Deseret News | 'Love advocates' plan 'kiss-in' at Main Street Plaza

Reader comments
'Love advocates' plan 'kiss-in' at Main Street Plaza

150 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

Anonymous | 3:53 p.m. July 11, 2009

This will be cool. The LDS church can't seem to stop stepping all over itself these days.

Dave | 3:56 p.m. July 11, 2009

I can't make it on Sunday morning but I will be there in spirit supporting those that can. May God bless us all and make us much more tolerant and less self-righteous.

Anonymous | 4:02 p.m. July 11, 2009

Get a life

Comments continue below

Tolerence | 4:08 p.m. July 11, 2009

This is not a gay vs. Mormon struggle: this is a struggle for tolerance. Mormons disagree with gays, and gays disagree with Mormons.

Mormons don't go to gay nightclubs and offend gays.

Why do gays have to go to our places of worship to offend us?

Call it a lack civility, call it a lack courtesy, or call it a total lack of tolerance from a special interest group that demands tolerance of others, but not themselves.

I call it hypocrisy.

Property | 4:14 p.m. July 11, 2009

If you don't like the rules, then stay off private property!!!! You are there as a guest and if you cannot conduct yourself with respect and by the rules of the property owner stay away. Go to your own place and kiss away. Hopefully you will be asked to leave and arrested if you do not!

JP | 4:14 p.m. July 11, 2009

Lame,lame, and lame!

Mary | 4:16 p.m. July 11, 2009

No one has rights anymore unless they are gay or are willing to flaunt or celebrate "alternative" behaviors....LDS church...no rights to adhere to moral beliefs or practices, it is then an agenda; security guards, SLC Police, no right to enforce the law...they are over reacting....I had gay friends as a teen in the 60's and 70's, neither they nor I felt the need to flaunt or shove in each other's faces our beliefs or "agendas." I still have friends who are gay--thanks to each of you who can accept me and my opinions...and I will continue to accept you and yours. Together we will tolerate the narcissistic cry babies who think there is no room in the world for opinions or belief systems different than their own. Wear your hearts on your sleeves so you can waa waa waaa together.

sij1 | 4:17 p.m. July 11, 2009

Yes it is wrong. It is private property and as private property if they do not want two men kissing in public then they should leave. End of story. And since they didn't and they made a big deal about it they were escorted off the property. So now they have to whine about it and get other people involved! When will gays and homosexuals respects OUR rights to not have to witness their actions!

Vote Yes on 8 | 4:26 p.m. July 11, 2009

bring their loved ones – husbands, wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, kids and even pets – to the downtown plaza between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. and show their love with a smooch.

Kool....I'm in so long as gays are not invited!

to be or not to be | 4:28 p.m. July 11, 2009

What they were doing was not love, it was out of place may be with the intention of making the gay cause more appealing to their cause. They know this is private property, and they are like spoiled kids trying to punish us for their lost in california. If they want to kiss then pay a hotel.

Anonymous | 4:29 p.m. July 11, 2009

If they actually go through with this then all that will happen is repeat of Thursday. They will be asked to leave and if they don't then they'll be cited for trespassing. Because the police will have to be involved to remove the people from the property then it will be a waste of taxpayer money and police time. Go ahead, do it, and feel good about that fact that just because you don't like something you then feel you have the right to waste the tax money of every person in Utah.

How insensitive! | 4:30 p.m. July 11, 2009

I understand protests...but the location and the target audience speaks of how insensitive the "organizers" are for a belief system and a people. They would never go protest another religion by, for example, having a pork BBQ on a sidewalk in front of a church. Or having a Saturday picnic in front of another church that worships on that day. What a poor indication of character to protest in this way on this place. Let it go. Go do some service. Do you really think this protest will do anything except create more controversy? It will certainly not change policy. This planned event is simply hurtful. But knowing who is organizing it, it's typical.

