Comments on: When a Kiss Is More Than Just a Kiss

By: Guido

Guido — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 03:28:19 +0000

George, that is exactly the point of my previous entry. It is dangerous for a liberal society to outsource their public spaces or services to organizations which are per se anti-liberal/democratic and discrimminatory such as religious institutions. Once we loose control over our assets we are unlikely to ever regain this control. If we’d be more careful in first place we wouldn’t have to fight for our rights afterwards.

By: george

george — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:13:18 +0000

i can certainly agree that a kiss is much more than a kiss when it comes to what appears (from what i’ve read) to be quasi-private property now. i understand the church’s desire to keep physical contact between two parties to a minimum. however, that should absolutely include everyone – yes, even the heterosexuals who stroll through.
then again, if it is also a quasi-public venue, then pda’s ought not to be a problem for anyone – gay, straight, etc. i’d be willing to avoid kissing my boyfriend in a private venue as long as i can lock lips with him in public.

By: Guido

Guido — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:18:24 +0000

Sorry, but love is certainly not an orientation and definitely not the answer in this case. What we have here is the takeover of a formerly public space by a religious group which then imposes it’s own “law”. This trend is an increasing (worldwide) problem. Be it public spaces or services, we have to make sure that whenever a non-democratic organisation takes over these areas there has to be a strict mandate ordering them to respect the rights of individuals. So instead of soft talks, we need to create hard and strong guidelines so that the retreat of the democratically legitimized authorities does not result in the deterioration of liberal citizen (human) rights.
We, as the people, have the power to stop such developments before they become a problem. Kiss-ins are only a poor attempt to regain the control over something that was once ours…

By: Preston

Preston — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:54:27 +0000

Great post. I’m all for my kiss-ins, myself.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:54:41 +0000

Nathan,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. As with any issue, there are many perspectives and complexities (much more so than one can squeeze into a simple post). As a Christian, I too am torn by the disrespect LGBT individuals give back to a religious organization. While one cannot deny the shame, pain and rejection many LGBT people have received from religious groups, I personally believe that responding in a similar vein does nothing for our message.
I did a quick search last night and again today for the “rules” of Temple Square and couldn’t find it. I did find a post on the issue with the statement: There is a big difference between hetrosexual couples holding hands and kissing on Temple Square and the Plaza, and two men holding hands, hugging and kissing at the same location. While I understand the church’s stance on homosexuality, having and employing such inequality in an open square where many other straight couples can engage in a quick exchange should at least be addressed (albeit maybe not by a kiss-in). For example, what if the church in earlier days instituted separate water fountains for white and black visitors – should that inequality be called out even though it is in the parameters of a private establishment’s property?
This issue, this “culture war” between religious organizations and LGBT had reached a near frenzy and depleted most communications around it to yelling at, instead of talking and listening to, each other. I’d encourage you to check out the Marin Foundation here in Chicago’s site (http://www.themarinfoundation.org/), and in particular founder Andrew Marin’s book “Love Is an Orientation.” Talks about elevating conversations and building bridges between the two communities. Best book I’ve read to date on the topic. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.

By: Nathan Reagan

Nathan Reagan — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:14:34 +0000

Its a really interesting predicament that involves a church’s right to sensor the activities that happen on their property. What get really messy in this case is that the property is used as a somewhat public thorough fare.
As both a gay and Mormon these incidences are slightly painful for me. I can remember walking on the Temple grounds with my boyfriend and having to abstain from all PDA. Although I felt sad that I couldn’t express my emotions in this manner with the person I loved I also wanted to show respect for the LDS faith.
What saddens me most about the recent Salt Lake incident is that many Latter Day Saint and Christians will see this as an attack on their rights. This could potential lead to them being even more opposed to gay equal rights as they will fear that allowing the furthering of gay rights will lead to the shrinking of their own.
I often wish the LGBT community would be more careful in what perceptions they create among people of faith. The only way we will be granted equal rights is if we are able to assure them that our equality will not lessen theirs.
So although my heart goes out to the Salt Lake couple I still question if Temple Square is an appropriate battle ground.