When a Kiss Is More Than Just a Kiss

I’m a hugger. I come from a large, affectionate family and we all do it – to relatives, friends and beyond. And the ability to be openly affectionate with another guy friend is probably one of my favorite things about our community. Most of us aren’t stifled by sexist rules about masculinity and emotion. I’ve had friends hug me as they spin us around after a long time apart, or grab onto my hand walking down the street, or give me a kiss on the lips goodbye.

Whether friendly or romantic, a kiss shared between two people of any kind makes this emotional hugger smile. But for people in Salt Lake City and El Paso, the simple connection of lips was grounds for being removed from the premises, detained, and charged with trespassing. In El Paso, a couple was kicked out of Chico’s Tacos for locking lips, while in Salt Lake City a couple’s kiss in a formerly public easement sold to the Mormon Church led to their detention and a citation for trespassing and "unwanted behavior." People in both communities protested the event, with couples staging a kiss-in in Utah.

Overlooking the Salt Lake City couples’ spewing of profanities at security officials (I’m sure being told a simple act of affection is prohibited would frustrate me too), both couples acquiesced to the injustice with little resistance. Both parties on either side of these issues non-verbally communicated volumes. I’ll venture to guess that those opposed to the public gay smooching probably have engaged in some PDA themselves, probably have no problem with violence or cursing on TV, have told or laughed at an offensive joke, and may have not even blinked an eye to disruptive public rowdiness by other young adults. But an act of love shared between two individuals who happen to be the same sex is still far more repugnant, vile and deserving of a swift end than violence, cursing and disruption in their eyes. This used to hold true for interracial couples, but America has thankful matured past that idiotic notion…though I’m sure there were those who called for swift actions against those “mixed” couples and swore such acts of love would ruin society.

While at first glance the LGBT couples appear to passively accept their injustice, I applaud them and their communities. We’ve learned (from countless acts of this kind) that in the moment it’s better to not cause more injustice and potential pain in the heat, but rather respond with respect while firmly requesting equality. Should that not be granted, it is our responsibility to expose the issue and band together in solidarity against those who continue to perpetrate such injustice.

Both mainstream and LGBT media covered these events and continue to add to the now daily conversations on LGBT equality and rights in this country, which sadly right now still is more comfortable with two men holding guns rather than holding hands. But with patience, persistence, and messages delivered in love, we can one day achieve true equality. Until then, we should keep sharing our stories in word, deed and kisses.

Comments

[Nathan Reagan]

Its a really interesting predicament that involves a church's right to sensor the activities that happen on their property. What get really messy in this case is that the property is used as a somewhat public thorough fare.

As both a gay and Mormon these incidences are slightly painful for me. I can remember walking on the Temple grounds with my boyfriend and having to abstain from all PDA. Although I felt sad that I couldn't express my emotions in this manner with the person I loved I also wanted to show respect for the LDS faith.

What saddens me most about the recent Salt Lake incident is that many Latter Day Saint and Christians will see this as an attack on their rights. This could potential lead to them being even more opposed to gay equal rights as they will fear that allowing the furthering of gay rights will lead to the shrinking of their own.

I often wish the LGBT community would be more careful in what perceptions they create among people of faith. The only way we will be granted equal rights is if we are able to assure them that our equality will not lessen theirs.

So although my heart goes out to the Salt Lake couple I still question if Temple Square is an appropriate battle ground.

[Bryan]

Nathan,

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. As with any issue, there are many perspectives and complexities (much more so than one can squeeze into a simple post). As a Christian, I too am torn by the disrespect LGBT individuals give back to a religious organization. While one cannot deny the shame, pain and rejection many LGBT people have received from religious groups, I personally believe that responding in a similar vein does nothing for our message.

I did a quick search last night and again today for the “rules” of Temple Square and couldn’t find it. I did find a post on the issue with the statement: There is a big difference between hetrosexual couples holding hands and kissing on Temple Square and the Plaza, and two men holding hands, hugging and kissing at the same location. While I understand the church’s stance on homosexuality, having and employing such inequality in an open square where many other straight couples can engage in a quick exchange should at least be addressed (albeit maybe not by a kiss-in). For example, what if the church in earlier days instituted separate water fountains for white and black visitors – should that inequality be called out even though it is in the parameters of a private establishment’s property?

This issue, this “culture war” between religious organizations and LGBT had reached a near frenzy and depleted most communications around it to yelling at, instead of talking and listening to, each other. I’d encourage you to check out the Marin Foundation here in Chicago’s site (http://www.themarinfoundation.org/), and in particular founder Andrew Marin’s book “Love Is an Orientation.” Talks about elevating conversations and building bridges between the two communities. Best book I’ve read to date on the topic. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.

[Preston]

Great post. I'm all for my kiss-ins, myself. :)

[Guido]

Sorry, but love is certainly not an orientation and definitely not the answer in this case. What we have here is the takeover of a formerly public space by a religious group which then imposes it's own "law". This trend is an increasing (worldwide) problem. Be it public spaces or services, we have to make sure that whenever a non-democratic organisation takes over these areas there has to be a strict mandate ordering them to respect the rights of individuals. So instead of soft talks, we need to create hard and strong guidelines so that the retreat of the democratically legitimized authorities does not result in the deterioration of liberal citizen (human) rights.

We, as the people, have the power to stop such developments before they become a problem. Kiss-ins are only a poor attempt to regain the control over something that was once ours...

[george]

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

[Guido]

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