Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
smooches

Soon There Will Be a Kiss-In in Front of Every Mormon Church Across America

New trend alert: Kiss-ins in front of Mormon temples are the new block party! Or, maybe they’re the new happy hour? Whatever. After the arrest of two men kissing in front of a Mormon church in Salt Lake City, locals there staged a slew of kiss-ins. Now, the theme is spreading … all the way to San Diego.

By:           editor editor
On:           Jul 23, 2009
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,
  • 89 Comments
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      It needs to go nation wide.

      Jul 23, 2009 at 10:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Qjersey
      Qjersey

      OK, so when will we have the gumption to do the same in front of Catholic Churches? HMMM.

      Easy to pick on the Mormons as so many people view them with suspicion to begin with.

      Jul 23, 2009 at 10:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim
      Tim

      @Qjersey:

      Please you don’t know you’re history. Members of ACT UP got arrested many times in Catholic churches. The Mormons are the targets right now because of the arrest of the gay couple in Utah for kissing and for funneling millions of dollars into California to pass Prop 8.
      I wonder if there might be a movement to target companies whose CEOs are Mormons. Black and Decker’s CEO Nolan Archibald for example is president of The DC Mormon church.

      Jul 23, 2009 at 10:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Qjersey: You said “OK, so when will we have the gumption to do the same in front of Catholic Churches? HMMM.

      Easy to pick on the Mormons as so many people view them with suspicion to begin with.”
      _______________________________________________________________

      Somebody always has to come in here to belittle people that are actually doing something. The Mormons had two men arrested for kissing in front of their church, this is a direct response to that. If you want to do something in front of a Catholic church, fine, start a movement, get a bunch of your friends and go do it.

      Jul 23, 2009 at 11:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jerry Priori
      Jerry Priori

      Don’t worry, when a gay couple is arrested for kissing in front of St. Patrick’s there will be kiss-in protests in front of the Catholic churches, too. There’s nothing special about the RCC that would frighten anyone off from protesting them, too. This time, however, it’s all about the Mormon church–and rightly so.

      Jul 23, 2009 at 12:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HiveRadical
      HiveRadical

      I think it’s funny how the actions must be premised on an overly simplified rendition of the core event. The supposed ejection for a kiss is a convenient lie promulgated because the method of protest that’s been found is so appealing to those who fought/fight prop 8.

      Never mind the couple didn’t just kiss, never mind that at least one of them was drunk, that both were spouting profanities and not at all centering their affection on each other but acting out of a spirit of reviling and spite. The genesis of all this has nothing to do with affection and love between two people but spite and some degree of hate. That’s why the lie is propagated, that’s why no one will address the reality. It’s too important to keep the mythology, to put up these pioneers as endearing unsuspecting bystanders cruelly victimized by the big bad faith institutions.

      Don’t think it’s not seen. People will be made to see that these things are not motivated by what so many outlets claim. This is not about victims and martyrs to causes, it’s about creating image and spinning a story, because there’s no trust in the integrity of the raw truth, it all has to be doctored and carefully presented and bent and twisted. Because to see the whole truth will never lead the masses to the ends so many seek.

      Jul 23, 2009 at 2:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Qjersey
      Qjersey

      @Tim:

      TIM I am old enough to recall members of ACT UP being arrested at St. Patricks in NYC….almost 20 years ago, so give me a break.

      Jul 23, 2009 at 2:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @HiveRadical:

      WOw, tinfoil hats are so eighties homeless!

      Jul 23, 2009 at 2:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      kiss ins are soooooooooooo like totally effective! How long have we had kiss ins? Look at all kiss ins have accomplished. Nothing says “HOLY MOTHERFUCKING MOTHERFUCK! THEY’RE KISSIN’! KISSIN’ ON POLYGAMY PROPERTY! MY EYES! MY EYES ARE BURNING!”-like a “kiss in”…shouldn’t be kiss out?

      Jul 23, 2009 at 2:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JDD
      JDD

      “OK, so when will we have the gumption to do the same in front of Catholic Churches? HMMM.”

      Along those same lines, when will you have the gumption to do the same in front of black churches and orthodox synagogues? It’s easy to scapegoat such an easy target…

      Jul 23, 2009 at 2:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David B.
      David B.

      @HiveRadical: Speaking as someone who lives in SLC and has heard all the intricate details of the story, I have to call BS on you HiveRadical.
      First off, the guys were not “drunk” they had been drinking a little, but that has nothing to do with it even if they were “drunk.”
      2. They were walking through what used to be a public street and that looks like a public park that, for anyone who didn’t follow the story back in 1999-2003, looks like public property and not private property.
      3. They were walking through holding hands and one of them kissed his partner on the cheek, no “groping” or anything other than that took place.
      4. They LDS Church Security asked them to leave. They, thinking that they were on public property surrounded by Church property, told them no. And yes they most likely used profanity, but that doesn’t allow you to write off their story.
      5. What’s worse isn’t so much that they were arrested for trespassing (which they were, unknowingly) but that the church released a statement saying that the couple was “asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior just as any other couple would have been.” This statement is absurd when you realize that nearly every day wedding photos are taken in that area complete with kissing.

      It wasn’t so much that this couple was being arrested, but that the church was saying one thing and doing another. They were being hypocritical.

      Jul 23, 2009 at 2:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @HiveRadical: You said “”I think it’s funny how the actions must be premised on an overly simplified rendition of the core event. The supposed ejection for a kiss is a convenient lie promulgated because the method of protest that’s been found is so appealing to those who fought/fight prop 8.

      Never mind the couple didn’t just kiss, never mind that at least one of them was drunk, that both were spouting profanities and not at all centering their affection on each other but acting out of a spirit of reviling and spite.”
      _______________________________________________________

      That is actually a lie. The police report clearly states that they were called because a couple kissed, there was NOTHING in the report that said one was drunk etc… If you read the Salt Lake city paper you will see that it is typical of the church to change their story once they get busted for their bigotry. Please don’t continue to spew their lies on here.

