It soon became clear that the discussions that took place prior to the announcement were a direct result of both the backlash created by the LDS Church’s stance on Proposition 8 and the public relations nightmare resulting from the Main Street Kiss. Both sides, despite living in the same city, had no idea how the other side felt about the issues surrounding these contentious issues; both sides felt that they had the high road; both sides refused to budge.

Now, being the filthy non-Mormon, liberal Democrat that I am, I naturally felt that the Church should be willing to bend more – but that is exactly the same thought pattern that caused these tensions in the first place.  As I discussed in an earlier post, the LDS Church and the GLBT community needed to use the heated debate surrounding these issues to talk rather than shut down, and I am happy to see that both sides did just that.

But don’t get too excited GLBT community.  The Church made it all too clear that they still feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that they will fight to keep the sanctity of marriage in tact.  Furthermore, they acknowledged that the issues being discussed (fair housing and equal employment) are basic rights, but they still remain silent on issues such as hospital visitation, adoption, and the grand-daddy of them all, civil unions.

Tuesday was also marked with a very vocal (and very small) minority of people opposed to the ordinance. Rich Piatt of KSL accurately noted that objections focused more on the concept of homosexuals and homosexual conduct when discussing the law, and not legal ramifications of the ordinance.  This truth echos a growing trend around the nation that either consciously or unconsciously knows that it can no longer fight laws such as the Nondiscrimination ordinance through legal means and must, therefore, appeal to peoples fears.  Though this is not new, the idea that one avenue has been closed means forces opponents to use less civilized ways to get their point across.  In short, things are going to get ugly, and I can’t discount more extreme as well.  As members of the GLBT community rightfully become recognized as a class that needs protection from hate speech and action, the more they are going to need it from hatemongers.

But please don’t become too depressed from this post. The fact that as dominant of a power as the LDS Church not only changed their views marks a huge step both locally and nationally.  Keep in mind that the Church did not have to say anything if they didn’t want to; their choice to speak shows that they are willing to focus the flock on the teachings set forth in the New Testament, rather than one line in Leviticus, when it comes to discussing homosexuality – for this, I applaud them.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not discuss the political ramifications from Tuesdays landmark passage.  Already Park City and Salt Lake County are considering passage of similar measures.  Moderate legislators on Utah’s Capitol Hill who may personally want to vote for equal rights measures but can’t politically now have more legitimacy when reporting to their constituents while more conservative members have lost the smoke screen excuses the LDS Church used to provide.  Finally, and perhaps more importantly, large numbers of individuals within the LDS Church now have an official statement to discuss openly and honestly with other members – by removing some ambiguity on this issue, many people within this state may be more tolerant towards their fellow man.

One of the reasons the “Main Street Kiss” received so much attention in the first place is that it seemed so contradictory to the Churches apparent tolerance of homosexuality as a lifestyle – even though they fully admit to not supporting gay marriage.  The churches words of love and inclusion for gay couples were directly contradicted by its actions of detaining a couple for showing that lifestyle.  Furthermore, we have seen many members of the Mormon faith openly hostile to the gay community over the years; this recent controversy served to support these prejudices, not dispel them.

Indeed, the Church must take advantage of these actions to start a dialogue between the GLBT and LDS communities if they do indeed care about seeing equal rights for all the people of this state, nation, and world.

For far to long the Church has attempted to play both sides of this issue, and they are beginning to pay the price for it. Soon the City Creek Center will open its doors to the citizens of Salt Lake City and this Church owned property will have a flood of people wishing to reside in the 20 acres of land it occupies. It is inevitable that a gay couple will wish to live in one of the 750 condominium units to be built.  What then?

As of right now it is not illegal to deny housing to someone because they are gay. The Church would be well within its rights to say no to a couple on these grounds – just as they are well within their rights to expel a couple for expressing their love on Church grounds.  But just because it is legal does not mean that it is right.  The bad publicity the Church has received now and that it will receive when this unavoidable scenario takes place are undeniable – yet the Church still remains mostly silent. Furthermore, Salt Lake City or County will undoubtedly pass an equal rights ordinance that will force the Church to accept GLBT couples into the City Creek Center…or at the very least not deny them housing because of this fact, again placing the Church in a very public and harsh spotlight.

The Church can no longer afford to kowtow to both sides of the isle; it is obvious now, more than ever, that they are being ingenuous to both sides and that no one is happy with their words or actions. Therefore, I challenge the LDS church to come out with a strongly worded statement that either supports gay rights and accept the internal conflict associated with that or to state (what appears to be the obvious) that the LDS Church does not support homosexuality in any form and that they oppose the existence of those who have a different lifestyle from their own – accepting the inevitable blow back and bad publicity this Church has tried to avoid for years.

