When Public Displays of Affection Get Gay People Detained
Published July 11, 2009 @ 07:40AM PT
What the hell is happening with law enforcement officials and LGBT rights lately? First you had the seemingly unbelievable raid on a gay bar on the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots in Texas; then you had San Diego police officers raid a political fundraiser at a lesbian household, pepper spraying the mostly middle-aged crowd; and now we've got two more stories - one out of Texas, and one out of Utah - where gay couples have been roughed up by police and security guards for simply doing one thing: kissing.
Is kissing now an invitation for police and security guards to handcuff LGBT couples and threaten them with arrest?
The Texas story comes out of a restaurant in El Paso, Texas, named Chico's, where five gay men were thrown out of the restaurant simply because two of the men kissed each other. Police, in throwing the men out of the restaurant, cited laws in Texas that were thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court more than five years ago. I gues that's reason #511 why the El Paso police department needs some diversity training when it comes to the issue of LGBT rights.
Trying to out-top the intolerance in El Paso, two men in Salt Lake City where handcuffed by police after kissing each other while walking across a plaza in town that happens to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Here's the gist of this story from On Top Magazine:
In the altercation, Matt Aune, 28, and his partner Derek Jones, 25, were detained by church security guards, and cited by city police for trespassing.
The pair crossed the Main Street Plaza, which belongs to the church, Thursday night holding hands as they walked home from a concert. Near the edge of the plaza, Aune says he stopped, hugged Jones and kissed him on the cheek.
The couple was cuffed and detained when they protested against requests by the guards that they leave. Guards told them public displays of affection are not allowed on the plaza.
“They targeted us,” Aune told the paper. “We weren't doing anything inappropriate or illegal, or anything most people would consider inappropriate for any other couple.”
Is it possible to think that police and security guards have no other crime to worry about in cities like El Paso and Salt Lake City that they have to spend their time monitoring LGBT people to see if they're kissing?
That's totally bogus. But unfortunately, these past three weeks have shown that when it comes to the way law enforcement officials interact with LGBT people, we're a lot closer to 1960s America than 2009.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Kissing for Equal Rights
-
Law Enforcement, Racism, and Sexual Orientation
-
Forty-Three Cities About to Get Their Kiss-In On
Comments (20)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Michael is the Communications Director for the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School, and previously was Communications Director for Pax Christi USA, a progressive Catholic human rights organization.
Featured Gay Rights Actions
-
-
Help Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act!
12171 People
-
Help Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act!
-
What would they do in let's say...Spain, where men kiss each other in greeting? This is really upsetting.
Posted by Liz Acosta on 07/11/2009 @ 10:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is outrageous! What the hell is going on out there? Do the law enforcement officers not realize that this is the 21st century? They should, at the very least, be reprimanded, maybe fired!
Posted by gilbert barrett on 07/11/2009 @ 03:15PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I condemn the Salt Lake City church security guards of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the police officers involved in each case for oppression. It's unfortunate that law enforcement target public display of affections by LGBT people because if they were heterosexual, the result would've been lesser. Law enforcement agencies must stop targeting the LGBT community for public affection because the actions by these police officers are unjustified.
Posted by Edwin Bonilla on 07/11/2009 @ 03:19PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I believe hetero couples are not allowed to display public affection there either. It would at least be a good experiment though. I personally can not envision Myself participating in a romantic kiss on My church property. (Methodist)
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/11/2009 @ 04:57PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This issue is extremely unique to Salt Lake City and the area that this took place. What makes it unique is this is a thoroughfare where the public is allowed to utilize as a "shortcut." It is a part of the downtown area of the city and is blocks worth of land. Here is the area in question: http://www.slcgetsfit.com/images/mainstplaza.jpg
Charlie, the whole notion that "hetero couples are not allowed to display public affection there either" doesn't really hold water since this area is actually used for wedding ceremonies of LDS members. Therefore, it would only seem natural for the husband and wife to show pda's.
Posted by Dave Hershey on 07/11/2009 @ 06:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dave,
Is this area actually private property of the Church, or is it a public area?
Posted by William Brown on 07/11/2009 @ 06:54PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Normaly I would agree with you BUT I saw a news video yesterday that proved just how hypocritical the bible thumpers are.
A group of heterosexual couples came out and held a kiss in on the plaza property...Were they harrassed by the cops ? No.
Were they forcibly handcuffed ? No.
Were they forced to leave ? No.
Hypocrisy abounds within the mormon church.
As soon as I can find the link again...I'll be glad to post it.
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 07/16/2009 @ 01:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dave, Someone (hetero of course) should recreate the circumstances and see what happens. For the record though I'm uncomfortable with people smooching in front of Me. I don't think I'm the only one, hence the overused expression "get a room" I do stand with the lgbt community though re: equal treatment. What's good for the hetero is good for the homo. ("homo not intended to be derogatory, it just seemed like the right counterbalance word)
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/11/2009 @ 06:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have no idea why My comments are suddenly taking so much space. I guess this is another experiment. lol
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/11/2009 @ 07:14PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Charlie it was a peck on the cheek not a ten second frenchie, and they were holding hands. That might be considered PDA but, what these idiots did is way outside of the realm of realism. If they were Frenching then tell them to stop, however arresting then for even that is way outside the limit and this couple needs to sue for harassment and discrimination.
Here in TC our cops are on the far other side of these Salt Lake City police. When a security guard tried to get me and Ruben kicked out of the mall, the cop he called on us arrested him for a false police report and wasting the officers time. The thing is assholes dont enforce PDA regulations on heterosexual people at all, but vehemently enforce them, with extreme bias, on homosexual people.
Charlie you also have to remember, whether you like something or not, no one has a right to enforce their belief on others when that belief causes harm to people for their actions which are not harmful. E.G. arresting an LGBT couple for holding hands, hugging, and pecking one another on the cheek.
Posted by Chris Marshall on 07/11/2009 @ 09:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Oh and I forgot to mention. This is the 21st century. When it comes to displays of public affection. We see heterosexual people do very disgustings things in public and no one bats and eye. Although I dont agree with these grotesque vulgar actions people so "up-tight" or "conservative" on LGBT just doing what this couple did need to, as they say, "lighten up and get a life."
(i mean conservative as religious nut job with an ego trip and a severe attribution error problem; not like real conservatives like the libertarians who see reality over idiocy.)
Posted by Chris Marshall on 07/11/2009 @ 09:16PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
William, Technically it is "private property." However, it is also considered to be a thoroughfare that is used by the public. And as far as I can tell, there are no signs stating that it is not open to the public and that there are certain "rules" to be followed in the area.
Charlie, I agree with you, but that is not what was happening (according to those who were detained.) My understanding is that they hugged and then one of them gave the other a kiss on the cheek. To me that is nothing. If they were really going at it, shoving their tongues down each other's throats I agree. Whenever I greet my friends (gay of course), we always hug and give each other a kiss on either the cheek or the lips, but we don't get down and dirty about it. LOL (sorry for the visual.)
I agree that it should be tested (but not necessarily immediately.) Meaning give it a couple weeks before staging the event. That way, this event will have had time to die down. But whomever is there recording it needs to make sure they are not seen by the security guards, but that those who are kissing are within the frame of the camera.
But I also agree with you Charlie, that certain PDAs shouldn't be made in public. As I said, a quick peck on the lips or the cheek is nothing, holding hands is nothing, walking with an arm around your loved one is nothing, prolonged kissing I would say is one of those that should be kept in private. But in this case, I personally believe the security guards over-reacted.
Posted by Dave Hershey on 07/11/2009 @ 09:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dave, Yes We agree on the experiment timing and the level of PDA. I do not suggest however that nauseating PDAs should be a legal matter. They just Make Me cringe, that's all.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/12/2009 @ 04:17AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I find it absolutely ridiulous that the government has made the decision on whether or not two people can love one another. The fact that it is an issue to me is apalling and I will stand and fight for gay rights whenever I have the chance. Love is love and noone should have that GOD given right taken away by anyone. SUPPORT LOVE IN ALL FORMS!!!!
Posted by Nina Walters on 07/12/2009 @ 12:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Nice, so on the church property your not allowed to show love. What a great policy for a church.
Posted by Larry Brewer on 07/12/2009 @ 02:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Without having actually witnessed either incident, it is impossible to know for certain, but it sounds like selective enforcement.
Although I support the granting of Civil Rights to everyone, the issue of selective enforcement will continue to be an issue for years to come much like the issue of racial profiling by police.
Once many of the hurdles to legal discriminations (DOMA, DADT) come down, we will still be left with the problem of how to coexist. Though at this time, the fight for equality in the courts, and the state and federal legislatures seems to be the main focus. Let us not forget that the real challenge will come after that fight is done.
Just as in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's and subsequent legislation and other programs to promote integration (like busing and Affirmative Action), 40 years later we are still struggling to find our balance in this (although doing much better at it). Maybe as a nation we can learn from that struggle and do better at it this time.
I have to agree with Chris Marshall on making the point that most people don't seem to notice out inappropriate PDA's by hetero couples. As a social conservative, I will have to admit that I have been guilty of this myself. When it comes right down to it, the gay couples that I have known have done a better job of behaving themselves in public than many hetero couples.
Posted by William Brown on 07/12/2009 @ 07:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I am not big on PDAs myself but if heterosexuals are allowed, then so should gay people. I agree, as a group we seem to be much better at keeping things G-rated.
This looks like selective enforcement to me as well. These people truly need to get a life--it looks as if they have way too much time on their hands.
Posted by Ioan Lightoller on 07/13/2009 @ 06:42AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As a country, our Constitutional Rights have been being systematically disassembled and ignored for decades. Problem is unless individuals are affected directly, we tend to just turn our heads and let it happen. Not until we all stand for everyone's rights as humans - not as clusters of special interest groups - will we be able to truly achieve the dream of equality and freedom in this or any nation. The Jews need to support the Christians. The Christians should support the Islamic. The criminal justice reformers need to support the GLBT camp. The anti-seatbelt/helmet groups should support the marijuana reformers. And all vice versa. Regardless of our individual beliefs, the most important characteristic each of us possess is how we treat each other. That single factor is more telling than all our other traits combined.
Posted by Fred Frankenberg on 07/13/2009 @ 06:52AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Roger Williams (founder of Rhode Island and a very religious man) wrote about religious persecution in his essay, The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience (1644).
He wrote that a breach of civil peace does not come about from the teaching or practice of what he considered to be false religion. Instead he wrote that breach of peace connected to these differences arose "...from that wrong and preposterous way of suppressing, preventing, and extinguishing such doctrines or practices by weapons of wrath..."
In essence, we do civil harm in trying to suppress other beliefs and lifestyles. In the sense that we wish to avoid a "breach of civil peace" and further guarantee our own rights to believe and practice as we wish, then we should be supporting one another in the endeavor to extend civil liberties to all.
"Not until we all stand for everyone's rights as humans - not as clusters of special interest groups-will we be able to truly achieve the dream of equality and freedom in this or any nation"
All of us must work together at this. That includes the gay community working to also protect the rights of social conservatives like myself just as I do for them. It is all too easy to dismiss one another in our pursuits of our own personal beliefs or preferences when really we would do well to realize we protect our own freedoms by protecting the freedoms of others.
Posted by William Brown on 07/14/2009 @ 05:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I hope you keep following this case so we can find out waht happens!
Posted by Trang Christine Ta on 07/15/2009 @ 12:46PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.