      Jul 23, 2009 at 3:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tom
      Tom

      I will be in front of the Mormon Temple on Columbus in NYC at 6:00. I will be waiting for a dark-haired, not too tall, reasonably in shape, employed 30-50 year old man to come and kiss me. You know … to show those Mormon bastards.

      Jul 23, 2009 at 3:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @HiveRadical:

      Fuck for sharing!

      Jul 23, 2009 at 3:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      @Tom: Will you accept 58, but has had some filler and a few peels? lol

      Jul 23, 2009 at 3:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      This seriously discriminates against catholic and southern baptist cult centers. They’re bigger, older, richer and at least as dangerous as the mormon cult.

      Jul 23, 2009 at 4:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jon from Maine
      Jon from Maine

      Kissing@Qjersey: Catholics can kiss my ass..

      Jul 23, 2009 at 9:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      One person wrote, “Never mind the couple didn’t just kiss, never mind that at least one of them was drunk, that both were spouting profanities,” but in fact the police report stated that they had kissed and that one of the two had slightly slurred speech. The profanities apparently followed being handcuffed, according to other reports, and are understandable. Whether slightly slurred speech indicates drunkenness is in the eye of the beholder – it is certainly different from being drunk to the point of being completely out of control.

      The Mormon church, no doubt based on what their security people said, accused the pair of groping or lewd behavior, but that claim is unsubstantiated as there were no independent witnesses. The security guards’ perceptions may have been fueled by homophobia or they could be simply lying, needing an excuse for an over-the-top reaction.

      There are a lot of possibilities, so it makes sense to avoid jumping to conclusions. In particular it is bad form to accuse two private individuals of inappropriate behavior just because some PR guy representing the Mormons made such a claim – as an institution, the Mormon Church has an incentive to justify the behavior of its employees (handcuffing people for no good reason is a sure way to end up on the losing end of a lawsuit) – and a couple of ordinary people don’t have the resources to counter such statements.

      Jul 23, 2009 at 9:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @B.:

      Let me say it again….

      That is actually a lie. The police report clearly states that they were called because a couple kissed, there was NOTHING in the report that said one was drunk etc… If you read the Salt Lake city paper you will see that it is typical of the church to change their story once they get busted for their bigotry. Please don’t continue to spew their lies on here.

      Jul 24, 2009 at 12:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JimW
      JimW

      I know there are strong feelings surrounding this issue, but I don’t see why the discussion can’t be kept factual and without exaggeration on both sides.

      @HiveRadical

      You state:

      “Never mind the couple didn’t just kiss”

      How do you know that? Were you there?

      “not at all centering their affection on each other but acting out of a spirit of reviling and spite. The genesis of all this has nothing to do with affection and love between two people but spite and some degree of hate.”

      This is nothing but your own conjecture. You have no way to back up those statements.

      @David B

      You state:

      “First off, the guys were not ‘drunk’ they had been drinking a little, but that has nothing to do with it even if they were ‘drunk.'”

      I don’t think you are in a position to state with certainty that they weren’t drunk. Here’s what the police report says:

      “He told that him [sic] and his boyfriend Derek had been drinking at the Gallavin Center and they just came through Main St.”

      Later on, the police report http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2009/0714/20090714_063104_templepolicereport.pdf says:

      “I did not see any signs of injury on either AP’s. I could smell alcohol on Matt’s breath and he [sic] speech was slightly slurred when he spoke to me.”

      In a first hand account written by Derek Jones himself and published in the Blue in Red Zion blog http://blueinredzion.com/2009/07/basic-civil-rights-v-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-part-2/ he states:

      “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.”

      Why would he emphasize that they were being responsible by walking if they weren’t at least somewhat intoxicated? Otherwise, they could have driven.

      Based on the above quotes, it’s safe to conclude that they were likely at least a bit tipsy. Why does that matter? Because their recollection of events may be somewhat skewed. Everyone quotes their side of the story as if it is the gospel truth, when in fact they may be leaving out important details. We simply don’t know.

      @Cam

      You state:

      “That is actually a lie. The police report clearly states that they were called because a couple kissed, there was NOTHING in the report that said one was drunk etc…”

      That is incorrect. The police report says the “call came in on tresspassers.” It then clearly states:

      “Nickel told both AP’s that he is with Church Security and that they need to leave their property for the behavior and that is is unwanted. That is when Derek refused to leave and said “NO, I am not leaving”. Other Church Security came and detained both AP’s for trespassing and then called PD.”

      In Derek Jones own account cited above, he states:

      “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).”

      The couple was asked to leave because of the PDA, but the reason they were detained and the police were called was because they became belligerent and refused to leave the property when asked to do so (tresspassing). This bit about being arrested for a kiss is nonsense.

      As for the drinking part, see the above quotes from the police report and Derek’s account. If it was obvious enough for the cop to be able to tell that they had been drinking because of slurred speech and the smell of alcohol on Matt’s breath, it seems more reasonable to conclude that at least one of them may have been somewhat intoxicated. Why deny it?

      Jul 24, 2009 at 1:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andrew
      Andrew

      @HiveRadical:
      “raw truth”… “whole truth”… Neither exist, friend. There is nothing other than perceived reality. Our understanding of “reality” or “truth” is necessarily subjective and always limited by our abilities of perception. Even then, our brains literally create much of what we “see” and “feel”, etc. Yes, there are spin-doctors out there. But there is no such thing as “the integrity of the raw truth.”

      Jul 24, 2009 at 2:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      Regarding Cam’s comments, if Derek Jones had said that “thought that it was a public easement”, that would suggest there is no signage indicating that the area was private property and that the security guards never said it was private property, which raises doubts as to whether you can actually convict them of trespassing. If you check Utah’s law on criminal trespass (the URL is ), it states:
      (4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
      (a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and
      (b) the actor’s conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner’s use of the property.

      Apparently, this property was in fact open to the public as it was used as a pedestrian walkway, and a same-sex kiss hardly interfered with the owner’s use of the property. So, it seems to me that Aune and Jones have a reasonable defense under Utah law.

