Square outside the Temple and two men kissing at the same location. And, I truly believe that the thrust of the LGBT community is to eliminate those types of differences if they can, by force of Constitutional fiat if possible and if successful.
#19 psychochemiker
Agreed.
July 13, 2009 at 7:34 pm
c’mon guy, i wasn’t trying to bait you. i was just asking questions because my first reaction to that story is to get upset with church security for overreacting to the couple. When that happens, it usually means i need to check myself and i start with asking questions.
====
i’m working on the rest of the follow up.
July 13, 2009 at 7:35 pm
crud! i forgot to blockquote the quote.
[I did it for you ;-)]
July 13, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Guy,
I also respect and sustain the brethen. I am not sure if your reaction helps the cause. My comment about your painting the otherside in the worse light possible is based on your many posts on this issue.
You condemn Dr. Garrott for a few quotes in a newspaper article. I have talked to him about this issue over the years, not only as friends, but also as fellow political theorists. His concern is for a group of people that he views as mistreated. You might disagree about this concern, but his motives are rooted in principle and a tradition of liberty and not “popular political opportunism.” Of course, people have dismissed democratic equality in those terms for thousands of years.
I appreciate your willingness to engage me and the other commenters.
July 13, 2009 at 8:11 pm
OK–now that you’ve fleshed out what you mean by religious freedom, I think I can respond to it.
OK… Let’s assume that sexual orientation becomes a protected class federally. Because history is the best guide of what the courts will do in the future, let’s look at what has happened so far vis-a-vis churches and protected classes. There has never been a case where a church has been ordered to admit to their fellowship or has been required to perform religious rites for someone that they do not want to do it for, regardless of the person’s religion, ethnicity, gender, disabled status, or sexual orientation. No church has been told that they must believe something or are forbidden from preaching something that is not politically orthodox. No church has been denied the ability to hold religious rites because they discriminated against someone for their gender, race, ethnicity, religion or orientation. In those states where orientation is a suspect class, the Church has not been denied its ability to believe, preach, congregate or hold rites. You don’t get to ignore history when making your argument, Guy.
Which, the last time I checked, prohibits government discrimination, not private discrimination. Beyond Shelley v. Kraemer, which has been more or less limited to its facts, please name a time where the 14th amendment has been applied to restrict the conduct of private individuals.
Three things–first, tax exempt status is a statutory, not constitutional question. The Congress has made churches tax exempt as institutions that promote charity, not because there is a constitutional prohibition against taxing churches. Bob Jones University had to do with a decision by the IRS, not the judiciary. Second, if this were the case, the Catholic Church would have lost its tax exemption long ago because of their unequal treatment of women. Even Bob Jones’ ministries have not lost their tax exemption–just the college. Third, tax exemption is not a part of religious freedom. If the tax code treated churches the same as other similarly situated non-religious organizations, that would not violate any tenets of religious freedom. Religious freedom belongs to individuals, not institutions.
Even if you disagree with race/orientation analogies (and I know you do), suspect class status is suspect class status. The LDS Church was not forced to allow African-Americans in its temples before the revelation. The LDS Church has never been forced to give women the priesthood, has never been forced to allow non-members or unworthy members to participate in the temple ceremonies. There simply is no historical precedent for what you are concerned about. It is irresponsible as a person with a legal education to mislead people into believing something like this stands any realistic chance of happening.
It is also irresponsible to use the term “religious freedom” in situations where it doesn’t apply. I agree that if the Court were to say that the LDS Church were told that they could not preach against homosexuality, had to allow gay men and women in the Church, and had to allow same-sex couples to be married in its temples, it would be a serious breach of religious freedom. There is no indication whatsoever that this will happen. Until you can explain how the courts could possibly come to this conclusion given past precedent and the state of the law, you are engaging in fallacious logic, scaremongering and paranoia, not to mention word abuse.
July 13, 2009 at 8:41 pm
…so i’m way out of my league here. i’ll just try to read your comments.
🙂
July 13, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Guy,
“The community has effectively wrapped itself in the flag of the Black Civil Rights movement comparing itself to the Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s, claiming the issues are the exact same, that the status between Blacks and Gays is indistinguishable.”
I think you have some validity here, but you are missing half the comparison. If you look at the church’s actions of the pre 1970’s the church worked just as hard to keep interracial marriage illegal. In fact it was first made illegal in UT after a speech to the legislature by Brigham Young urging this. You also did not mention that this type of conduct was not allowed in the temple between interracial couples, partially because blacks were not allowed in the temples. This is a difference because homosexuals are allowed in the temples today. The other similarity is that the church policy concerning interracial marriage (ie blacks and the priesthood) out side a few isolated scriptures had no foundation in the scriptures or in revaluation. The same is true concerning same-sex marriage and homosexuality.
