GAY NEWS
A Tale of Two Kisses: Gay Couples in Utah, Texas Tangle with Police Over Kissing
By L. K. Regan
Published Jul 14, 2009
Published Jul 14, 2009
In many American cities, July is gay pride, with parades, floats, celebrations, and coming out events. In two American cities this month, however, gay couples have been targeted by security services simply for exchanging a kiss. Both cases raise questions about the limits of the law as well as police jurisdiction and conduct. So we want to know: when is it safe to kiss in public?
First to Salt Lake City, Utah where last weekend, Matt Aune and Derek Jones exchanged a hug and kiss on the cheek while walking home from a concert. Unfortunately, they happened to be in the plaza in front of the Mormon Temple at the time, and so security guards approached them and accused them of “inappropriate behavior”. A church spokeswoman later said that the men were “politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior—just as any other couple would have been," but Aune and Jones don’t buy it. "We asked what we were doing wrong," Aune told The Associated Press. The guards handcuffed the two men and called the police, who cited both men with misdemeanor trespassing. According to Salt Lake City Police Sgt. Robin Snyder, "It doesn't matter what they were asked to leave for. If they are asked to leave and don't they are... trespassing.”
On Sunday morning, roughly 100 protesters wearing paper hearts on their sleeves or as masks, and determined to engage in modest displays of affection, arrived at the same square to stage a kiss-in, though guards carefully kept them off of the property owned by the LDS. That property, however, is very much a publicly accessible space, and in fact used to be owned by the city, which traded it to the LDS church in 2003 in exchange for land for a community center. At that point, the LDS instituted rules for the property prohibiting such wild behavior as protesting, smoking, sunbathing and other "offensive, indecent, obscene, lewd or disorderly speech, dress or conduct," as church officials said at the time. Aune and Jones were thus in violation of more than one of these rules, since they also used profanity with the guards at some point after being confronted over the peck on the cheek. Even so, serious questions have arisen as to how such a publicly positioned space can be policed using such restricted rules.
In Texas, the legal case is more complicated, with the local law enforcement authorities, at least until very recently, apparently unaware of their own local ordinances. Late on the night of June 28th, police in El Paso, Texas were called to Chico’s Tacos to arrest two men who had shared a kiss in the restaurant. The couple were amongst a group of five men who ordered food and sat down to eat at the fast food taco chain, when a guard approached them and asked them to leave. One member of the group quoted the guard as saying that the restaurant did not allow “that faggot stuff”. The men called the police, intending to ask the local force to defend their rights, only to be told by the police, according to one member of the group, that they could be cited for "homosexual conduct"—a patent untruth. In fact, no police report was filed at all—but the question of what exactly the police know of local, state, and federal law remains open.
For example, El Paso police Detective Carlos Carrillo told the El Paso Times that criminal trespass would have been a more appropriate charge than “homosexual conduct”. “Every business has the right to refuse service,” he said. “They have the right to refuse service to whoever they don't want there. That's their prerogative." In fact, however, they have no such prerogative, and criminal trespass is no more viable a charge than the ludicrous “homosexual conduct”. The ignorance of his own officers and spokespersons drove El Paso Police Chief Greg Allen to release a statement to the press acknowledging that El Paso in fact has very clear anti-discrimination statutes on the books. “The correct local law,” Chief Allen said, “clearly states that it is within the responsibility of government, including its employees, to bring about through fair, orderly and lawful procedures, the opportunity of each person to obtain goods and services in all process of public accommodation without fear of discrimination.” And he rather embarrassingly had to promise to bring his own officers up to date on the laws of his city: “I, therefore, require that all employees of the police department maintain a level of competence that keeps them abreast of the current laws and requirements of the law enforcement profession. Failure to maintain such will result in appropriate discipline.”
More likely, however, things will remain as they have always been, where every gay person should be careful to know his rights—especially if he’s going to share a kiss in public.
First to Salt Lake City, Utah where last weekend, Matt Aune and Derek Jones exchanged a hug and kiss on the cheek while walking home from a concert. Unfortunately, they happened to be in the plaza in front of the Mormon Temple at the time, and so security guards approached them and accused them of “inappropriate behavior”. A church spokeswoman later said that the men were “politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior—just as any other couple would have been," but Aune and Jones don’t buy it. "We asked what we were doing wrong," Aune told The Associated Press. The guards handcuffed the two men and called the police, who cited both men with misdemeanor trespassing. According to Salt Lake City Police Sgt. Robin Snyder, "It doesn't matter what they were asked to leave for. If they are asked to leave and don't they are... trespassing.”
On Sunday morning, roughly 100 protesters wearing paper hearts on their sleeves or as masks, and determined to engage in modest displays of affection, arrived at the same square to stage a kiss-in, though guards carefully kept them off of the property owned by the LDS. That property, however, is very much a publicly accessible space, and in fact used to be owned by the city, which traded it to the LDS church in 2003 in exchange for land for a community center. At that point, the LDS instituted rules for the property prohibiting such wild behavior as protesting, smoking, sunbathing and other "offensive, indecent, obscene, lewd or disorderly speech, dress or conduct," as church officials said at the time. Aune and Jones were thus in violation of more than one of these rules, since they also used profanity with the guards at some point after being confronted over the peck on the cheek. Even so, serious questions have arisen as to how such a publicly positioned space can be policed using such restricted rules.
In Texas, the legal case is more complicated, with the local law enforcement authorities, at least until very recently, apparently unaware of their own local ordinances. Late on the night of June 28th, police in El Paso, Texas were called to Chico’s Tacos to arrest two men who had shared a kiss in the restaurant. The couple were amongst a group of five men who ordered food and sat down to eat at the fast food taco chain, when a guard approached them and asked them to leave. One member of the group quoted the guard as saying that the restaurant did not allow “that faggot stuff”. The men called the police, intending to ask the local force to defend their rights, only to be told by the police, according to one member of the group, that they could be cited for "homosexual conduct"—a patent untruth. In fact, no police report was filed at all—but the question of what exactly the police know of local, state, and federal law remains open.
For example, El Paso police Detective Carlos Carrillo told the El Paso Times that criminal trespass would have been a more appropriate charge than “homosexual conduct”. “Every business has the right to refuse service,” he said. “They have the right to refuse service to whoever they don't want there. That's their prerogative." In fact, however, they have no such prerogative, and criminal trespass is no more viable a charge than the ludicrous “homosexual conduct”. The ignorance of his own officers and spokespersons drove El Paso Police Chief Greg Allen to release a statement to the press acknowledging that El Paso in fact has very clear anti-discrimination statutes on the books. “The correct local law,” Chief Allen said, “clearly states that it is within the responsibility of government, including its employees, to bring about through fair, orderly and lawful procedures, the opportunity of each person to obtain goods and services in all process of public accommodation without fear of discrimination.” And he rather embarrassingly had to promise to bring his own officers up to date on the laws of his city: “I, therefore, require that all employees of the police department maintain a level of competence that keeps them abreast of the current laws and requirements of the law enforcement profession. Failure to maintain such will result in appropriate discipline.”
More likely, however, things will remain as they have always been, where every gay person should be careful to know his rights—especially if he’s going to share a kiss in public.
almostTXjock wrote:
Made me very angry. I moved to Dallas from Arkansas to get away from that kind of hatred and ignorance. Kissing in public is distasteful to me, even when I had a girlfriend, but that is not the issue at hand I realize. I don't see many straight couples kissing in public, maybe just holding hands sometimes. In Dallas where I live, women are very confident and independent. The restaurant probably does have a legal right to refuse service, but could face law suits for discrimination. Texas is a weird mix of progressive and conservative social standards
Jul 27 8:00 PM
Allthethings wrote:
I was very much appalled about the whole kissing thing here in TX, since it was done here in my home town. The couple was too aggressive, I think, in the way that they handled the situation. From what I know the couple had been sucking face at a family restaurant. I could have passed a peck, but making out, come on. They had refused to stop and they continued and then the manager/owner asked them to please leave they had continued and they had to call the cops. The owner as the owner of the establishment makes the rule as to who he wishes to serve. Therefore I side with the law on this one.
Jul 23 10:47 PM
ceosion wrote:
Funny, because when a citizen claims ignorance of the law, it doesn't matter, the law still applies. If the penalty is a fine, you get fined, if the penalty is anything else, you get that too. As they say, "ignorantia juris non excusat" or translated "ignorance of the law excuses no one". I really hope we're not playing at double standards here, if we aren't allowed to get away with ignorance of the law, then neither should those who are instructed to enforce it. (Especially those, in my opinion!) A simple embarrassed slap on the wrist is not enough, it should go on the record for the department of their officer's failing competency and if it happens again, strict penalties will result (such as identifying and replacing ignorant officers). In addition, I feel a small fine should be applied to the police department, and said money used to buy copies of the judicial code for the officer's to read.