      Also, one must know one is trespassing to be convicted, You need either signage or “personal communication to the actor by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner”. If the guard did not say explicitly that this was private property, Aune and Jones may use that as a defense. If the guards in question did not wear uniforms or show identification, Aune and Jones could claim they thought they were talking to a random person who was merely prejudiced and didn’t like seeing a same sex kiss in the proximity of the Mormon Temple. Given the large Mormon population of Utah and the official Mormon position on homosexuality, it would not be surprising if Aune and Jones often heard people telling them to stop showing any signs of affection while walking down public streets and to leave the area regardless of their right to be there.

      Regarding the drinking, nobody is denying that Matt Aune (gasp) had a drink or two or that he could have been slightly
      buzzed. The word “drunk” suggests far more than that. Deciding
      to be “responsible” by walking instead of driving is not an admission of being drunk. It is simply being careful and a decision someone might make even if well under the legal limit for driving and even if not noticing so much as a slight effect from a drink or two.

      Jul 24, 2009 at 2:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JimW
      JimW

      @B.:

      B,

      There is signage on both ends of the plaza indicating that it is private property.

      Furthermore, Derek Jones admits in his own account that he was informed that it was private property by the security guards.

      “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” http://blueinredzion.com/2009/07/basic-civil-rights-v-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-part-2/

      Regarding the drinking, I’m not saying they definitely were drunk, I’m merely pointing out that it is an overstatement to say that they definitely were not drunk. It is established that they had been drinking, but none of us knows whether they were drunk or not.

      Jul 24, 2009 at 3:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @Andrew:

      Yep yep. Some people “perceive” that the sun revolves around the earth, while others “perceive” that the earth revolves around the sun.

      Thank you for the metaphysical psycho-babble session.

      Some things ARE despite your “perception”.

      Hence the expression “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”

      And the sun doesn’t give a good fuck about your “perception” of it. It’s been there since before the dawn of man. Period. End of conversation.

      Jeez.

      Jul 24, 2009 at 4:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      With regard to JimW’s comment, the URL http://blueinredzion.com/2009/07/basic-civil-rights-v-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-part-2/ that he himself cited that gave Derek Jones’ account stated that Jones thought he was on public easement (surrounded by private property) in which case the signage would presumably be interpreted as applying to the portions of the area off the pedestrian walkway. If a typical person in that area would make that interpretation, the signage is inadequate.

      According to Jones, they told him it was private property and at that point separated them and handcuffed them. I.e., there was essentially zero time between being told it was private property and being handcuffed. It reminds me of what a South African told me about being in an anti-apartheid demonstration and having a police officer announce, “If you do not disperse at the count of three, I will have my men charge. Onetwothreecharge.” It is simply an embarrassment – these are gestapo tactics and are not legally defensible.

      Regardless of the signs, it appears the couple are not guilty of a crime. As I pointed out, the Utah law covering criminal trespass states:

      (4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
      (a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and
      (b) the actor’s conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner’s use of the property.

      Both (a) and (b) seem to hold in this case as the pathway was in fact open to the public regardless of who owned it. If you open your property to the public, there are rules about how you can treat the public, and it seems the Mormon security guards ignored those rules, quite likely because of prejudice against gays and perhaps also ignorance of the law.

      As to knowing Matt Aune’s state of intoxication if any, there is an independent account in the police report – slightly slurred speech. He was obviously not drunk as that word would commonly be used. He wasn’t being a tea totaler that evening either, but that’s his business – having a drink with a friend or even a few
      “social drinks” is not a crime, nor is it some sort of moral failing.

      Given that, Aune and Jones may have good grounds to sue the Mormon Church for (a) false arrest and (b) defamation of character, and a lawyer can probably add to that list. No wonder the Mormon PR machine is in high gear. :-)

      Jul 24, 2009 at 6:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      As a second followup to JimW’s comment, I just found a URL
      http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/blog-1268-missionaries-not-goons.html that has a picture of one of the signs.

      This sign clearly indicates that the public is invited to use the area (with some restrictions regarding smoking, bicycling, skateboarding, and roller skating). There is no mention of a restriction for kissing.

      Because the public was in fact invited, Jones and Aune have what appears to be a solid defense against a trespassing charge – the Utah criminal trespass law allows such an invitation to be used as a defense when one was not interfering with the owner’s use of the property in any real way (I quoted that section of the law previously).

      It sounds to me like the Mormon Church should be contacting Jones and Aune and offering them a nice settlement, not to mention some training for the church’s security guards. :-)

      Jul 24, 2009 at 8:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @B.:

      Thank you for the URL with the picture of on of the signs on that plaza.

      It clearly puts to rest the charge that Jones and Aune were trespassing when the sign clearly invites the public to enjoy it. And since there is no mention of PDA on the signs, I don’t see how in hell, the LSD Church can enforce a no-kissing policy for gays, while allowing it for straights.

      I mean, if they can legally get away with this kind of malarky, what would stop them from throwing a person to the ground and handcuffing them, simply for the act of tying a shoe-lace or any other behavior that the LSD Church might regard as indecent or sacrilegious?

      One can certainly understand the no smoking requirement, as well as the banning of bicycles, skate-boards and roller skates as this is an insurance issue that the LSD Church would be held liable for since it is their property and they would legally held responsible for the safety of those visiting it.

      I think Jones and Aune have a good case here, should they wish to pursue it…and I think that they would be foolhardy if they didn’t.

      If I were them, I’d be interviewing lawyers, if they aren’t already doing so.

      Jul 24, 2009 at 10:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Why confine ourselves to the streets in front of Mormon temples? We should be doing it in front of liberal establishments like Hooters and the Playboy Mansion. These establishments might be liberal but they market themselves in a way which excludes the male-male interaction.

      Liberals are terrified of the erotic male-male interaction.

      Jul 24, 2009 at 11:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @schlukitz: Utah is not officially a theocratic dictatorship. Officially it’s part of the US and officially the LDS church subscribes to the Constitutional proscription against making laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Buchanan sent troops to Utah in 1857 and Lincoln did it again in 1862. Supposedly the issue was settled over a hundred years ago.

      At least that’s what they tell us. You can believe that as much as you can believe Joseph Smith didn’t write very bad historical fantasies. The reality of politics in Utah is a little different. There are rules. One of them is that it’s punishingly difficult to sue mormon doctors and dentists for malpractice, mormon businesses for fraud and environmental wrecking and mormon politicians for sleazy deals. It’s even more difficult to take on the lds cult, especially now that they’re a vital part of the republican right.

      Any lawyer who takes their case is going to find out what real pressure is.

      ————–

      I wonder why ‘fierce defender’ didn’t jump in and call the SLC cops stupid. He was totally right about the Gates incident in Cambridge and stupid himself for aplogizing for his initial remarks.

      My guess is that a decade or more of pandering to homohating christer bigots makes it easier to pander to racists when the time comes, which it did for him today. No doubt the good folks at http://www.blackagendareport.com/ will have something to say on the subject.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 12:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM
      SM

      The Kiss-In Protest makes a good point and I’m sure it helps prove your point.

      Being a Christian and Churches are SUPPOSED to be all about charity. Jesus Christ was a social activist.

      If the millions of LGBT people and their supporters wanted to make these “Christians” look like dirt – there would be LGBT people volunteering at homeless shelters and soup kitchens all over America etc. Once a week, every LGBT in America volunteers for charity work.

      Never going to happen….but if it did you would put them in their place with the Christian talk.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 2:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM
      SM

      President Barack Obama is all about volunteering and giving back.
      Non profits are hurting in this recession.

      You want to make the Religious Right look like haters? You want DADT to go away? How evil would NOW look raising money to fight you if thousands of LGBT were helping disabled veterans every week? Homeless? Taking food to AIDS patients. Every city all over America.

      Every LGBT in America could volunteer a few hours a week while doing the postcardstothepresident.com campaign and you all would empower yourselves, your Senators, your Congress, and make anyone who fights against you look like dirt.

      You don’t just have to march and be mad to get heard~

      Jul 25, 2009 at 2:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      How evil would NOW look raising money to fight you if thousands of LGBT were helping disabled veterans every week? Homeless? Taking food to AIDS patients. Every city all over America.

      Wait a minute! this crazy prattle is based on the false belief that lgbt people don’t do these things. You’re insane. Go away, and take your hopium with you.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 2:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Never going to happen….but if it did you would put them in their place with the Christian talk.

      Sure sure, lgbt people never volunteer at soup kitchens, helping needy people. You cracked cunt. Further, it wouldn’t change their position.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 2:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM
      SM

      @TANK:

      You don’t even know what religion I am TANK.

      Why don’t you face the fact that YOU need to stop being mad at ME and OBAMA and start being MAD at the MILLIONS of LGBT people not finding a way to organize and DO SOMETHING HUGE!

      Jul 25, 2009 at 2:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JimW
      JimW

      @B.:

      B,

      First off, I would have no problem if the trespassing charge were dismissed, but a point of clarification is in order. You have cited the Utah statute regarding trespassing, but the trespassing charge was not based on the couple being on the plaza or even kissing on the plaza. By ALL accounts, the couple became belligerent and refused to leave when asked by the property owner. That is the basis of the trespassing citation. The defense that the plaza is open to the public only applies if Aune and Jones were charged for merely being on the premises.

      Regarding the signage, the property owner is not required to post every conceivable rule of behavior. The owner can inform a visitor verbally, which by all accounts, the security guards did.

      I do agree that some additional training for the security guards is probably in order, but I doubt very seriously that there is any basis for civil action. I guess we’ll find out.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 10:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @JimW:

      Nope. You don’t have a leg to stand on. Zero time from being told to leave and having the cuffs slapped on them.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 4:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM
      SM

      TANK is not happy unless he is hating on someone or something. He is not strong enough to win equality by rising above religious jerks. He is all about WAR. He is no better than they are. He is just like they are.

      God Forbid he should worry about things that MATTER.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 4:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • duttybarb
      duttybarb

      Hey all,..Miss me????

      Kiss ins????????Well thats just stupid.

      Wanna increase violent anti gay attacks?
      Wanna actually give anti gay Christian fanatics a chance to really hurt you people ?
      Wanna be seen as a bunch of rebels that are promiscuous and socially insensitive??
      Hell, wanna just provoke some “fag hating rednecks” to beat the living Harvey Milk out of you?
      THIS IS THE PLAN FOR YOU.

      Are u pple really that dumb? Do you still fail to realise that USA is not West hollywood? This is not some gay movie but real life. America is severely homophobic and guess who are more…yep the Good Church going ones. This is fuel to a fire that is already burning out of control…i can imagine Fred Phelp’s reaction to this…

      How about doing something to actually earn sympatthy and support? Pissing off not only mormons but the Xtian community is a stupid move. Once again..gays have missed the point..

      Jul 25, 2009 at 4:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      @duttybarb: I must say, I do not think the kiss ins serve any real purpose. Maybe the one in Utah because of the arrests but I do not see the point in doing more.

      All gay people are not weak and intimidated by Christians or rednecks. These people always chose the easy targets because they are weak themselves. I have never had anyone look at me the wrong way, guess they are all not stupid.

      As far as sympathy, the right wing religious fundamentalists will never give us any so why bother trying. They do need to be told to shut the F*** up when they speak out of line. Gay people are tired of their rants and raves as you can see from these kiss ins. They better get used to it because our fuses are growing shorter by the day.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 4:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      @duttybarb: Oh and yes, Queerty has been very quiet without you! Were you at some prayer vacation camp of something? Maybe attending Sarah Palin’s going away party perhaps?

      Jul 25, 2009 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      I should reply to JimW’s statement, “By ALL accounts, the couple became belligerent and refused to leave when asked by the property owner, That is the basis of the trespassing citation. The defense that the plaza is open to the public only applies if Aune and Jones were charged for merely being on the premises.”

      The problem with this is that merely being “belligerent” when being harassed by people who are prejudiced against you for some strange reason is not covered at all by the trespassing statute and is thus irrelevant. When the public is invited to use the property, however, the law has an exception that I previously quoted, and that exception seems to preempt any attempt to single out a specific individual:

      4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
      (a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and
      (b) the actor’s conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner’s use of the property.