In many ways,  the Church is a victim of its own success. Its efforts to become part of the mainstream means that they open themselves up to criticism they are not used to. Over the years the Church has evolved with the politics of this state and is, therefore, used to getting its way – now that they are fully entering the national and international stage, they must learn to adapt to the realities that they are not listened to and are not respected…indeed they are openly challenged and criticized. A statement now (along with actions) must take place to either support the growing public opinion that the GLBT community deserves equal rights if the Church wishes to grow outside of the Intermountain West.

And so, LDS Church, get ready.  GLBT issues are going to be your defining moment for decades to come – what decision will you make?

Written by Derek Jones:

My boyfriend and I were walking home from the Gallivan Center concert series and naturally had to walk down the pedestrian mall (it was a direct path to our house and we have walked it many times together).  We were holding hands.

Matt paused to say something to me and hugged and kissed me.

At that moment, several LDS church security guards came up to us and asked us to leave because we were being inappropriate.

Matt moved in closer to me and put his arm around me and asked the security guards loudly “what are we doing wrong?” We were obviously annoyed that they singled us out, especially since we were just passing through and not spending considerable time there. And there were no other people on the easement that we could see.

At this point they said that they wanted us to leave because of the public display of affection and that they do not allow any sorts of public displays of affection on the easement whatsoever. This especially irked the both of us because having walked through on a frequent basis (we often walk to work through there) and every time I have been through there are either marriage ceremonies going on, young mormon [sic] couples cuddling in front the fountain, hugging, holding hands, etc.

Matt then tried to get them to admit they were singling us out because they just didn’t approve of “gay” public displays of affection, baiting them into revealing their bigotry.

As all this was going on, several more security guards began showing up. I didn’t make an actual count but I would guess about 10 security guards were now surrounding us.

One of the security guards then got in Matt’s face and expressed very forcefully that “we (meaning straight people?) don’t come to your house and make-out on our property.” At this point Matt called him on his [expletive deleted] and mentioned that every time he has been through, he’s seen brides and grooms, couples holding hands on the pavement etc.

The security guards then changed their strategy and went the route of telling us that the easement is privately owned by the church and they can basically kick-out anyone they deem being offensive or inappropriate. This is technically true, but at the time I thought that it was a public easement and they had no rights to kick us out for holding hands (I didn’t really follow the controversy back in 2003 when the City ended up caving into the Mormon Church’s request to make the easement private property).

At this point they then split us up and forced me onto the ground on my stomach. They put my face against the pavement and handcuffed my hands behind my back. They then did a search and took everything out of our pockets. They did the same to Matt, although he resisted (not violently) and they weren’t able to get him on the ground because he’s a big guy and it took four or five of their guys to get him handcuffed. Matt remembers asking “what are you doing? Why are you doing this?” Then Matt launched into them verbally, telling them that they were hypocrites and did not have the authority to be arresting us.  Matt never threatened them, nor was he ever violent. He even explicitly told them that we were not being violent and that handcuffing was completely unnecessary. Neither of us are violent people. We were just trying to get them to have a civil conversation with us about the real reasons they wanted us to leave. Matt then asked if what they are doing was legal.  The security guards tried to claim that they were the cops. One of them even pulled out a fake badge and said he used to be a cop.

Matt then asked where the real cops were and they then said we could either leave, or they would get the cops. While we waited for the cops to arrive, the security guards kept trying to take pictures of us with their digital cameras. They also tried to accuse us being intoxicated although we were not. I admitted to have A beer at the gallivant, but that was hours before.

The cops finally showed up and talked to the church security away from while we still sat in cuffs. The police then escorted off the easement and took off our cuffs. We answered their questions and the one cop tried to shame us by pointing out we had been drinking, at which point Matt said “of course I have been we were at the Gallivan and took the responsible route by walking
home.

The cop then dropped that line of attack that [sic].

The cops then issued us both citations for trespassing and let us go.

Update: Some of the commenters seem to be under the impression that I, as author of this blog, was one of the victims of the preceding incidents – I wish to clarify that I am simply reporting the information as I have received it from the two directly.  It is for this reason that I have not answered what I plan to do because I have no direct connection to the case – other than the fact that people I know and care about have been directly affected by it. My appologies for any confusion.

So a friend of mine informed me, by way of Facebook status updates, that he was, he claims, illegally detained and charged with a Class C Misdemeanor for trespassing on the Main Street pedestrian mall in Downtown Salt Lake. The reason, he claims, is that he was holding the hand of his gay partner.

As I said, this is breaking and the facts are not in – however I would not be surprised to hear if it was entirely true.

For those of you who don’t recall, the Salt Lake City approved the sale of a section of Main Street in Downtown in April 1999 to the Mormon church from South Temple to North Temple, effectively connecting the LDS Temple grounds with the LDS Offices. The debate was heated as the land would effectively become private property and events, such as this, could (in theory at the time) be prosecuted. In the end the Church won and we see the symptoms of this victory today – assuming it is true.