This is ridiculous | 4:30 p.m. July 11, 2009

Obvioiusly the homosexuals were protesting the Church's stand against homosexuality. Its not as if they weere there admiring the landscaping and just decided right then and there to get frisky. Hey, homosexuals, leave our Church alone!

Anonymous | 4:39 p.m. July 11, 2009

I truly believe these guys did more then just a little kiss and hand hold. I am sure they were doing it for attention and to prove a point. I wouldn't show up to a Jewish synagogue and set up a pork hot dog stand and not expect them to have an issue with it. It's about showing some respect for peoples property and beliefs. I would be equally disappointed if people were putting "Marriage is between one man and one woman" signs on someone's lawn without permission. This "protest" is nothing more than an attention grab by some very insensitive people.

uncannygunman | 4:49 p.m. July 11, 2009

Maybe the city should seize a pedestrian easement across the plaza by eminent domain. That would solve the problem.

Anonymous | 4:59 p.m. July 11, 2009

You go girl!

A solution | 5:06 p.m. July 11, 2009

Go have your kiss in at the Sorenson Unity Center.

Good luck and have a nice day. It's private property, get used to it. If someone was smoking in your home, you asked them not to, and they refused, became verbally abusive and profane with you, would we all be accusing you of "overreacting" for calling the police? Would I, as your neighbor, call for a "smoke in" on your front lawn, and view myself as morally superior?

Anonymous | 5:08 p.m. July 11, 2009

I'l be there...

Seriously? | 5:21 p.m. July 11, 2009

Two gay men provoke an incident, get offended (and arrested) over the results of their provocation, a laughable news story is written, and now a planned "kiss-in." I can't get over the fact that this is even a reportable event. I guess only in Utah! Gay, straight, bi-sexual, whatever....Just follow the rules and laws that pertain to the places that you visit, and there will not be anything to report. Excuse me now while I go find a No Trespassing sign and challenge the landowner by trespassing. Next on my list is a No Hunting, and No Fishing challenge. How dare those landowners tell me what I can do on their land! Watch for my planned "fish-in" in the near future.

A Man's Perspective | 5:26 p.m. July 11, 2009

Yes. I am sure they are just trying to show love.

Uh-huh.

Bart | 5:38 p.m. July 11, 2009

Wish I were in-state to participate.

Hmm | 5:39 p.m. July 11, 2009

Anybody have Ms. Seed's home address so that we can organize our own event? The former Councilwoman clearly does not respect the property rights of others, so she shouldn't have a problem with uninvited guests ignoring her requests to leave her property.

What?! | 5:49 p.m. July 11, 2009

SInce when do rent-a-cops have the authority to handcuff anyone? Private property or not, they should have contacted legitimate law enforcement officers rather than escalate a situation...

dumb da dumb dumb! | 5:51 p.m. July 11, 2009

This is so dumb!

Hey | 5:53 p.m. July 11, 2009

Hey Ms. Seed, show your "love" for others by calling it off and respecting "Private Property" and others who feel and believe different than you do. To do what you are planning is doing nothing but planting "Seeds" of hate.

mmm | 5:53 p.m. July 11, 2009

Question: Would the church arrest a father and son showing affection in the same area? My thought they wouldn't intervene, or if they did they would accept their answer. Bottom line, go protest at Gay people church's, probably won't find any because gay people are not ignorant blind sheep like the morale right. If God hates gay people let him judge them (as soon as he jumps out of the genie bottle) in the mean time keep baaa baaaa baaaa and pretend your white.

Eastern Observer | 5:58 p.m. July 11, 2009

Bet she lives in a gated community.

Arthur | 5:59 p.m. July 11, 2009

Very dumb, almost as dumb as selling a public street to a church in the first place.

To Deeda Seed | 6:02 p.m. July 11, 2009

Hey, my family is full of love and would like to use your back yard for our family reunion on August 29,2009.
I know you won't care because you are full of love and respect and will accord us the hospitality of your yard and home without question.
Please leave your approval online and publish your address so we can get our invitations out with the correct information.. We are all pet lovers so our dogs will be with us as well. I know you won't mind.
Thank you Deeda.....
And I am a lifelong Democrat Deeda-- I won't be voting for you in the future...

Hetero | 6:07 p.m. July 11, 2009

The problem with a lot of homosexuals kissing in public is that it makes normal heterosexual people who happen to witness it want to vomit. Then, we have a problem with cleaning all of that stuff up.

Trust the gays | 6:07 p.m. July 11, 2009

To force the issue and then make a huge thing out of a little confromtation. It wasn't the church that was in the wrong here, it was the two gay trespassers that took the incident to the next level.
Like almost all gays, they walk around with a chip on their shoulder and try to force their warped sense of morality on everyone around them.

@uncanny gunman | 6:11 p.m. July 11, 2009

Rather than an easement why don't we respect the property rights of others and obey the rules set forth by that property owner?????
If I had the responsibility for security in that area Sunday, I'd close it for the day to all foot traffic.
NO ONE ENTERS... CLOSED TO FOOT TRAFFIC EXCEPT BY INVITATION
Who is this Seed chick anyway???????

an Easterner | 6:11 p.m. July 11, 2009

Have all the homosexuals with overt hate agendas moved west?

John Pack Lambert | 6:18 p.m. July 11, 2009

I hope security block everyone with a paper heart from entering the plaza. Demonstrations are clearly banned on the plaza and keeping the demonstrators off is the best action.
This was not about love, but forcing PDA onto other people.

Anonymous | 6:19 p.m. July 11, 2009

If, Utah was like the rest of the world, no church would own Main Street because of the negative message this sends to all who don't belong to this church.

This couldn't happen in the rest of the Western World. I gay would have no problem in front of the Cathedral of Notre Dame of Westminster Abbey.

Only n Utah, can a church buy Main Street, taking the rights of others away.

I can drink a beer in any plaza fronting as Cathedral. Catholics don't sent kids claiming to be elder to my door.

I've photographed many churches without being hit on by the police of god.

Growing up Mormon in Utah has made me learn to like Catholicism. I love the architecture devoid of secretive port holes. I love seeing light cast through stained glass.

Where temples look like fortresses from the Soviet Era, Cathedrals are inspirational.

This make you ask, if god is light and light is truth than god hides nothing.

Anonymous | 6:25 p.m. July 11, 2009

"Have all the homosexuals with overt hate agendas moved west?" In the wrapped convolutions of the LDS conservative mind a public display of affection becomes hate?

J | 6:29 p.m. July 11, 2009

This demonstration is calculated to disrupt and/or offend the sensibilities of those attending the broadcast of Music and the Spoken Word tomorrow morning, and those coming to seek communion with the heavens.

Demonstrations like this will accomplish nothing good for GLTB.

Seriously? | 6:32 p.m. July 11, 2009

Please, offended Mormons, enlighten an out-of-state observer-

I have seen several of you post comments such as "place of worship" and make bizarre comparisons to Jewish temples. Can someone please clarify how a sidewalk is a place of worship? These men didn't enter a Mormon church and hold hands- they did so on the street.

I hope you can all appreciate how much the rest of the US sympathizes with these victims and breathes a sigh of relief that, for the most part, you've chosen to sequester yourselves to just Utah.

People Who Live in Glass Temples | 6:32 p.m. July 11, 2009

It was the Mormons who threw the first stone in this scuffle with their bigotet Proposition H8. They should not act surprised when the gays start throwing back.

Ok... | 6:38 p.m. July 11, 2009

then let those of us who believe in the rights of private property owners attend too, and we will respect private property laws and display our banners on city property. That should be fair.

Ute | 6:38 p.m. July 11, 2009

I don't want to deny the church property rights. This whole thing went off the rails when we gave them the property in the first place.

Utah Dem | 6:41 p.m. July 11, 2009

To uncannygunman - the city could not afford to buy the plaza back and emenient domain wouldn't work, duh!