      The wording indicates that this exception applies in any time period for which the property is open to the public, and the signage indicated that the property is open to the public 24 hours per day. If the Mormon Church had closed the property to the public, not letting any member of the general public use it, then Jones and Aune could have been charged with trespassing. But that did not happen. While you stated (correctly) that the couple was asked to leave, nobody else was asked to leave. Since the area was still open to the public and the couple was not interfering with the owner’s use of the property in any substantial way, the couple had a right to be there.

      Furthermore, the couple received contradictory signals: a sign posted by the actual property owner indicating that the couple was invited to use the property and a signal from a quite likely bigoted guard that the couple was not welcome, which could quite plausibly be simply the personal opinion of the guard. And one should note that nobody was asked to leave during the “kiss-in” demonstrations, which suggests that the request to leave was in fact merely the personal opinion of the guard present during this incident.

      As a result, the wording of the statute indicates that a trespassing charge is not warranted, and this makes sense: if you open your property to the public, you should not be able to single some individuals out and tell them they are not wanted because you don’t like their skin color, hair color, think they are ugly, or any other capricious and arbitrary reason that does not impact your use of the property. People should not be put in a position where they invited in one minute and told that they are not wanted the next without a substantive reason. If a property owner tries that, the state has a legitimate reason to say it will not allow the use of the criminal justice system to help support the property owner in this case.

      The restrictions on the sign meet the legal requirements – some people (non smokers in particular) are sensitive to smoke and may have some difficulty handling conditions in which others whiz by on bicycles or skateboards. An objection to a couple kissing, particularly when other couples are allowed to kiss, certainly does not meet that test.

      As to whether there is any basis for a civil action, there is: there was no need to handcuff the couple and no justification for it, and the videos showed that the handcuffs were applied tightly enough to cause some skin damage (bruising, I imagine).
      There was what seems to be a false arrest, although one should wait for the outcome of a trial or a statement from the DA that charges have been dropped before saying for sure. The Mormon
      Church’s representatives have (according to press reports) accused the couple of lewd behavior and public drunkenness, neither of which seems to be the case. It’s called “libel”
      or “slander”, depending on whether written or spoken.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 5:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @duttybarb:

      How about doing something to actually earn sympatthy and support?

      How about the Mormons and the Xstains doing something to earn respect and support?

      Pissing off not only mormons but the Xtian community is a stupid move. Once again..gays have missed the point..

      Pissing off the LGBT community is a stupid move too. Once again…the Mormons and the Xtials have missed the point..

      Jul 25, 2009 at 5:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @duttybarb:

      Miss YOU???

      Girlfriend, you give yourself far too much credit.

      We didn’t even know you were gone!!!

      Jul 25, 2009 at 5:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      @schlukitz: Give her a break, she is tired from all that praying at the prayer summer camp. Probably visiting the knee doctor as we speak!

      Jul 25, 2009 at 5:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @InExile:

      HeeHee

      Shall we take up a collection buy her a pair of heavy-duty knee pads? ;o)

      Jul 25, 2009 at 5:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adamblast
      adamblast

      When the mormon church bankrolled the “Yes on 8″ campaign, they established themselves as the pre-eminent political+religious power fighting against marriage equality. They deserve the kiss-in demonstrations for that reason alone. So it’s natural that this discriminatory policing of their public access routes on the SLC temple grounds ignited such demonstrations. The fact that other huge religions and political institutions also oppress us does nothing to invalidate the protests.

      The kiss-ins won’t change the world. They’re not even likely to foster much helpful dialog with the church–their anti-gay bias is not subject to secular reason or gentle persuasion. That doesn’t keep these protests from being a good and meaningful thing. Among other things< they’ve been generating good media and moving some people’s hearts and minds.

      I’m proud of my kissing brothers and sisters. While I’m not likely to rope an impromptu kissing buddy, if I had a significant other I’d probably be out there as well.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 5:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      @schlukitz: I have an old pair I can send her used for laying tile. Gives me an excuse to go out and buy the cushy ones from Donna Tella Versace.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 5:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JimW
      JimW

      @B.:

      You have missed the point. It is the fact that they refused to leave after being told that they must do so that constitutes trespassing.

      Also, in Hudgens v. NLRB, the U.S. Supremem Court ruled that private property rights are not surrendered just because a property owner leaves property open to the public.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 6:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JimW
      JimW

      @TANK:

      How exactly do you arrive at the assertion that zero time elapsed between being asked to leave and the cuffs being applied?

      In Derek Jones own words:

      “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).” http://blueinredzion.com/2009/07/basic-civil-rights-v-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-part-2/

      Obviously, it takes more than zero minutes to do all that.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 6:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • duttybarb
      duttybarb

      and yes, i missed you old whiny queens too!!!

      So anyhow, may i ask a very honest question here?

      Are Xtians going after you or you going after them?

      When u challenge all that is moral and right…pple retaliate. When two men and women decide to insult a religious rite,,like marriage do u xpect religious groups to sit back and smile.

      You guys are so clueless…becos XTIANITY is giving u the chance to do the wrong thing. Why don’t you people attack Islam, i mean Muslims are downright deadly to a gay person, why not do a kiss in at a mosque site. I dare ya. Go on. After all, equality is for all.

      Its sad really cos the bible predicted this will happen..that what is wrong will suddenly become right and that some so called churches will actually bend under Satan’s pressure and allow immorality to take over.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 6:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wally
      Wally

      No one was arrests. All of these gay website are saying the guys were arrested. THEY WERE NOT! Stop spreading lies, or you are no better than the people you hate!

      Jul 25, 2009 at 6:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wally
      Wally

      @Tim:

      No one was arrested! Stop lying.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 6:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @duttybarb:

      and yes, i missed you old whiny queens too!!!

      Sorry that we can’t say the same.

      So anyhow, may i ask a very honest question here?

      You have never been honest with us from the first day you arrived on this site. Why start now?

      Are Xtians going after you or you going after them?

      Defending one’s self from attack, is not the same as “going after” them. When one’s civil-rights are being attacked by a bunch of religious goons, that give us the right to come looking for you. Hirohito had to learn that lesson the hard way too, btw. He came to realize that he had woken a sleeping giant.

      When u challenge all that is moral and right…pple retaliate.