But is it right?

Unlike the block housing the LDS Temple, the area is completely open and accessible to the public – indeed, I have cut through the area from time to time with no trouble whatsoever.  The area offers no physical restrictions and to someone who knew nothing of the Mormon culture, would assume it was a park area (all be it with an interesting choice in architecture).  Now these two are long standing residents of the state and city, but my point still stands.

How would we be viewed by the national press if this had been a couple from another city our country? Is this how the Church really wants to be perceived – especially after the the whole Proposition 8 dust up? Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that the Church “does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family.”

One would reasonably assume that holding hands is far less of an attack against “traditional marriage” than, say, allowing gay couples to enter into mutual contracts. Yet, if these allegations are true, here we are.

So what is more important, your First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and pass through an area, unknowingly trespassing, or arresting people because you think they are ookie? I have no doubt that they broke the actual law, but did they break the spirit of it?

P.S. Any posts that reference a religious verse or doctrine directly will be blocked – this is a legal issue and, therefore, requires a legal response. Furthermore, morality is not the dependant on any particular religion, rather it is the concept that we should be good to one another; therefore, replies regarding morality in a religious context, too, will be blocked.

Update: Read the account of this from one of the individuals arrested by clicking here.

Update: Salt Lake Tribune reporting, Deseret News reporting (the only one who acknowledged this blog directly – thanks Clayton), Q Salt Lake reporting, CBS 2 Reporting, ABC 4 Reporting, KSL 5 Reporting, Fox 13 Reporting.

What also does not surprise me is that Representative Chaffetz is an amazing hypocrite when it comes to his stance on big government.

On Chaffetz’s campaign site, one of his big four issues is limited government – stating that “This principal works! I agree with President Regan: “Government which governs least governs best.” He goes on to expand on this point by stating that he is a strong supporter of federalism with the emphasis being placed on the states and that he will “seek to restrict the role of the federal government.”

Ah, but Chaffetz is also the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post Office, and the District of Columbia and, therefore, is able to rule on all ordinances D.C. comes up with. You see, because Washington D.C. is not technically a state, rather a federal district, the Constitution grants Congress the right to pass all laws regarding the governance of the city. Everything from parking ordinances to the recognition of gay marriage is, technically, left in the hands of Congress.

But I ask Representative Chaffetz, how can you be a supporter of small government and feel that it is ok to intervene in the affairs of Washington D.C.? I understand that D.C. poses unique questions and can be treated differently than Utah – but does that mean that you should? Are the 590,000 of the District less entitled to local government than the 745,000 in yours – if not, do you consider District residents Americans? If so, why do you feel the need to interfere only in their lives but not the lives of residents who live in regular states?

Finally – and most importantly, how did you learn how to so easily speak out of both sides of your mouth?

I propose that you change your website to properly reflect your position – as I see it – to read “I seek to restrict the role of the federal government unless some portion of the population does something that I feel is ookie.” I mean, I think it is only fair to the constituents in the district you don’t live in.

As I am sure you are all aware, any case can go from small claims court to the Supreme Court. What you may not know is that the Supreme Court can pick and choose the cases it hears, and the Court tends to not care much about you not being paid by Mr. Smith after doing some lawn work. They do, however, care very much about answering questions regarding the constitutionality of law that, say, denies rights to certain individuals – lets say gay people.

We must also not forget that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No law supersedes the Constitution and all laws should, in theory, be written and implemented to be in harmony with the Constitution.

There are two basic schools of thought when it comes to the Constitution. One claims that the Constitution is a living document that adapts and evolves over time to create what are known as “penumbra rights -” rights such as privacy and the separation of church and state are a good example; nowhere are these rights actually written into the Constitution. These penumbra arguments tend to be use by more liberal members of the Court. Others, however, view the Constitution as a historic document that should be read with a literal meaning – if it is not on paper, it is not a Constitutionally recognized right. This view is popular among more conservative judges.

Now let us go back to my main point – why gay marriage and equal rights are inevitable for homosexuals. If the plaintiffs are successful the story is over in California; gay rights advocates can not appeal a decision that is in their favor. Assuming this scenario, however, sets legal president in other states with similar laws (like Utah which banned gay marriage four years ago) and allows plaintiffs to file similar suit in other states. Eventually one of these cases will not favor the plaintiff and the suit will move into the federal system. Eventually one of these cases will not favor the plaintiff in federal court and the lawsuit will move to the Supreme Court.

It is at this point that I encourage you to open your civics books to page four, you know, that section that actually has the Constitution printed on it. Everyone flip through until you find the 14th Amendment. Billy, could you read that aloud please? Section one please.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person with its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

P.S.: