Deseret News | 2 men cited in trespassing on LDS plaza

Reader comments
2 men cited in trespassing on LDS plaza

231 comments | Read story

Greg | 7:30 a.m. July 11, 2009

I cannot for the life of me understand why people get so freaked out by two people showing affection. It is an EVERYWHERE occurance to have a man and a woman show affection. On the LDS plaza couple pose for their picture kissing or holding hands in front of the LDS temple. For those of you who are open-minded enough to learn more of this I would invite you to watch a video (can be found on youtube) entited "for the bible tells me so". I'm a gay Christian (formally LDS) man who adores my partner. We get openly critisized and scorned if we happen to hold hands in public. We used to go dancing at Studio 600 club (a no-smoking, no-drinking club) but was kicked out by the owner, who screamed at us like we had committed some horrible crime. We were just doing an activity to enjoy as a couple. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean you have to be. I suggest you work on your own relationships instead of critisizing you can't possible understand unless you are gay yourself. Thank you for taking time to read this. God bless.

Chris | 7:32 a.m. July 11, 2009

So two gay guys who know that they are on church grounds, know that there are standards that even husband and wife couples have to follow decide to ptovoke soemthign, and when asked politely to leave, decide not to. That is like if you have visitors at your house, and they know of your house rules, and they go and break them, you tell them to leave, seeing they have no intention of following the rules, and also become disrespectful; As a result I have to protect my house and enforce the rules. They don't stop, so the cops are called, and the same result occurs. So you have people with an agenda trying to be the exception to the rule. No you don't get to change the rules you don't like. Especially when you are not correct.

What? | 7:33 a.m. July 11, 2009

Where does it say that these two men were thrown to the ground? Is it on their blog?

Comments continue below

i was there | 7:36 a.m. July 11, 2009

I was there and the two guys weren't just kissing, they were full on making out and intensely "grinding". When the guards came up and asked them to stop they immediately started screaming 4-letter words at the top of their lungs. It was a ridiculous situation that this article doesn't do justice. If anyone has video, I hope they post it soon. These two guys knew exactly what they were after and they got it.

Gays have no respect... | 7:39 a.m. July 11, 2009

No matter how you look at their cause, life-style or perversion....the reality is their agenda has no respect for anyone or anything but their own self-centered, selfish and sad life. Non-contributors to this society what-so-ever. Unfortunately, they have been given a type of tolerance, under being politically correct, that a stronger stand against them may have to come. No easy way to get rid of a cancer......

New Sign at Main St Plaza | 7:46 a.m. July 11, 2009

No Gays Allowed.

DW | 7:51 a.m. July 11, 2009

If it was truly just a peck on the cheek, I'd say no big deal. If they were mauling each other, then that's inappropriate for anyone, gay or straight. I'm guessing the latter, since they were asked to stop and refused. They clearly knew exactly where they were, because if they'd just walked another 20 feet, they'd have been on public property and could not have been asked to leave, and therefore, could not have made the public statement they were trying to make.

brandon | 7:55 a.m. July 11, 2009

i spent over a year in iraq with the military, and you know what? even in a conservative place like iraq, men are always holding hands. and a kiss on the cheek? serious? that is grounds for asking two men to leave and then pushing them to the ground when they ask why? they weren't making out. it doesn't sound as if they were going for attention and trying to make the news.

why is the church so scared of something like this? last nov. the church said they will support civil unions and benefits. obviously that doesn't include a peck on the cheek.

hypocrisy at it's best.

Richard Judkins | 8:00 a.m. July 11, 2009

This is the whole problem that was anticipated when this area was turned over to the LDS Church. What people need to do is monitor how many times heterosexual people engage in this activity without being arrested then see if the ACLU wants to challenge the Church.

Oh how precious | 8:02 a.m. July 11, 2009

2 gays going on private property, belonging to a church that has standards and beliefs contrary to theirs, and they start an in your face display against church beliefs. Can't the gays stop being haters!!!!? Can't the people who claim to be so tolerant, and so above the rest of us, practice what they preach. I doubt it. Prepare for more of this. I particularly like the idea about the line up of kissing gays, during GC. Go haters! Just because God loves everyone, doesn't mean you wont recieve your just rewards in the next life.