July 14, 2009 at 5:20 am
Nate W.
Well said.
July 14, 2009 at 8:31 am
Michael #12: Do we know for a fact that a) the entire Main Street Plaza is under video surveillance, and b) that those tapes (if they exist) are preserved?
Guy #20: I was going off Nate’s comment #3.
July 14, 2009 at 8:38 am
JimD,
I would be very, very surprised if the whole Temple Square / Conference Center / Church Office Building complex were not absolutely covered in cameras of all sorts. And digital storage of video is extremely cheap to maintain now.
Remember, Church Security is handled by the ex-CIA Mormon Mafia guys. They have that place locked down TIGHT.
July 14, 2009 at 3:31 pm
affirmative guy murray
indeed it is from a beatles song 🙂 as if you didnt already know? ha ha, i wonder if anyone thought it was from the ‘book of mormon’ ??
July 14, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Chris #23
And I never meant to suggest otherwise.
Why not? My reaction is mild in comparison to the nonsense we witnessed from some of the radical elements in the LGBT community post Proposition 8. I see no reason not to highlight the absurd claims made against the Church in these types of incidents–though I recognize we have a difference of opinion here.
Again to make clear, my intent was to condemn Dr. Garrott’s quotes. If they are inaccurate then he should probably take it up with the Tribune. If the are accurate, they are over the top. The Church and The Brethren do not go out of their way to discriminate, harass or be cruel to any individuals.
I have no problem with his concern or motives. I am troubled by his harsh and inaccurate rhetoric. I, and I assume you do as well, listen to almost all the FP and Q12 speak at least twice a year, and we also read their spoken comments in writing. Show me, please, with specificity acts and/or language supporting Dr. Garrott’s harsh rhetoric toward The Brethren.
No question, I am very opinionated, and at times use sharp rhetoric as well; however, I do try to be fair and see others’ points of view–most particularly when well thought out and respectful as are your comments, Nate’s and others on this thread.
Nate W. #24
Yes, that is one element or prong of what the community is doing; however, if you recall I also stated in comment #8 above a more comprehensive goal and strategy of the LGBT community achieving that goal–namely:
In short, Nate, I do not believe my religious liberty can only be infringed by direct government action. It has and can continue to be abrogated by the LGBT community by its own private actions. Let me illustrate, literally:
This infringes upon my religious liberties;
As does this;
As does this;
And this;
And this;
And this;
And this;
I agree in theory history should be the best guide; however, after over 150 years of California Constitutional jurisprudence who would ever have presumed a brand new constitutionally protected class, and a brand new fundamental right that did not even exist over 15 months ago? A class and fundamental right that had absolutely no constitutional precedent in CA law in over 150 years. In short, I am losing confidence in courts following appropriate precedential Constitutional intrepretation. Rather we are seeing at least in CA, and elsewhere courts creating newly protected classes and new fundamental rights literally out of whole cloth.
True, to a degree–The Court uses the 13th Amendment and also the Commerce Clause to reach private discrimination. It has happened, does happen, and will continue to happen, particularly given the extreme activist LGBT community.
This, Nate is one of the more fascinating aspects of your argument, I think. True, in the past that has not occurred. But, in the future, I am not so sure, based on the incredible Constitutional leaps taken by some courts. What is to stop the LGBT from pursuing such claims? I have seen nothing, nothing in their recent activities to suggest to me that the community intends to stop at the “marriage door” I think the only legal barrier sufficiently large to stop the community and its political and legal advances at this point is decisive defeat in the federal courts on the 14th amendment equal protection and due process arguments. It will be fascinating to see it play out.
What say you? Do you see the community stopping at marriage? I don’t. In CA pre Proposition 8 we all know the community enjoyed virtually all equal rights everyone else did under CA law. Yet, the community was pretty effective in selling the idea that there was mass discrimiation afoot, akin to sitting at the back of the bus, separate but equal school rooms, separate but equal drinking fountains and the like. I don’t know. I think your question is actually quite profound.
mfranti #25
Not so–though you’re always welcome to lurk–I like hearing your “opinions/questions” as well.
Gail #26
I’m not sure this is accurate. Church leadership did work to scuttle the Civil Rights Act in the 1960’s; but, I’m not certain your claim is accurate. Can you or someone reference a source for me?
Well, we all know Bro. Brigham was also a secular leader. While speaking to the legislature he did not speak for the Church. In fact there are journals of discourses full of crazy statements by Brigham Young. Not everything he said was scripture or binding on the Church.
Michael #29
Careful there Michael, you may end up sleeping with the fishes.