To What? - yes they have every right to use cuffs and they did contact SLPD after the mos were removed from the plaza, the private property plaza.

To Arthur - sorry, Rocky and the City Council probably wet their pants thinking of that $8 mil they got for that block

Inappropriate Behavior | 6:50 p.m. July 11, 2009

I don't want homosexuals exposing themselves in front of my children. The limp wrists, swishing, and lisping are inappropriate behavior.

uncannygunman | 7:14 p.m. July 11, 2009

Ultra Dem--I don't see eminent domain wouldn't work--unless you mean politically. Surely ensuring non-discriminatory pedestrian passage between SLC's giant blocks counts as a "public purpose." (I won't go so far as to describe the area as "blighted.")

The only question would be determining the fair market value of being able to discriminate against gays. If I was on the jury, I'd give'em a dollar.

It is laughable | 7:15 p.m. July 11, 2009

How ignorant so many people are who continue to make comments here. No one gave the Church the street, they bought it. They paid more than the valued price. It is private property.

Strictly Speaking | 7:18 p.m. July 11, 2009

This began as an issue of private property rights. In response to a request to leave private property, the couple in question chose to make a fuss. And now have taken a simple issue and turned it into a public cry for tolerance. I'm sorry, but does any one else see the logical fallacies present in this?

In response to "Seriously"- when the LDS church purchased (legally, I might add) Main Street and turned it into the plaza, they dedicated it in the same fashion the LDS church dedicates their other properties--including meeting houses/chapels. In that sense, it is a place of worship for believers fo the LDS faith. It is the same as going into a Mosque without taking off your shoes. Or eating pork in a synagogue. It shows a distinct disrespect of beliefs and private properties.

Re. Seriously | 7:27 p.m. July 11, 2009

Read the story. They were not on a street. They were on private property owned by the LDS Church. They were there, and their actions, were meant to make a statement. They were asked to leave private property and refused. Like has been said before. Let me come to your property and demand its use. Bet you would not like that.

And to Anon, I bet if the missionaries went to the Vatican and began teaching and handing out church information they would be asked to leave. As an LDS missionary I was kicked out of other churches and throw off people’s property. Don’t begin to tell me that any other church would let you do anything you want. This Catholic Church you are talking about, is not this, the same church who kicks our priests who have sex with young boys and women. Guess they are not too understanding and do not accept any type of behavior.
The LDS church welcomes any who will respect the churches beliefs and will treat the property with respect. We will not accept behavior that is against our doctrine that is meant to degrade.

HEY @uncanny gunman | 7:30 p.m. July 11, 2009

First of all, the City, via Rocky Anderson, deeded that portion of Main Street over to your church. It has never been closed to the public. In fact, your church uses it as a way to greet people and proselyte to them. If you want it closed, then fence it, close it, and post signs as to what is appropriate (I notice many couples kissing on the plaza). As far as being on your church's property, just tell us the rules and mark the boundaries. You can't have it both ways.

re: "Serious" | 7:41 p.m. July 11, 2009

Dear Serious,

I'm an "out-of state observer" too, but must in this case I side with the church on grounds of equality. Nobody's sexual orientation is a free pass to ignore property rights.

The two men were not, as you put it, "on the street." They were on private property whose owners make their own rules, just as you and I do about our own private property.

How can you support the two men without undermining the principle of private property? The logical extension of their claim is that any guest can, in principle, refuse to leave his host's property.

I'm not the least interested in the mens' sexuality. My concern is that everybody in the country--you and me and them--all have the freedom to make our own decisions about our own private property.

I'm sorry they chose to do what they did, because it was (a) rude to their hosts, and I hate rudeness, and (b)against the law, and I hate lawlessness.

I don't expect anyone to tolerate rudeness or lawlessness from me because of my sexuality, or any other consideration. So: equal treatment for the two guilty men.

Wow | 8:11 p.m. July 11, 2009

I will be astonished if intelligent people actually show up for this kiss-in. It's laughable.

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

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.