Victor | 8:03 a.m. July 11, 2009

What happens if this couple kiss and hug, in a few years, while shopping at the mall being built across from temple square. This type of behavior leads one to a small camp outside of Munich, Germany. Nothing good came of it, except for the resolve to never let it happen again. I hope the LDS church will resolve to change. Otherwise who will shop at the new mall. I won't!

tommy | 8:09 a.m. July 11, 2009

Funny thing is that Channel 2 last night never said anything about them being handcuff. So were they or not? However, if they were first asked to leave by church security and refused I beleive the church has the right to act legally, be it handcuffing them, if charges are going to be pursued.

Larry | 8:18 a.m. July 11, 2009

To Anthony, Tim, candb and all others with one sided logic: Your arguments amaze me. You say it is OK for one side to stand up for its rights, but the other side has to back down? Even when it's on their own property? Hogwash! So if I have someone on my property doing something I don't like, I can't ask them to leave? And if they don't leave I am supposed to stand by and let them verbally abuse me on my property? So who is not respecting who?

Anonymous | 8:21 a.m. July 11, 2009

Anthony has the only worthwhile comment on here. I'm LDS, but let's not be so narrow minded here people. If in fact all that happened was a kiss on the cheek, then I tend to think security over-reacted. Once again if that's all that happened.

Anonymous | 8:22 a.m. July 11, 2009

That's right, it is appropriate for heterosexual couples to display affection, and it's not for homosexuals. Homosexuality is inappropriate in all its forms. Gays are really only trying to turn Christian morality on its head anyway.

skr | 8:23 a.m. July 11, 2009

None of you know the facts of the case and have no right to judge. I was a part of a news story once. I watched the new that night on channels 2,4 and 5 and guess what; the facts of each report were completely different, and none on them got it right. I wonder though, if it had happened to a heterosexual couple, would we have even heard about it. Everyone is discriminated in one way or another but it doesn't make it O.K. to break the law.

This is how it starts | 8:27 a.m. July 11, 2009

Next come the demonstrations. Then the lawsuits. Then the politicians jump on the bandwagon.

Sooner or later, some clueless activist judge will issue an order that, since young married couples are photographed by commercial photographers in the plaza after their marriage, the plaza is now a place of public accommodation, so the Church must permit the same behavior by LGBT couples. So the Church will be required to prohibit photographs of couples on the mall.

And all we hear from the LGBT community is that they are no threat to us.

Yeah, right.

Paul | 8:33 a.m. July 11, 2009

Everyone that added their comments were not there and didn't see or know what actually happened. Therefore most of what has been said such as pushing to the ground, a peck on the check, a stranger asked them to stop, stop being haters!!!!, etc. may not have been what actually happened. We like to comment on things like we were there watching the whole thing even when we don't know anything about what happened except what was written in the article. Lets all grow up and see if we can learn something from what we read. Thanks.

Warren Kay | 8:36 a.m. July 11, 2009

Regardless if the church security officers acted immaturely, if it is private property, they have the right to jettison homosexuals and not heterosexuals. It's not public property.

mk | 8:37 a.m. July 11, 2009

what is childish and immature is the fact that 2 people went somewhere where they knew that doing the things they did would not be accepted.

Hmmm | 8:39 a.m. July 11, 2009

More hate. More hate on the side of the GLBT against the LDS religion and anybody who stands in their way. If the two men were honest then they would have simply said, "OK", when asked to leave (it is Private Property). I understand they, the two men, got belligerent, using profanity and such, with Church Security before they were taken to the ground and handcuffed. Why don't any of you understand this as being part of the equation? I really don't think the LDS Church wanted anything to happen, yet the two men obviously wanted their 15 minutes of "fame".

Informed | 8:44 a.m. July 11, 2009

First where does it say it was just a "peck on the cheek"? Also where does it say the guards had them on the ground? Must be posted on their blog. One sided comments on their blog for sure. The point is they were doing this on private property. The LDS church provides a nice park for everyone free of charge. All they ask is that people act appropriate. Is that too much to ask these days? The partners realized they were on LDS property when they kissed. The also knew the LDS church is against homosexual behavior. Anyone who thinks otherwise must think that these two partners are stupid. If I was on private property and kissing my wife and the owner or their representative asked me to stop I would. Had they stopped there wouldn't have been tresspassing charges or handcuffs. People need to learn to respect eachother.