July 15, 2009 at 7:22 am
[…] | [6] Comments The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting the Salt Lake City Police Report on the expulsion of two men for unwanted kissing and hugging on Church property has been released (I’m assuming by the SLCPD–but the article is […]
July 15, 2009 at 11:50 am
Guy,
In reading your article entitled “LDS Support to Man-Woman Marriage” I find a lot of problems with your logic.
You say you are talking about the support of man-woman marriage, but in reality it seems you are speaking about the fight against same sex marriage. Similarly, when you talk about the “hostility to well-established religious belief and its free exercise” you are really speaking of the protests around our effort to take away the rights of others to marry. None of these protests had anything to do with how we wish to define marriage in our faith or in our ceremonies. I believe if the shoe was on the other foot and an outside group decided to make any marriage between individuals calming it lasting for eternity would be null and void we would be doing our share of protesting. We are not being attacked for any of our beliefs or practices. We are attacking others for their beliefs, and working to make their practices illegal.
I would like to address your use of Matthew 16:17-19. I think when using this as a base you really need to address the distinction between the way we interpret Christ’s words here and the way the Catholic Church interprets them. The Catholic church believes the rock Christ is referring to is Peter the man. We on the other hand believe Christ is referring to revelation like you mentioned. These have very different theological implications. If the church is built upon the man whatever the leaders of the church say is God’s word. If it is built on revelation it is only revelation that is God’s words. I will get back to this distinction.
Before we go on with this distinction I would like to address a few other points. One point is you seem to imply that society has supported the same form of marriage and this is the first deviation from the norm.
When we look at our doctrine Marriage began in the Garden of Eden as a covenant between man and woman and God for time and all eternity preformed by someone holding authority. This soon included multiple wives. We then see this including agreements preformed by those practicing priest craft and for time only. Marriage also became agreements preformed by people claiming no religious authority and having nothing to do with God. We now have even seen marriages that have nothing to do with even sexual fidelity, but same sex marriage is the only one of these many types that we seem to attack. I must take that back we also fought pretty hard to keep interracial marriage illegal through the 1960’s because it was an assault on our religious beliefs.
Another point I would like to address is your reference to biblical support of attacking same sex marriage. I assume you are referring the instances in the bible that condemn homosexuality as this support. Most members of the church assume that the condemnation of homosexuality is very well established in all scriptures. I notice that in your article you depend on this, because you neglect to talk about what the scriptures actually say. You also neglect to point out that there is not condemnation of homosexuality in any of the teachings of Christ, the Ten Commandments, any teachings of the Book of Mormon prophets, in the Doctrine and Convenience, or any teachings of Joseph Smith.
Let us look at the few instances that the bible condemns homosexuality. The first people talk about the condemnation of homosexuality is Sodom and Gomorrah. Unfortunately, nothing in this story talks about consensual homosexual behavior. This story only talks about gang rape. Also, if you read the story the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is never mentioned. We all assume it is the sin of homosexuality because of the meaning we as a society have put on the term Sodomy. This meaning is only an assumption because there is nothing in the text that even implies this.
Outside of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and reference to this story there are only two sources of the condemnation of biblical homosexual condemnation, Leviticus and Paul.
Leviticus is typically the favorite one for people to quote. It sounds so definitive when you use the word abomination. What we forget is all the other intense of the use of that word are for things we consider ceremonial performances and not for any actual moral sin such as pork and shell fish. Also, as I read the book of Exodus I find little that the church teaches as doctrine today or actually asks its members to follow as gospel. The few exceptions of this rule are the few times Exodus quotes one of The Ten Commandments, and the few times Exodus condemns homosexuality.
The only other source for the condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible is Paul. Paul says that if you do not have enough faith in Christ you will be punished with homosexuality. This teaching seems to be rejected by the Brethren of the church today when they teach that the feelings of same sex attraction are not sin. Most of what Paul teaches about sexuality is completely rejected by the brethren of the church. He teaches that you serve God better if you live a celibate life. Given that any leadership calling Bishop and up you are required to be married in the Church to day tells me that this is rejected. Paul also teaches that the only reason to be married is if you can not control your sexual impulses. Guy you even talk about how marriage is central to our doctrine. So why would we use Paul as a source on anything to do with sexuality? The truth is the brethren rarely do. In fact in the World Wide Training on the family in January 2008 Elder Packer told us the best source for our policy on homosexuality is The Proclamation on the Family. So, the best source is not the scriptures it is a proclamation.
I now wish to return to the distinction between Catholic interpretation of Christ’s words and our words. You refer to this distinction when you said:
“Well, we all know Bro. Brigham was also a secular leader. While speaking to the legislature he did not speak for the Church. In fact there are journals of discourses full of crazy statements by Brigham Young. Not everything he said was scripture or binding on the Church.”
