Who Asked Me?

Political Commentary from an independant perspective.

I Just Dont Get It

A recent bout of so called ‘gay rights’ protests have occurred near Temple Square in Salt Lake City lately.  These protests have been called by another name, ‘kiss-ins’.  The ‘kiss-ins’  have stemmed from an incident wherein two gay, drunk individuals were walking through main street plaza and began kissing each other.  Church security approached these two and asked them to leave, they declined and became belligerent.  Church security then attempted to remove them from the property which caused the two men to fight them and resulted in security taking them to the ground and putting plastic cuffs on them.  The police were then called and the men were cited for trespassing.  For my out of state readers, main street plaza is a section of street in downtown Salt Lake City that years ago was sold to the Mormon church and was then turned into  open space.  While the Mormon church allows the public to pass through this plaza, it is clearly marked that it belongs to them.  To be clear, church security told the men that they were on private property and that their actions were not welcome.  Although the church did not have any posted policy banning homosexual kissing, the men were told of church position and given the option of leaving peacefully.

I have opted to not participate in these protests, which if you know me may surprise you as I typically attend all protests on the principle that we must exercise our right to assemble or we will use it.   When the Mormon church supported California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, I was at the forefront of several protests around Temple Square.  I have supported events and efforts of both the Utah Pride Center and Equality Utah.  I bring this up to make it known that I am a fierce supporter of gay rights.  But I cannot bring myself to support these recent ‘kiss-ins’.   My reasons are listed below in a copied version of a conversation which took place on Facebook with several of my friends who are also gay rights supporters.   I strongly solicit comment from everyone on this issue, especially from those of you who are Mormon.

Eric Ethington is wondering if there is another Plaza protest scheduled. Heard there was, but no details :-(

Eric Kiltz Do you not have any regard for private property?

Did he steal your first name?!?
Um, no. I was referring to the fact that the mormon church has the right to remove anyone from its property. A fact that some rabble rousers seem not to regard.
Clarity Sanderson

Sorry, I couldn’t help myself. My bad! :)
That little fact seems to be continually missing from the discussion. I think we all could imagine what would happen if the tables were turned and someone came on to either your personal property or the utah pride center property or your place of business and started preaching or protesting the things we do in the community.
Eric Kiltz

Thank you Joni. Im glad that someone sees it my way. I fear that our cause is being undermined by the recent protests.
Joni Weiss

I agree Eric. I have counter-commented in other threads the suggestion that some of these ex-Mormon and Mormon LGBT folks organize their own niche movement and take this up with THEIR church… rather than risk derailing the whole Common Ground initiative by further alienating moderate and conservative Utahans. I am FAR more concerned about working towards obtaining Civil rights for all of us (especially employment, housing, family issues, adoption, etc) than the issue of PDA on the Plaza :-)
Clarity Sanderson

well put, Joni.
Eric Kiltz

I agree with you 100% Joni. I think that we must not get swept up in our emotions and address the gay rights issues objectively.
Gail Turpin

Joni and I commented on this issue at length on another post a few days ago. I agree with you, Eric, on the private property issue, and I still don’t know what really happened! I get the frustration of Eric Ethington and the others who are actively protesting this, but I would rather take a stand on the Common Ground Initiatives and civil rights … Read Morefor the LGBT communnity where we can make a difference. I do think our credibility is undermined with this. But I also respect Eric E., as well as respecting you and Joni!
Well put Gail!
Well put Gail. Agreed.
Gail, respect must be given to the mormon church as well. They own that property. We have no right to trump on that.
Gail Turpin

Did you miss something? I agree with you!
Eric Kiltz

I heard you. Im simply granting respect where respect is due to the morg in regards to their property.
Joni Weiss

Yes Eric but Gail’s post brings up (to me abyway) an important point: Those who wish to protest the Churches actions have very few options in which to do so publicly. I don’t agree with stepping onto LDS Church property, but protesting on the sidewalk is their right. I feel that establishing and working under an organization focused on the niche … Read Moreissues for LGBT folks who are Mormon or ex-Mormon would give them more of a vehicle for making their case more visible and would also identify them as separate from the LGBT movement itself. Regardless of what happens next (or of what has heppened so far), it is very important to respect the private property of the LDS Church AND to respect the values and beliefs of the LDS church whether or not we believe in them. Hold their religion with the same sanctity with which you would regard your own… and demonstrate with that respect and regard. If not – there will never be any reciprocal respect and/or regard.
Eric Kiltz

I agree that we have every right to protest on the sidewalk. I simply dont agree with the actions that led up to the protest ie. the initial kissing incident. Plus, I heard on the news that the second protest occurred within the plaza itself. Is that right?
Joni Weiss

That video looks like it was all taken on the sidewalk outside the plaza. Is that correct Eric E.?
Eric Ethington