Linda | 8:52 a.m. July 11, 2009

These guys knew exactly what they were doing and that their behavior was not appropriate for WHERE they were doing it. Don't tell me they were surprised they were asked to leave the private premises.

Jim | 8:54 a.m. July 11, 2009

Why didn't they just leave when asked to? They were definitely looking for attention.

Anonymous | 8:58 a.m. July 11, 2009

Regardless of what they were doing, if they were asked to leave, they should had left and then make the propaganda. They were handcuffed and pushed them to the ground because their overly reaction when they were asked to leave. A man can stand up for their beliefs BUT our rights end when we are standing on private property. Church security guards had asked others in the past to leave and they had done so peacefully. Why not this couple? because they are gays and they think they can do whatever they want no matter what? If they want to be respected, start respecting others, in this case, if they are asked to leave, do so. And sorry about them, but PDA between two men is improper according the Bible. I think they did it in purpose.

@candb | 8:59 a.m. July 11, 2009

Martin Luther King Jr. and the freedom riders did it. It's not really childish to believe somebody would actually want to get arrested just to get on the news.

Jordan | 9:03 a.m. July 11, 2009

The issue isn't that the security acted out of line, it is simply that two individuals were asked to leave private property and refused. Thereby forcing the security to take some kind of action. The end result was always in the hands of the two gentlemen and not to be blamed on the security.

Since when did we become a society who quit believing in the consequences of our actions. If any descent person was asked to leave private property and refused and became vulgar then they would be treated in the same way.

I do believe most of us would be offended if asked to leave private property for almost any reason. However, I do not believe any descent person would create a scene or a standoff by blatantly doing the opposite of what we were asked. That is the childish thing that the two gentlemen did. They acted like children by doing exactly the opposite of what they were asked even throwing a little temper tantrum as we would call it if they were actually children.

Acceptance goes both ways. | 9:06 a.m. July 11, 2009

Why does inacceptable behavior become justifiable under the guise of "open-mindedness". Thank goodness the church is inclined to provide a beautiful property and peaceful ambience in which the public may partake. There are hundreds of other organizations worldwide that also open their resources up to the public for entertainment, enjoyment and learning. It is the prerogative of these institutions to define what is appropriate or not and how the distractions will be removed. This is not a matter of acceptance of a lifestyle. It is a matter of respect for the institution that is providing something beautiful. You wouldn't walk onto Amish land with Usher blaring from your speakers, why would you enter the plaza and do anything besides enjoy the atmosphere or try to learn something about the hosting institution. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO VISIT, BUT SHOW SOME RESPECT.

DSB | 9:07 a.m. July 11, 2009

I had to re-read the article after reading these posts. I didn't read anything in the article stating there was a "peck on the cheek." You don't know that any more than I know they were groping and fondling each other. After being "asked" to leave, they used profanity and became argumentative. From that you assume the cops "first pushed them to the ground and handcuffed them" in a bullying manner.

Don't insult our intelligence by claiming the couple wasn't looking for attention or trying to make a point.

Anonymous | 9:13 a.m. July 11, 2009

I saw the whole thing, this was not a peck on the cheek. It was a full on makeout! Yes they would have asked a guy and a girl to leave if they were in a full on makeout as well. It was going on for a good 5-7 minutes before security got there. When security got there the men just started yelling at them, ans swearing. The men where trying to make a scene, and a protest. That is when they were handcuffed, and not "Thrown to the ground" as one of you mentioned. The men were acting like little high school kids. Why do gay people have to act like they are so much better than anyone else. That is my problem with them, not so much their sexual preference!

Whatever... | 9:14 a.m. July 11, 2009

I am sure they were doing a lot of kissing and hugging at the Indigo Girls concert. This couple knew exactly what they were doing. Trying to stir up the pot with another issue with the church. Shame on them for imposing their immoral practice on private property on LDS church grounds no less. Now its time to impose a hefty fine and community service to teach them not to do it again on LDS church property.