Not everything that any prophets say is scripture. The Pope on the other hand is different as far at the Catholics are concerned. We however are a church of revelation. We believe that revelations come from God, but men are men. Even the men called to be our beloved leaders are not infallible. We can look to many examples Abraham practiced slavery, Paul said women should veil there faces and not speak in church, and Brigham Young said among other things “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” I also mentioned the church’s work to keep interracial marriage illegal. You ask for a source on this http://connellodonovan.com/black_white_marriage.html this is a paper published in sunstone. I realize this is a secondary source, but I found it pretty informative and written by Connell O’Donovan.
I actually think that the case of blacks and the priesthood has a lot of interesting parallels with that of Homosexuality in the church. Before 1978 there were no revelation given about this subject, as well as there was no real backing for the doctrine in the scriptures. On the other hand you can find a plethora of general authorities explaining “doctrines” that have no scriptural or revelatory support, and these were even spoken about in conference talks. These ranged from blacks set on the fence in the war in heaven and blacks were cursed with Cain. I mention again these “doctrines” are not supported in the scriptures or by any revelation though they were taught through out the church including conference. I also would mention all of these doctrines can be read directly out of the KKK play book. I do not hear them talked about today.
The only source you talk about to defend the attack on same sex marriage is the Proclamation on the Family. This is smart because as we have seen there is no real support in the scriptures for the fight against same sex marriage. Even President Packer agrees with you that this is the best source. I wish to make one point before we actually look at what the document says to support the condemnation of homosexuality or the fighting against same sex marriage. This point is, this document must have something that is different about than say declaration 2, because declaration 2 reports itself as a revelation and the proclamation does not do this and neither the twelve nor the first presidency claims it is a revelation.
That being said let us look at what the document actually says to us that would justify either the condemnation of homosexuality or the destruction of same sex marriage.
The first line reads:
“We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.”
Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God is repeated several more times. We can infer that this is important. Note that it never says that any other type of marriage is condemned by God. So are we to imply that any form of family not ordained by God we need to destroy and make illegal? Do we strive to make it illegal to be a single parent?
The next line from the Proclamation we see used to defend the church’s position on homosexuality is this:
“Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”
I ask what this says about homosexuality. Gender is how masculine or feminine you are. Gender is not something directly effected by orientation. There are very masculine men that are gay and very feminine men that are straight. This may say something about Trans-gendered individuals, but what? Does it say that if your eternal spiritual gender conflicts with your physical gender you should change the physical to match the eternal? Guy, I believe this is why you use the erroneous term “genderless marriage” in an attempt to tie this issue with the proclamation. Nice try?
Also similar to the first line:
“We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”
So where does God command this. I do believe the brethren believe that God implied this some how, but unless this here is the Lord’s words himself I am unaware where he Commands this.
Again very similar to the first line:
“Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.”
And again stating that this is essential to his plan does not speak to anything else being eliminated or not part of his plan.
I find this line very interesting:
“Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”
In European countries that had seen for many years a decline of traditional marriage and a rising rate of divorce found both these statistics turn around once gay marriage was legalized. This gives us some indication that gay marriage helps turn around the disintegration of all family even those we would call traditional families.
Looking at the last line is it not telling us to protect all families instead of fight against some?
“ We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”
Guy, I ask you how does this document or anything else scriptural or revelatory justify either the condemnation of homosexuality or the destruction of same sex families?
Yes, I do agree that we need to defend marriage, even man woman marriage, but how does working to destroy another type of marriage do anything but degrade all families?
July 15, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I would like to make a change to a mistake in my writing. In my writing above I mistakenly used the word Exodus instead of the word Leviticus two time in this paragraph:
Leviticus is typically the favorite one for people to quote. It sounds so definitive when you use the word abomination. What we forget is all the other intense of the use of that word are for things we consider ceremonial performances and not for any actual moral sin such as pork and shell fish. Also, as I read the book of Exodus I find little that the church teaches as doctrine today or actually asks its members to follow as gospel. The few exceptions of this rule are the few times Leviticus quotes one of The Ten Commandments, and the few times Leviticus condemns homosexuality.
My apologies, I am sure you will find more. Thank you.
July 15, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Guy,
Thanks for responding. I know this comment will be imprisoned for its many links, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take…
On the issue of your definition of religious freedom, let me see if I understand your response. You linked to several pictures of the protests outside of the LA temple. Most of these pictures included vandalism or trespass. If there had been no crimes committed, would you consider the act of protest without a crime against a person or property an infringement on religious freedom?