Jul 16 1:45 AM
sutadyerk wrote:
i do wha i want, sheeeit..
Jul 15 7:13 PM
MidwesternKid wrote:
LAME
Jul 15 5:53 AM
joeindallas wrote:
I am in Dallas and a Transplant from Boston. I am sorta lucky I am in Dallas for I have see some gross things here up in Fannin county I saw a scarecrow on a barbed wire fence and a sign that said "Matthew Shepard Slept Here." I was appauled by the mockery of an innocent. When I open my mouth they know I am not from "here", and more than one gave me sh&t about the Gay Marraiges in Boston. They got pissed when I told them the reception was always top shelf and open bar. SOmeday Texas might change.
Jul 15 5:11 AM
Jakers420 wrote:
i understand the whole TX cituation. I'm born and raised in Austin,TX(where thank god there is a good gay population) I've only delt with snickers and scorne from few, but the existance of ignorance is prevalent. TX(sadly) has been so backward for the longest time now. The incedent in El Paso was only a minor break in justice and as for Utah, weither a case of discrimination ar not... Knowing that the LDS is'nt keen on homo's... it was probley not a good idea to kiss infront of a LDS temple. I duno, I have a different outlook on the whole issue. I sneer at the idea of their being gays and straights... therere only people. I duno..... going to quite before I ramble on and on.
Jul 15 12:43 AM
nx01 wrote:
I actually know one of the guys from Utah, and it's kind of crazy to see that this is getting [some form of] national attention. Coming from Virginia, I'm not surprised this kind of bigotry exists, but it still upsets me when I hear we're looking for "special rights" when we only want the same rights extended to straight people.
Jul 14 10:39 PM
Stephan wrote:
I have live all my life in Texas, and yes, lots of towns and cities still fear what they don't know. I am always ashamed to hear when my state has to do something so shameless and hurtful to others, especially to my fellow gay brothers.
Texas still has a very very very long way to go before it embraces any type of fairness for all!
Jul 14 9:54 PM
jrs1 wrote:
These two instances are both, unfortunately, located in two such places where opinions are taken as precedent over the law. As an American citizen - whether gay, six-armed, handicapped, or exercising my religious beliefs within the scope of the church of the flying spaghetti monster - I have the right to be defended by the laws set forth to protect me from such blatant subterfuge. These men were perhaps exercising their freedom to demonstrate their love for one another, however it may have not been in the best of places to practice such free love.
I am not an authoritarian by nature, but I do see that there are rules to be followed. I do not think that rules are meant to harm citizens, for the most part. However, I am fully convinced that if the rules are written, they have been written to be followed by all. I do not see the logic in creating such rules if they are going to be abridged for the sake of personal opinion. I find that citing " homosexual conduct, " a nonexistent citation, to be an apparent display of incivility. If, for instance, the Taco eatery had instituted a no kissing policy on their premises, therefore disallowing anyone from kissing, then I would not have an issue. But there was neither such a policy, nor were there examples cited where heterosexual couples were experiencing such an omission of their rights.
When is it appropriate to show your love for someone? Legally, you may show your love for one another where you'd like, because you are within your constitutional rights, so long as you are not on private property. Socially, you are more than welcome to show your love for someone, but both within reason and within the context of also showing respect for those around you; i.e., keep in mind that the parties involved in the public display of affection are in the relationship, those who are innocent bystanders are not.
Again, the issue here seems to be two examples where we see de facto marginalization. I am finding the co
Jul 14 8:00 PM
WhatIsUp wrote:
ahaha! great. amricans are famous for making laws as they go.
Jul 14 7:42 PM
ActiveAndFit wrote:
Homophobia is never about law. It is about fear and ignorance and hatred.
Jul 14 5:47 PM
KissingPro wrote:
If these men were simply kissing..then the alleged harassement they went threw makes me boil with anger at the authorities.
Did these religious/police think this was another example of "family values being eroded?
Jul 14 3:10 PM
sexylovinalex wrote:
So I have a difficult time believing the two Utahns stories. The reason why is that me and my ex used to make frequent trips to temple square, we have held hands, hugged, and exchanged a kiss once in a while. WE were never asked to leave, or even approached. Those two would have had to be doing something.
Jul 14 2:59 PM