Anonymous | 9:14 a.m. July 11, 2009

Men kissing. How GROSS!!! Thank You temple Security.

Fairness? | 9:16 a.m. July 11, 2009

I was at the same plaza Thursday with my companion. We kissed next to the fountain several times and held hands the whole time we were on the Temple grounds/headquarters area. I was never asked to leave or stop this apparently inappropriate behavior with my significant other. Maybe that's because my partner is a female and I am male?
So I don't buy into the whole "as we would have asked any other couple" b.s. the church is pushing in the media. This is clearly about homosexuality and not private property issues.

Anonymous | 9:19 a.m. July 11, 2009

They were handcuffed for arguing, using profanity and refusing to leave when requested to leave. These guys are just lucky they weren't tasered. If I see two "Gay Partners" conducting themselves in that matter, I intend to report it to the proper Authorities. Good job, LDS Security and SLPD.

M | 9:23 a.m. July 11, 2009

I feel that if they weren't allowed to do that neither should hetrosexual couples because maybe some people don't want to see them kissing and hugging in public. It can go both ways I feel

Common Decency | 9:25 a.m. July 11, 2009

Bottom line - they broke the law. However, there is more to their efforts than that. Look at the motivation. They chose the place to do what they did because they wanted to make a statement.

My 12 year old daughter and I were at California Adventure Park waiting in line for the Tower of Terror standing next to two gay women who were being very inappropriate. I ignored them but the more bothered my daughter seemed by it, the more kissing they did. It was inappropriate whether or not they were gay - a man and a women even married should not have done that in public ten inches away from someone visibly bothered by it.

My problem is not with gay people - it is with inappropriate affection in public. Whether or not this couple exhibited that, the location of their exhibition gives means to a motive of trying to cause problems.

We don't send heterosexual couples into gay bars with t-shirts saying "Marriage between a man and a woman" making out - so why are they sending people to temples?

Dutch | 9:25 a.m. July 11, 2009

Private Property - Conversation Over !!!

Jim | 9:29 a.m. July 11, 2009

These people were obviously trying to cause a stir. It is all part of the good is bad and bad is good mentality that is now being taught.

Should have went to Jail | 9:37 a.m. July 11, 2009

From reading the blog, posted from the gay couples own words, it is apperant that they were publicly intoxicated and beligerant, argumentative (all behavior of intoxicated people) and refused to leave. They are lucky they did not end up going to jail. The reason they got their pictures taken is because the are going to be persona non gratis on the plaza, and if they are seen or caught on the property again they will be arrested for criminal tresspass.

A question for the Blogger? How is this a civil rights issue. No one has a civil right to go on some one elses property and act as they choose, no matter what the act. Also, the city did not cave into the Mormon's on the Plaza issue. The city knew it was on the losing end of the lawsuit, even though they had some success in the 10th circut, so they accepted an additional $8 million from the Mormons to settle the suit and give up any easment.

Maybe they suold have prtested their right to make out in public at the Galivan Plaza.

Just the beginning... | 9:44 a.m. July 11, 2009

of what's to come. My husband and I (his wife) gave each other a smooch (peck on the lips) at Temple Square and were reminded that PDA is inappropriate there. I agree. Our mistake, and we owned up to it. I wasn't there and didn't witness the event with the gay couple, but having witnessed the militancy of the gay movement here in CA, I would not be surprised that there was much more to it than "a peck on the cheek." The Church has become a target to be vilified and harassed for standing up for what is right. Homosexuality is deviant, perverse, unnatural, and ungodly, and we get attacked for saying so.

uncannygunman | 9:47 a.m. July 11, 2009

Richard Judkins is right, this never would have happened if the plaza would have remained public property like it should have.

It does seem like there could be a sex discrimination claim here if the church treats men and women differently by allowing women to kiss their boyfriends on the plaza, but not men.

KKGAY | 9:51 a.m. July 11, 2009

This manipulative behavior from gays has got to stop. Playing victim will never further your agenda. It will increase hate. But this is what the gays want. This is why they pick people like Perez Hilton and Sean Penn to represent them.

can dish it, but can't take it | 9:59 a.m. July 11, 2009

This story exactly defines the currant status of gays/lesbians in America. They are not content to be homosexual, have their "relationship", and live and let live. They insist on being objectionable, offensive, and "IN YOUR FACE" to those who do not share their lifestyle.