Elsewhere, I have tried to draw lines between bigotry, persecution, political retaliation and protest. Likewise, I am a formalist when it comes to the use of the terms liberty and freedom. I subscribe to the idea that under the social contract, only the state can restrict individual freedoms. Therefore, crime is only a restriction on individual freedoms if the state systemically fails to protect people’s rights to practice their religion free from criminal intimidation. While you may say that criminal intimidation effectively curtails religious freedom, I will still insist that using the term religious freedom in that way confuses the issue—after all, it’s taken me several posts to get to the nub of what you mean when you say religious freedom.
That is disingenuous. The development of sexual orientation as a protected class has been a long time in the making. Footnote Four allows a class to be protected when they meet the appropriate criteria. Romer and Lawrence presaged the decision to make orientation a suspect class. This was not something that just appeared out of the blue. Whether gay marriage is a “brand new” fundamental right depends solely on how you formulate the question—if you decide that marriage as an institution is inherently gendered and same-sex marriage is a fundamentally different institution, then you have a point. However, I think that modern marriage does not depend on gender for its essence, so granting same-sex marriage rights is merely extending an existing right to a new class.
Further, history provides us with a guide to how civil rights movements proceed before the courts. There is a well-developed canon of the contours of what equality rights are protected in the Constitution. Just because a new group is granted suspect-class status does not make the class sui generis. In short, this is a new class following well-worn paths. There is no category that you could fit gays into that would give them the force of law to change religious doctrine.
To be accurate, the court allows Congress to regulate private discrimination, but has never ruled that the Constitution prohibits private discrimination. That’s a big difference. Plus, Title VII does not regulate religious employment, and I believe that discrimination against non-members for religious employment by churches cannot be regulated because of the rights of free exercise and expressive association.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean here. As a legal matter, I can only see certain things for the gay community to achieve. Beyond full civil equality, including protections in housing and employment, suspect class status and the right to marry, what else can the gay community do? If you think that they will continue to pressure churches to change their positions on homosexuality, I don’t disagree with you. However, so long as they use their voices as private citizens, commit no crimes, and do not attempt to force such a change through the power of the state, I see absolutely no problem with that.
Ultimately, I feel like the basis of our disagreement hinges on the propriety of outside criticism of Church doctrine and practices. I feel that while such criticism may be uncivil or may even, in certain instances, exist on the outer boundaries of the First Amendment (much like hate speech), I don’t believe it is an attack on religious freedom.
July 17, 2009 at 8:02 am
I love how Nate thinks things through to a logical conclusion instead of just regurgitating “non’doctrines” that we have heard for years. Congratulations to you sir!
July 16, 2009 at 6:52 am
This is another in a long line of bone-head things that the church or those acting on it’s behalf have done. First of all, the police report says that an officer could smell alcohol. Heck, I can smell alcohol after one drink on a person and it’s disingenuous to say that they were drunk. That just adds fuel to the fire and borders on being a lie. But then lies have become commonplace when one is trying to defend a position. I have seen couples galore in that area literally crawling all over each other, kissing, backrubs, etc. and nothing has ever been said, much less wrestling them to the ground. And we’re to believe that they weren’t being singled out? A peck on the cheek is a peck on the cheek and the security agents would have been far smarter to just say “move along please gentlemen, and have a good evening” rather than have created this publicity nightmare. I mean, this is on every blog and news outfit in the nation, and we wonder why we are held is such low esteem. This was called making a mountain out of a mole hill. Shame on us.
July 17, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Michael #29:
That may well be true, but I’d be careful about assuming too much. I’ve now seen discussions about this topic that a) condemn the bumbling, amateur, rent-a-cops who would get themselves into this mess, and b) laud the Church’s professional, “locked-down-tight” security personnel.
I’m not sure the Church’s detractors can have it both ways here. I see lots of speculation, and very little data, about who the “Men in Black” are and what their resources are.
July 17, 2009 at 7:26 pm
JimD:
I don’t want to stir the pot and I agree with your general point, especially considering the Church’s statement, but it is possible to simultaneously believe that
1) the Church has a very good security organization that is led by very competent people and has adequate resources at its disposal, and
2) a 24-year-old employee of that organization was simultaneously overzealous and unwise, and did not use as much discretion as he ought.
But as you say, we can only speculate at this point. I also hope that you didn’t read my #3 as identifying me as a detractor of the Church. I may be a detractor of the Church’s public affairs department, but hopefully I don’t come off as a detractor of the Church.
July 18, 2009 at 7:50 am
wow, this article doesn’t have a religious bias or mormon agenda whatsoever, does it? of course they were targeted for being gay; if an LDS man was kissing his 11 year old wife on the church property, their wouldn’t have been any argument. it would have been encouraged, if anything. but as soon as two men start hugging and/or kissing, SWAT and Delta Force are called in to eliminate any “threat” to the degenerative ideology that is mormonism. if only they had eliminated all mormons instead of just executing Joseph Smith, maybe we wouldn’t have to deal with this; maybe this city/state would be a much more amazing place to reside.