      What you religious fanatics call moral and right, is nothing more than your opinion and of your own making. You have nothing to substantiate it with except your musty, old, moth-eaten bible which we do NOT accept as empirical proof of anything except the fact that you are all idiots for believing in it. Accepting bullshit, on faith alone, is not an intelligent choice for us.

      When two men and women decide to insult a religious rite,,like marriage do u xpect religious groups to sit back and smile.

      The thing is, the church does not “Own” the rite of marriage. But then you’ve had this explained to you over and over, but you still don’t get it. And since when did kissing become an insult to anyone except sexually-repressed morons like you? You pervs bend over backward to find reason to be insulted, victims that you are.

      Fact is, you crooks muscled your way into the rite in the middle of the seventh century and hijacked it from the secular community for your own financial profit. Secular marriage existed long before they tossed the first Christian into the lions. A pity they stopped doing that.

      You guys are so clueless…

      Au Contraire, Madame! Never have we of the LGBT community been more aware of the mind-fuck games you religions screw-balls play and the devious manner in which you play them. We’re onto the likes of you people. You’ve let the cat out of the bag.

      Why don’t you people attack Islam

      It wasn’t Islam dollars that funded the rape of the constitution and the scourging of LGBT people in California. It was the Mormons and Crazy Christers like you who did the dirty deed! We have no control over what Muslims do in their own backward countries, but if the day ever arrives that they see fit to attack us as y’all did, you can rest assured, we’ll be after their asses too.

      This is still America, not Iraq or Afghanistan. If seeing gays hanging from a public gallows gets you hot, then I would suggest that you more to Iraq or Iran where they practice mans inhumanity to man with the blessings of their vile God Mohamed.

      Its sad really cos the bible predicted this will happen..that what is wrong will suddenly become right and that some so called churches will actually bend under Satan’s pressure and allow immorality to take over.

      The only thing bigoted, homophobic religious freaks like you are sad about, is that your day is finally coming and when full equality for all of God’s children becomes the law of the land (and it will), people like you will no longer be able to get your rocks off at the expense of the suffering of other human beings.

      And when that happens, religious riff-raff like you will have become useless blobs of un-needed flesh and bones.

      After some two-thousand plus years of relative obscurity, you will all finally achieve total oblivion!

      YOu will

      Jul 25, 2009 at 6:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      JimW wrote, “You have missed the point. It is the fact that they refused to leave after being told that they must do so that constitutes trespassing.”

      Except that the Utah criminal trespassing statute, after stating that one is (normally) guilty of trespassing for refusing to leave when asked, adds,

      (4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
      (a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and
      (b) the actor’s conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner’s use of the property.

      So if they are tried, Aune and Jones can simply say, “Your Honor, while we were in fact ‘asked to leave’, this area was in fact open to the public at the time and we did not substantially interfere with the property owner’s use of his property. Under section (4) of the criminal trespass law, these facts constitute a defense to prosecution, and on that basis we move that the case be dismissed.” The prosecution’s only possible response would be to try to show how a same-sex kiss late at night substantially interfered with the Mormon Church’s use of its property. Good luck proving that one.

      JimW also wrote, “Also, in Hudgens v. NLRB, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that private property rights are not surrendered just because a property owner leaves property open to the public.”

      This is irrelevant. The issue is not the Mormon Church’s property rights but whether Aune and Jones are guilty of a crime. They are not, if you take the law to mean what it clearly says. That does not impact the Mormon Church’s property rights in any way. It just means that the state can’t throw Aune and Jones in jail or fine them.

      If you want to argue about it, I’d suggest that you try to show why you think Section (4) of the Utah criminal trespass law does not mean what it clearly states in very simple English.

      BTW, there are many reasons for Section 4. For one, if you
      go into a store to return a defective product, and the management doesn’t want other customers to see how shoddy their merchandise is, the management can’t use a threat of criminal trespass charges to get you to go away: the store may be private property, but it is open to the public. As long as you aren’t disruptive (e.g., stopping other customers from shopping), you have a right to be there to try to get the service you deserve.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 7:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @Wally:

      Oh, and btw,I forgot to mention that Muslims are downright deadly to women too.

      With your big mouth and the disrespect that you display for the male sex, you’d have been stoned to death a long time ago.

      Actually, it would be a lot more fun to see you walking around the village square with your tongue pinned in a Scold’s Bridle of old.

      That was how they dealt with with tongue-waggling, disrespectful women like you back in the days of the Puritans.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 7:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Sorry wally, that post was meant for DuttyBarb. I didn’t take notice of your post falling into place as I clicked the reply button.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 7:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      @duttybarb: Yes, many of the Christian churches are subscribing to satan, I agree. Why else would they deny gay people “Civil Marriage” which is civil rights, not religious rights!

      As far as Muslims are concerned, they are not lobbing congress to stop gay people from having the same civil rights as everyone else, only the extremist Christians are. Your cult is an extremist hate group.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 7:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      @InExile: No different than the KKK, skin head white supremacist, and other anti-American hate groups.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 7:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @InExile:

      Puleeeeeze, InExile.

      You are insulting the KKK, skin-head-white-supremacists and other anti-American hate groups by mentioning Christians in the same breath! LOL

      Jul 25, 2009 at 7:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM
      SM

      @schlukitz:

      Your an ignorant fool who acts like all Christians are against you.

      Lets start moving “breeders” into West Hollywood, the Castro and P-town and see how WELCOMING the equality people are.

      Jul 25, 2009 at 7:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      Amusing to see all you homosexuals pleading for tolerance in one breath then spewing hatred against Christians in the next.

      75% of African Americans voted Yes on 8 so why don’t you homosexuals stage a kiss-in at the intersection of Florence and Normandy?

      Jul 25, 2009 at 8:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      SM wrote,

      “Lets start moving ‘breeders’ into West Hollywood, the Castro and P-town and see how WELCOMING the equality people are.”