And then they have the gall to complain when they, by their own choice, PURPOSEFULLY act in a manner IN A PLACE where THEY ARE SURE TO ELICIT OBJECTION.

Just as gays would find it offensive and objectionable to have Mormon missionaries crash a gay pride function and demand everyone repent.

Average straight citizens do not try to bait gays and lesbians in gay bars, hotels, sporting events, establishments etc. Why can gays not follow the same rules and refrain from "tossing bait" on LDS property??

Anonymous | 10:05 a.m. July 11, 2009

For the record I am gay. I believe this couple was purposefully and mindfully trying to make a scene, and I do not find it appropriate in the way they chose to make a point. They knew where they were, and they knew exactly what they were doing and they deserve any consequences for their actions.

That being said, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBLE STANDARDS ON PDA. People so often complain if they see a gay couple showing any form of affection in public. This story was unclear on how much affection was shown and there are varying reports that I do not give any credence to because those people were not there. However, if they were asked to stop holding hands or stop kissing, fine. But a statement like "Two individuals came on church property and were politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior – just as any other couple would have been" seethes in hypocrisy it boggles my mind.

If you do not like PDA from one couple, it CANNOT be ok for another. You either allow PDA or you don't. You cannot have both. I don't care if it is private property or not.

My home My rules | 10:09 a.m. July 11, 2009

My home My rules! That's what the trespassing laws are about. Ignorance of private property rules is only excusable until one is made aware of them.

Derek & Matt can only be given the benefit of ignorance to the point at which they were asked to leave. Any action, other than immediately vacating the property in an orderly fashion, has no excuse.

It matters not if everyone but Matt & Derek are allowed to “display affection” on the LDS mall, they were asked to leave by the owner's recognized representatives and that is enough. As I understand it, the trespassing laws have no requirement for motive on the part of an owner or their representatives

I repeat this is a case of My home My rule and Matt & Derek broke the rule at least x2.

expect more of the same | 10:21 a.m. July 11, 2009

Unless Derek & Matthew were tourists AND not acquainted with SLC, they probably knew what to expect; I dare say, they also knew to refuse the request to leave & use belligerence to escalate the situation wold get the police involved.

This behavior's been a standard in homosexual activism; thus I feel safe in assuming, Derek & Matt not only refused to leave but became loud & rude vocally & physically vulgar. Does that justify restraining them? YES!

I am not advocating or physical restraints as the customary treatment for trespassing but if the owner wants trespassing to cease they need to enforce it by power of law. Though because of the “orientation” of these 2 I anticipate an escalation of overt homosexual behavior on the mall.

Visitor | 10:27 a.m. July 11, 2009

Good!!!!!

Be honest about harassment | 10:28 a.m. July 11, 2009

If, as Clayton Norlen reports Sgt. Snyder “...we enforce the law.” is true then Derek and Matt have nothing to complain about. If they had not broken the law they would not have been arrested.

If what Clayton Norlen credits to Sgt. Snyder is true, “...once the restaurant asks someone to leave and that person refuses, then they can be arrested for trespassing.” The only people who were, and continue to be harassed in this instance is the LDS Church and the SLC Police.

DJ | 10:29 a.m. July 11, 2009

Maybe when those Mormon missionaries visit, I can throw them to the ground, handcuff them, and send for the police?

In reality, I wouldn't be that cruel. Some of us have standards.

True Colors | 10:33 a.m. July 11, 2009

Yes it is their property. And yes, the LDS Church is extremely anti-gay and teaches its members to discriminate and to act in a prejudice manner.

Hourly Hetero couples hug and kiss for photos on the plaza, the only thing offensive to them was this was a gay couple.

They do not choose to treat everyone equally. Instead they prefer to teach ideas and promote laws that dicriminate and specifically target gays and lesbians to be treated less than other human beings.

Another example of LDS Values and their "True Colors". For a group that has the potential to do so much good, they sure go out of their way to alienate non-members and cement a reputation of intolerance into the public's mind.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.