July 27, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Earthlifeistemporary (reply to 3):
I’m not sure why you put your comment as a reply to mine as I never talked about tolerance or intolerance, but allow me to respond to your comment.
There is a real difference between intolerance of an idea or act and “intolerance” of intolerance. Tolerance is not in and of itself a substantive virtue, it is rather a procedural rule of a pluralistic society. Pluralism requires a theory of public good that does not require the society to choose between the personal value systems of people. Rather, the virtues of a pluralistic society must be based on a principle that allows all people to have an equal place in society and for people to have the freedom to pursue any private virtue they may believe in, so long as it does not interfere with another person’s right to do the same.
Therefore, when talking about tolerance, it is important for the accuser to decide if it is the kind of intolerance that interferes with that person’s right to pursue his or her private goods on an equal footing with others in society (procedural tolerance), or if it is the kind of intolerance that just says that one person is less than another or that one person’s acts are bad in a metaphysical sense (substantive tolerance). Substantive tolerance is relativism and nihilism and should be rejected. However, procedural tolerance is essential for pluralistic society.
A call to be tolerant of procedural intolerance makes no sense at all. A pluralistic society cannot tolerate its citizens advocating second class status for some of its members and remain a pluralistic society. Even if the society will allow people to advocate such items, it must disapprove. A call to be procedurally tolerant of substantive intolerance, however, is consistent with pluralism. People can believe whatever they want privately so long as they do not interfere with rights of others to do the same.
August 18, 2009 at 3:19 pm
What I have read here appears to be a semantic confusing of the issue.
From my view, herein lies the greatest problem:
I read “the kind of intolerance that just says that one person is less than another or that one person’s acts are bad in a metaphysical sense (substantive tolerance)”. This seems to indicate a determination that the actions of the guards on temple square were bad. But in order to determine any action’s intrinsic value, weather good or bad, requires one to evaluate that action from the constructs of his or her personal value system. If one cannot determine the “metaphysical” value of the two men’s actions, then, by like measure, one cannot determine the “metaphysical” value of the guard’s response to those actions.
All of this said, I don’t believe it is helpful for any cause to argue theoretical concatenations on a third-year-philosophy-student level. Rather, let’s speak in a manner that cannot camouflage intended meaning in unnecessary rhetoric.
The facts remain. Two men decided to take a stand for something they felt strongly about (well within “their rights” and a noble endeavor no matter anyone’s persuasion). This stand spilt over onto private property and when they were confronted with a request to leave (regardless of how it was delivered or with what affect) they chose not to honor that request. The security guards did what they felt necessary to resolve the situation (well within “their rights”).
What effect has this incident had on people from both sides of this issue? Greater division and reduced acceptance of common ground. I know very few rational people who would suggest that this is a welcome outcome. Rather than pointing blame or assigning fault, can we determine ways to prevent such incidents in the future?
August 18, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Earthlifeistemporary:
I’ve tried to think of several ways to reply to your comment, but it seems like the most direct is the best: if your comment has nothing at all to do with mine, please don’t post your comment as a reply to mine. Seriously. Your last comment about “tolerance” had nothing to do with my comment at 3. However, I tried to address it, which was my mistake. Now you seem to imply that my comment implies some sort of value judgment against the security guards. If you read my other posts, you would see that I don’t believe that the security guards acted wrongly (perhaps not prudently, but not wrongly).
Further, there is no need to resort to characterizing an argument as “theoretical concatenations on a third-year-philosophy-student level.” If you don’t agree with my differentiation of procedural and substantive intolerance (which I think has very little to do with this incident, mind you), explain why the formulation is wrong.
Finally, if you would read my other comments, you would see that I don’t disagree with your conclusion. I have argued in a different post of Guy’s that rapproachment is necessary and desirable.
All of this is a long way of saying that when you hit reply, make sure you are actually replying to something I’m saying. Posting unrelated comments as a reply to someone’s comment is bad form.
July 27, 2009 at 3:58 pm
“I give you a strong caution. Be wary of the word tolerance…. we are not required to tolerate anything that leads to unhappiness…. Tolerance is often demanded but seldom returned. Beware of tolerance. It is a very unstable virtue.” Boyd K. Packer
I think President Packer has a great point about tolerance. Every time I read his words I think of the pain that homosexual members experience every day. Gay men in the church commit suicide three times more than straight men in the church. The gay members I know sit in church hoping their fellow ward members do not find out who they are. I hear things all the time in my word that would be painful for homosexual members. The church encourages homosexual members to treat there orientation as if it was a serious sin, only sharing it with the bishop and a close family member. How must this feel for people who year after year pray for these feelings to change and they never do. How does it feel for those that live the gospel their whole life and still are treated like second class citizens at church? People that are forced to choose to live single lives in a church of families, or marry someone they can never love in a romantic way yet have an unfulfilling degrading sexual relationship with them. What kind of choice is that? These are people that love the church yet the church chooses to mobilize it’s members to donate millions to make it illegal for nonmembers homosexuals to marry who they love instead of mobilize members to welcome their homosexual brothers and sisters, who live the gospel, with open arms. The church policies surrounding homosexuality and gay marriage more than lead to unhappiness they cause a huge amount of unhappiness and pain, and we are not only not required to tolerate them, morally we should be doing all we can to end them.