That is correct. And just to throw in my own thoughts on this, I don’t necessarily agree with the protests, I’m just there to document :-)
Eric, if I misunderstood you post and owe you an apology, im sorry. I still stand by my belief that our cause has been hurt by these two assholes.
You know, I actually don’t think it has. While this is not the most important story these days, it still has some relevance. Were these two trespassing by refusing to leave when asked? Yes. Did the church have the right to do what it did? Yes. Should it have happened? No. The part that mostly offended me was the church’s statement that no public … Read Moredisplays of affection are appropriate on the plaza. They did not specify gay or straight, they just said period. Now as someone who has watched temple couples make out constantly on that plaza (myself included when I was once married in that temple), I can’t help but see some validity in protesting the overall policy that started this whole thing. We are not talking about walking into a ward building, a temple or even temple square. We’re talking about an area, that although is not private property is still used as a public easement. If there is going to be no public displays of affection in this area, then it needs to go across the board.
Eric Ethington

But it is inappropriate to make this kind of policy in an area that has no religious and only public pertinence.
I agree with your sentiment but the fact remains that these two refused to leave when given the chance. Remember that church security did not call police until the two’s refusal. That plus the protests make us look like a bunch of whiny little ingrates.
Eric Ethington

I’m going to have to disagree actually. The point of the protests is not to cry foul about this specific incident I think. But the overall tenor of the church’s attitude and policy. Why should there be such a policy towards a specific and targeted group in an area that is meant for public use. Again, completely different if this had happened in a church or in the temple square grounds. But in a used-as-a-public-easement area, I can find no excuse for the policy to exist.
Eric Kiltz

Ok, I partially agree with you. However, the legal ramifications of a public easement still allow the church to remove anyone they dont want so long as they give them the option of leaving peacefully. These two did not. Im all for protesting the church. I cannot stand the morg church and their hypocrisy and bigotry. I just think having a kiss-in is inappropriate at this time. Why not wait a couple of months and do it again so it doesnt look like an outright protest?
Eric Ethington

You know as well as I do that you have to use the public excitement while you’ve got it. This is a good policy to protest (again not the legality of it, but the church’s inner-policy) and this incident was enough to spark up both current feelings, as well as old emotions over the church being given that land in the first place.
Eric Kiltz

Granted but I still think a kiss-in was a little inappropriate. A good old fashioned protest in front of temple square is always a good idea in my opinion. So long as we show them the bare minimum of respect they are legally entitled to.
Eric Ethington

Perhaps. But at least these protests did throw some light on the very inappropriate manner in which church security handled the issue. Whether or not they SHOULD have detained them is another story, but having 6 guards throw them to the ground and cuff them enough to create those bruises is extremely over the line for a private security detail.
Eric Kiltz

I disagree. Again, to me it is a simple matter of private property. They were given the option of leaving, they declined. If someone were to disrespect my private property in that manner, I would shoot them. I think church security’s reaction was very appropriate and justified.
Eric Ethington

Well that leads into a different discussion then, of what is appropriate human behavior and what is not.
Eric Kiltz

I dont think it is appropriate to deprive someone of their right to be secure in their property. The constitution, the UN and the Unites States Supreme Court agree with me.
Eric Ethington

Again, no one is arguing the legality. But the manner in which it was done was excessive to say the least.
Eric Kiltz

Well then what would you have done? I again reiterate that they were offered the chance to leave on their own. I think having 6 people take down 2 drunk guys is a very appropriate response. Church security needs to have enough manpower to ensure their safety as they attempt to detain them. I also think the cuffs were very appropriate as church security has no way of knowing if these guys are going to fight with them and need to keep the situation stabilized until the police can arrive. These guys are lucky they didnt get maced or tazered. I for one an amazed at the restraint the morg security showed.
Joni Weiss

Small point here: You have referred to the plaza as “used as a public easement” which has absolutely not legal basis. There in fact is no public easement. If there was, the 1st amendment rights would be protected. There is not. Very simple: Private property (no matter if we like that it was sold to them”) and there is no easement. First amendment … Read Morerights are NOT protected. As a religious institution, freedom of religion rights ARE protected for them (the LDS Church). To me it is an open and shut case. They trespassed, were given the opportunity to leave on their own and refused. Church security then cuffed them and called the police.I agree with you Eric E on your point that the Church does not enforce this policy (no PDA on Plaza) equalliy to straight and gay visitors nor is it posted anywhere in sight.

Eric Ethington

Joni; As stated, there is no dispute that this is private property and the Church legally has the right to make whatever policy they wish to. However because the church decided to use this private land to create a plaza that is used AS a public easement (even if it isn’t one), then it is absolutely the public’s right and responsibility to protest un-fair or un-equal policies in said area.
Well there are signs posted stating that the property is owned by the morg. And its not like they just automatically jumped on them with the flexicuffs. They told them their policies and gave them the chance to leave. State law states that if any rules and regulations are not posted on private property that is open to the public, the property owners have to give people one chance to conform or leave. The morg security did just that.
Eric Ethington

It seems this conversation keeps coming around to defend the legality of the situation. Once again, no one is arguing the legalities. Only the morality of the policy itself.
Eric Kiltz

I understand, but holding kiss-in protests makes it look like disrespecting their property. Eric, I more than understand your position, im just trying to tell you how this has been perceived.
Eric Ethington

Ah, well I’m glad you can speak for the rest of Utah ;-)
Im Eriq Kiltz and I approved this message.

July 26, 2009 Posted by kiltze | Uncategorized | | 2 Comments