      That’s already true in the Castro! Nobody seems to mind. In fact, some straight couples want to live there because they want to raise their children in an environment that encourages tolerance. During the last gay pride day there was a family sitting near an open window of a restaurant on Castro Street and a little boy (4 or 5 years old) was looking out the window, all excited, and saying “Happy pride” as people walked by. He probably won’t grow up to be a bigot, which is just what the “equality people” want. :-)

      Jul 25, 2009 at 9:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      @B.: I pity the poor kid being raised among all the perverts in the Castro.

      Still at least he wasn’t intimidated and harassed like the Christian singers in that famous YouTube.

      Funny how you bigoted homosexuals always demand tolerance from others but are utterly intolerant themselves

      Jul 25, 2009 at 9:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @youcanthandlethetruth:

      Get lost, Jim

      Jul 25, 2009 at 9:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      @TANK: I’m not Jim you gormless fool

      Jul 25, 2009 at 9:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @youcanthandlethetruth:

      Riiight. Jim, don’t you have mormon fundamentalist sites to troll around and talk about how great polygamy is?

      Jul 25, 2009 at 9:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @SM:

      Your an ignorant fool who acts like all Christians are against you.

      Butthey are, Blanche. They are!

      Jul 25, 2009 at 10:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @youcanthandlethetruth:

      Eat shit and die you straight homophobic bigot!

      Jul 25, 2009 at 10:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      youcanthandlethetruth wrote, “pity the poor kid being raised among all the perverts in the Castro.”

      Dude, aside from the “perverts” preferring a different part of town, when you find out what housing costs in the Castro and how much that “poor kid” will inherit when his mother and father finally pass away, you’ll think, “Gee, I wish I was being raised there too.”

      As for the “intimidated and harassed” “Christian singers in that famous YouTube,” you are being fooled by the right-wing spin machine. The Christians showed up to harass the locals, many of whom were disappointed at seeing Proposition Eight squeak through to a narrow win in the election, so some of the locals in turn surrounded the Christians and made a similar amount of noise. The police showed up to make sure nothing got out of hand, and it didn’t.

      It’s pretty simple. If you show up in a neighborhood in a group
      that makes a lot of noise about how there is something wrong with the people living in that neighborhood, you won’t get a warm reception.

      http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83468 has the story:

      The presence of anti-gay Christians in the heart of a traditionally gay neighborhood was too much for some; the KTUV story said that the religious demonstrators were practically chased out.

      However, neighborhood gays said that the religious protesters were not subjected to any violence.

      The article quoted Joe Schmitz, who said, “Their rights were respected.”

      Added Schmitz, “They got a chance to go ahead and pray on the sidewalk and I had the opportunity to express my freedom of speech which is telling them to get out of my neighborhood.”

      Many of the protests against the passage of the anti-gay ballot initiative that have taken place across the country have been organized in advance, but the San Francisco event was not, according to those who were there.

      Said Adam Quintero, “It was not an organized thing. We’re tired of it. It’s not religious.”

      Continued Quintero, “It’s not a racial thing.

      “….We’re trying to send a message across the world that we’re standing up and we don’t want this to go on anymore.”

      Jul 26, 2009 at 1:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @JimW:

      Well, not after the changed tactic. It seems that they just cuffed them after that, without giving them a chance to leave on their own. So that and basically everything else that was brought to your attention about the statutes pretty much convict the security guards of antigay harassment. But your reasoning also applies to jim crowe and a host of laws which were legal for quite some time. You, to be consistent, believe that they were just and ethical. I think that’s contemptible, and unacceptable, but those laws compounded human suffering.

      Jul 26, 2009 at 1:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @TANK:

      Separate but equal was not only legal in light of your argument, but morally acceptable. This is a direct consequence of your belief that what’s legal is what’s right.

      Jul 26, 2009 at 1:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • duttybarb
      duttybarb

      schlukitz….bla bla bla bla bla bla.

      You bla a lot. Its noisy.

      Islam did not lobby…really? You are definitely a bigger dummy than i thought then. Is that really ur excuse???

      You dont attack Islam becos there is no compromise on that one. You cant try it. There is no gay cleric that is flaunting himself in the media for you to misinterpret on. No that level of idiocy is left to the xtian hypocrites. I mean what kind of xtian reads the bible and still manages to assume that homosexuality was not categorically stated as an abomination.

      Let me tell you the truth. Even if Islamic groups come up today and slaughter all homosexuals in their nation..you still will not have the guts to do anything but whine from your safe American bedrooms via the Internet. Because Islam has zero tolerance for your lifestyle and they are not easily swayed like my so called Xtian brother and sisters. If we maintained ourselves as the bible intended this disgusting epidemic would have controlled long ago.

      Jul 26, 2009 at 5:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      @SM: Moving breeders into West Hollywood comment:

      For your information straight people have always lived in West Hollywood even going back to the mid eighties. Gay people living amongst straight people has never been an issue there. I used to live there and there were more straight people by far living in my condo building than gays. You always seem to know it all even when you don’t! West Hollywood is a very accepting place for all and always has been.

      Jul 26, 2009 at 7:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      I agree that we should hold a kiss-in in front of black community meeting places. We should let ALL communities know that we’re here, we’re queer, and we’re not going anywhere.

      Jul 26, 2009 at 8:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @TANK:

      Separate but equal was not only legal in light of your argument, but morally acceptable. This is a direct consequence of your belief that what’s legal is what’s right.

      I’ll back that argument, Tank, any day of the week!

      Just because something is law, does not make it right. And we have had many splendid examples of bad laws in our American past, that needed to be changed.

      Jul 26, 2009 at 10:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @duttybarb:

      You bla a lot. Its noisy.

      This, coming from the chief noise-maker in the room…who, incidentally, was never invited in the first place. As the old adage goes, “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.” No one will miss you; of that I can assure you.

      I mean what kind of xtian reads the bible and still manages to assume that homosexuality was not categorically stated as an abomination.

      One who, unlike you, Dum-Dum-Dutty, who is able to see through the bullshit and understand that the condemnation of any human being is intrinsically wrong.

      Even if Islamic groups come up today and slaughter all homosexuals in their nation..

      Given the disgusting invectives and epithets you have posted on these threads toward LGBT people, I have no doubt that you are praying for that to happen.

      If we maintained ourselves as the bible intended this disgusting epidemic would have controlled long ago.