July 28, 2009 at 3:25 pm
#39 — “if an LDS man was kissing his 11 year old wife on the church property”
Mike Hunt, you are a moron. I am not sure why Guy hasn’t deleted your retarded, bigoted comment but I figured I would respond. Learn a tiny bit about LDS people before making a fool of yourself next time
July 28, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Geoff J,
I know I do not make the rules here. I also know that I am far from sinless as a blogger. I often forget that there are real people at the other end of these debates. I have been rude countless times. I try to apologize when I make the mistake and get carried away and become mean. I am sure there are many times when I am not self aware enough to see it myself, and I really hope people point it out to me.
It may be just me but I really think you could used more finesse in pointing out that LDS men do not typically marry 11 year old girls then calling him a moron and saying his comment was retarded and bigoted. I work with developmentally disabled adults, and therefore some of the people I love are retarded.
July 29, 2009 at 5:26 am
#42 Geoff
I have decided at least on this topic that I will rarely delete any comment, for a variety of reasons. The most significant to me is that so many on the fringe element of the gay activist movement take a scorched earth approach to this issue that it tends to diminish their cause.
My experience in blogging is that responses from the gay community such as Nate W’s responses on all these threads are actually rare. More often than not they are the caustic, absurd, and firebreathing responses we saw post Prop. 8 and even in some of these recent threads. And, of course they are even more extreme on the “DAMU” sites.
So, I let them say the most reprehensible of things so that their public comments stand as an indictment against their so-called “tolerance” and draws a sharp distinction between them and the Black Civil Rights movement of the 60’s whose participants did not at all respond the way far too many in the gay community are responding on these issues. Hope this helps you understand my thinking on this. Thanks for your comments throughout.
July 29, 2009 at 5:32 am
Gail F #41
This may be true–I don’t know. But, even assuming that it is, the Church is not to blame for this.
I don’t believe this is entirely accurate. Rather, I believe the Church focuses more on behavior.
Again, not accurate. In CA, gay marriage is not “illegal”–no one is criminally prosecuted for attempting to be married to a person of the same gender. In fact, in CA there is a carefully crafted statutory framework to allow same gender persons to form a union legally equal to marriage. It’s find to hold opinions sympathetic to our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers. It is something quite different to misrepresent what the Church teaches, as you often do in your comments.
July 29, 2009 at 8:44 am
Guy,
Thank you for a response. You have chosen not to respond to some of the things I have written to you.
“This may be true–I don’t know. But, even assuming that it is, the Church is not to blame for this.”
I am not saying the church is to blame I am saying it is an indication of a problem in the way we as a church (culture and organization) are working with our homosexual brothers and sister. Does this not say we need to be doing something different? Or, should we say it’s not our fault and let the suffering continue?
“I don’t believe this is entirely accurate. Rather, I believe the Church focuses more on behavior.”
Carefully chosen words “entirely accurate.” The church does focus on behavior, but when the church asks homosexual members to only share their orientation with their bishop and a close family member this is exactly how the church asks us all to deal with serious sin.
“Again, not accurate. In CA, gay marriage is not “illegal”–no one is criminally prosecuted for attempting to be married to a person of the same gender. In fact, in CA there is a carefully crafted statutory framework to allow same gender persons to form a union legally equal to marriage. It’s find to hold opinions sympathetic to our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers. It is something quite different to misrepresent what the Church teaches, as you often do in your comments.”
The fact is it is illegal in California for people of the same sex to marry. It is also true that this has a lot to do with the millions that church members gave to the pro prop 8 coalition. Yes, there are protections in place in California for many rights for LGBT, and you can frame it any way you want. The fact is the church worked very hard to make it illegal for people of the same sex that are not LDS to marry.
The Church’s position on homosexuality and gay marriage are very complex. You have accused me here of misrepresenting what the church teaches on this subject. Please, engage me specifically on any of these point that you believe I am misrepresenting the church’s teaching on. I have spent countless hours reading the brethren on this subject and I believe I am very careful not to misrepresent them. If I am wrong it would not be the first time I have made a mistake. So please help me understand what you are referring to.