      Umm…I read that comment as a direct threat on the LGBT community. Someone should call the cops on you. You sound like a very deranged person who ought to be behind bars.

      Let me tell you the truth.

      Ha! That’ll be the day!

      Jul 26, 2009 at 11:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @InExile:

      You always seem to know it all even when you don’t!

      It doesn’t take any intelligence to blow shit out of one’s ass! ;o)

      Jul 26, 2009 at 11:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      @B.: So what you seem to be saying is that it’s perfectly acceptable for homosexuals to harass and intimidate Christians for the horrendous crime of expressing their right to free speech.

      But if the tables were turned you would be howling like schoolgirls

      Jul 26, 2009 at 6:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      @jason: Good idea.

      Why don’t you go down to East LA, Hawaiian Gardens or South Central and stage a protest in support of homosexual marriage?

      Jul 26, 2009 at 6:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chino_Blanco
      Chino_Blanco

      I think it’s unfair to everybody else in the country that, to date, only California and Utah have had kiss-ins.

      Now that these two states have had their fun, it seems like the leadership is starting to say, OK, that’s enough, time to back off and show how nice we can be to the Mormon church.

      That would be the wrong call in my opinion.

      Let the LDS moan and gripe. Targeting their church does not bring the downside they claim it does. And, in any case, holding a kiss-in on a public sidewalk in front a church building is not exactly “targeting” … it’s more like taking advantage of a visual that will have more impact for viewers than say, kissing in front of a downtown gov’t building.

      Keep this in mind about the Mormons:

      1) They’re uniquely vertical (i.e., every congregation follows the exact same instructions, which all come from Salt Lake; and all funds are controlled by Salt Lake as well). You don’t have to worry about accidentally protesting in front of a friendly congregation’s building … all congregations send all their funds to Salt Lake for redistribution and the LDS command-and-control structure is such that the risk of friendly fire is eliminated.

      2) They’re uniquely geographical, which, combined with their vertical organization, is why they’re such a potent political force (the LDS might not be a huge % of the population, but they’ve got buildings and members located in nearly every district in the country). We should be taking advantage of their huge investment in building construction and using it to further our own goals. C’mon, Mormon temples make great backdrops for kisses. My advice would be, no matter where you’re located in the country, get yourself to the nearest Mormon temple on August 15.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 5:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      Youcanthandlethetruth wrote, “So what you seem to be saying is that it’s perfectly acceptable for homosexuals to harass and intimidate Christians for the horrendous crime of expressing their right to free speech.”

      What I’m saying is that, if someone shows up in front of my home and starts making noise about how they don’t like the type of car I own, don’t be surprised if I tell that someone to “#*$#* off”.

      These “Christians” showed up in a “gay” neighborhood to harass gays and were told off. Gays were not going to the Christians churches or homes to harass them. Rather, it was the reverse – the Christians were quite literally right outside the homes of the people the Christians were harassing.

      Youcanthandlethetruth seems to think the locals should sit there quietly and demurely while a group of self-righteous Christians spout off about how the locals are all destined for eternity in the “boiler room.” This was all on a public street, and the locals have every bit as much of a right to express their opinions as everyone else, all the more so when they are right outside of their homes. If these Christians had set up shop at the Powell Street cable car turnaround, would you expect the street artists and the scam artists preying on tourists to quiet down lest they interfere with the Christians?

      Jul 27, 2009 at 3:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      Homosexuals staging kiss-ins is a great idea.

      It will serve to perpetuate the common image of homosexuals as weird attention-whores who like to annoy people but don’t need to be taken seriously.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 3:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • J Penland
      J Penland

      Maybe you all should do your research before you go bashing the Mormon church. They two men were not arrested for kissing the were arrested for trespassing. If you knew anything about the Mormon temple then you would know it is sacred ground! Only certain Mormons are allowed in it. Maybe people should start respecting religous people a little more also if the demand respect back!

      Aug 24, 2009 at 2:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Smith
      John Smith

      The Mormons are building a temple in Cambridge, MA directly across the street from Manhunt.net offices. There goes the neighborhood!

      Sep 22, 2009 at 11:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @John Smith:

      And I’ll lay you odds, that once they have occupied the new temple, they will be the very first to protest and demand that the Manhunt.net offices be shut down for the good of society and to protect their children.

      Sep 22, 2009 at 1:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      This a waste of time. People should be allowed their beliefs.

      Sep 22, 2009 at 1:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @B: you said “This a waste of time. People should be allowed their beliefs.”
      ___________________________________________

      And if my belief is that you shouldn’t be allowed to rent an apt. or live in the city in which you live? And if my belief is that your place of employment should fire you for being “B”. Is that ok? Nope sorry, saying that the Mormons are just beliving what they believe is like saying “Gee, leave the Klan alone, they just believe what they belive”. Sorry, not buying it. Tolorating Bigotry is NOT tolerance. The Mormons are begging people not to be judgemental of them, yet they are one of the most judgemental sects out there.

      Sep 22, 2009 at 1:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @J Penland: you said “Maybe you all should do your research before you go bashing the Mormon church. They two men were not arrested for kissing the were arrested for trespassing. If you knew anything about the Mormon temple then you would know it is sacred ground! Only certain Mormons are allowed in it. Maybe people should start respecting religous people a little more also if the demand respect back!”
      ___________________________________________________

      That is actually a lie. When the city sold the land to the Temple it was on the EXPRESS CONDITION that the land remain as a public easement. The church has absolutly no legal right to block access to the land otherwise they have broken the terms of the deal and the city can take back the land.

      Again, read the police report, the police were called because of two men kissing. Even the Salt Lake City Police are not backing up the church’s phoney story.

      Sep 22, 2009 at 1:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @Cam:

      What is it with these people who lie through their eye-teeth…and expect us to buy these lies hook, line and sinker?

      They must think that the majority of us are so stupid that we cannot even spell our names correctly, that we don’t pay any attention to the media, never do a Google or check out Snopes for veracity. And he’s telling all of us that WE should do our research. Hello?

      All they do is make themselves look like the fools they are.

      Sep 22, 2009 at 7:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.