August 18, 2009 at 8:01 am
[…] Recently, two gay people were cited for trespassing after making out on that same piece of property that was purchased twice so that Mormons could walk to their temple while minding their own business. This led to sympathetic press and a national Gay PDA movement. […]
August 29, 2009 at 5:08 am
This will be off subject. But the really BIG
picture is that we will be held acountable for all our actions. EVERYONE
A lot of people in the world believe this.
So all these little media fights amount to
pounding sand down a rat hole.
Remember they crucified CHRIST for his beliefs. And you can guess who the creator of all hate and sin is! Death is coming for us all so are you prepared. So fight against this religon and that religon will get you what???? lots of nothing and wasted time
August 31, 2009 at 7:41 am
Big John,
We all, EVERYONE, are held accountable for our actions. I for one would not be able to face Christ on judgment day if I sat on my hands and did nothing as we as a church fought to destroy many good families, or sit by and watch our church policies hurt so many good Latter Day Saints that happen to be attracted to people of the same sex. Many of these people struggle so much to live in our hurtful system that they commit suicide three times more than we straight Latter Day Saints. These are people I love and are part of my family. Yes, Big John I will stand up, speak out, and do whatever I can to be accountable to stop the pain we as a church are causing.
September 16, 2009 at 8:35 am
Hmm… Lets see. Get married, have children, have sex with men on the side while not telling your wife and putting her in danger? How many upstanding Mormon men can say that this is their life? MANY OF THEM. I can promise that. If the gay community in SLC decided to out them all, it would shake the foundations of the city!!!
What a bunch of Hypocrites!!
September 16, 2009 at 9:14 am
Steevn,
I not sure I agree completely with your word choice. “MANY OF THEM” I believe this implies a high percentage as in over 50% of Mormon men.
However, I do believe I agree with the general sentiment, if I understand it. I think if this number is more than one gay Mormon man it tells us that there is something wrong with what we are doing as a culture and society.
Mormons as a church and a culture ask gay people to live in secret. We encourage homosexual members to be ashamed of who they are. Because of our expectations of secrecy as well of our hostile political actions against the gay community we encourage homosexual members to live in fear.
I also believe when you teach someone that there sexual desire in it self is evil it typically encourages elites sexual behavior. Instead of healthy relationship building sexuality.
Yes people are responsible for there own actions, but if our church and our culture encourages such painful unhealthy behavior do we not have the responsibility to make changes to encourage healthier behavior.
September 16, 2009 at 11:52 am
Hi Gail,
Your right and I did not intend to indicate that many were hiding. However, I know so many gay men who tell me of their experiences with men in SLC, that it makes me angry that in this country we still make people ashamed of who they are based on religion. Is all religion about hatred? Does all religions have to have a scapegoat? It seems so in order to make ourselves feel superior.
I think that it is sad that my friends gay mormon lover is married, active in the church and has children. What of his wifes feelings when she finds out? Hasn’t he thought of her? Supposedly he loved her enough to marry her. I hate that. A woman should be loved by someone for herself and not be used as cover for a covert lifestyle. And the man who is doing it does so because he is being forced to hide it as you said.
Thanks for your response. I stand corrected and appreciate your input.
Sincerely,
-Steevn
September 22, 2009 at 8:40 am
No one forces Seventh-day Adventists to allow wine and meat at their vegetarian potlucks. No one forces Jews to serve pork to visitors at their synagogues. Are LDS family values less important than dietary laws?
Logically, morally, compassionately, every religious organization has a right to prohibit any behavior on on its property that violates that organization’s beliefs and standards.
The world may demand “its rights,” but the Church is not of the world.
January 19, 2010 at 3:45 pm
I don’t have time to comment on everything you’ve talked about here but I would like to point out one thing impartucular.
You said, “Constitutionally protected fundamental rights such as the freedom of religion, and the freedom to hold and protect certain religious beliefs.” You then talk about how people asembled to show affection as a form of protest. That is also apart of constitution, the same Amendment, if I’m not mistaken.
February 15, 2010 at 12:43 pm
It is certainly true that the LDS church has every right to ask anyone it sees to leave the church’s property. Every organization has this right. What it does demonstrate is the ideology of the LDS church. Those you that still use their facilities and buy from their stores are condoning their beliefs and actions.
October 15, 2014 at 12:42 pm
[…] Gay PDA Day At Temple Square Messenger and Advocate – July 12, 2009 […]
September 20, 2020 at 6:43 pm
how to Stop thinking about something
Gay PDA Day At Temple Square | Messenger and Advocate
January 18, 2021 at 2:42 am
Coaching secret
Gay PDA Day At Temple Square | Messenger and Advocate