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

Anonymous | 8:15 p.m. July 11, 2009

The church may have asked the gay men to leave but that doesn't all of a sudden make them the bad guy. If others had complained to the security guards etc about the behavior of the men it would be well within their right to ask them to leave. It would be within their right even if no one had complained. It doesn't matter if the plaza was bought by the LDS church or given to them the fact remains it is private property and the men did not leave when asked. As for it being a case of prejudice, I have the right to restrict what happens on my property for any reason. We weren't there so all we know is what we read. I'm a member of the LDS church and I don't believe the church would ask them to leave for simply kissing each other. I think there was probably more going on then the media is telling us. It's ridiculous to make judgments without knowing the whole situation.

Just | 8:27 p.m. July 11, 2009

another strike in popularity, againts the gay community. Boy, you are getting well liked around here.

I stand in amazement..... | 8:51 p.m. July 11, 2009

It is not the kiss that is shocking, it is the locaton they chose. They did not choose to go out infront of the Cathedral of the Madeline on South Temple with tons of car trffic going by for the PDA. They did not go in front a mosque or a Jewish temple either. They deliberately went where they knew there were LDS families and monitored security so as to make a scene. It is widely known what the LDS Church policy is on homosexuality. The PRACTICE is frowned upon. Therefore, this was not a spontaneous moment where they were showing love and affection, but a deliberate and defiant action against the beliefs of ONE particualr religion.

Comments continue below

David | 9:02 p.m. July 11, 2009

I love it. Since someone can't choose to be gay, but they can choose to be Mormon, I'm going to now require that nobody can be Mormon on my property.

Let's see how fast those bicycling evangelists can get off my property!

Jim | 9:03 p.m. July 11, 2009

Sounds like something else set up by the ACLU. They are probably trying to make the church pay for the plaza a fifth time.

to Tolerence | 9:20 p.m. July 11, 2009

Mormons do however come knocking on my doors. So yes, you do offend the public.

@I stand in amazement..... | 9:32 p.m. July 11, 2009

I'm going to assume that you've never, in fact, kissed someone, or else I'm sure you'd realize that you've never "chosen" a spot do so. You feel affection, you kiss someone. That's all.

You point out that the Mormon church's policy on homosexuality should come into play- I have to ask, then- WHY WASN'T THAT PART OF THEIR STATEMENT? The official statement from the Mormons was that "the men were 'politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior _ just as any other couple would have been.'

If this had ANYTHING to do with the church's views on gays, don't you think an official spokeswoman would've mentioned that?

@ David | 9:36 p.m. July 11, 2009

Good sound thinking man!!! How are you going to tell if the person on your property is Mormon???
I do respect your right to not want a Mormon or any other person on your property but that's like saying you don't want the a Catholic or Baptist on your property---- how are you going to monitor that ridiculous statement??????

To @ David | 9:50 p.m. July 11, 2009

When they open their mouth and say they are from the LDS church, that's a pretty good indication they are Mormon.
So again, offending me.
And you are right, I don't want people on my property pushing their religious views on me.
You're right! Sound thinking it is!

hope | 9:51 p.m. July 11, 2009

These young men were not doing anything outrageous. There was a kiss on the cheek and that is it. Get over it! This was motivated because they were 2 men. What would Jesus do?

Married in to it | 10:05 p.m. July 11, 2009

I honestly expect nothing less from the Mormon church, since they are known to be bigoted against many different types of people. I just wish that they could see that what they do hurts people and puts a bad image on themselves. I know for a fact that there are good mormons out there, and some in my husband's family that are very tolerant, and try to convince us to come to church with them, but this is just another example of why I will not go. Once again, I will be there tomorrow, with my family. If the LDS church doesn't want this kind of thing to happen, then give it up and be fair. Make sure you kick straight couples off the property too for sharing a kiss. Heck, Maybe they should ban marraiges as well, after all, don't you have to *kiss* the bride? Isn't that done on church property?

@ hope 9:51 | 10:05 p.m. July 11, 2009

Security doesn't pounce on two people walking across the Plaza who just kiss each other on the cheek. They were asked to "move on," which suggests they were standing and making a scene. In essence, they were purposely provoking an incident.

Now Ms. Seed is covering the anger that the provocateurs had with "love." Nonsense!

This is nothing more than anti-Mormon sentiment. Leave the Latter-day Saints alone. It is private property. If you continue to instigate incidents, the LDS Church would be within it's rights to close the Main St. Plaza to public access.

To "To @ David" | 10:07 p.m. July 11, 2009

So, by your logic, put up a sign. Say "No Mormons" or "No Proselyting" or something to that affect. Just the same as a "No Soliciting" sign. And Mormon's are not the only ones to send out missionaries. There are Baptists, Protestants, and Born Again Christians as well as a plethora of other religions that each send out missionaries. Strictly speaking, Catholic missionaries were some of the worst in history. I mean, come on, if a person didn't convert they were persecuted and killed. Whole towns were burned.

Anonymous | 10:14 p.m. July 11, 2009

Is it fair to call them bigoted? They actually stand by their morals and beliefs. Why is that bigoted? The LDS church doesn't hate other religions. They don't actively seek to bring down other religious institutions. The members of the LDS church just stand up for their collective belief system. That is every individuals right given in the First Amendment.

The Bigger Picture | 10:25 p.m. July 11, 2009

These two homosexuals do not represent the LGBT community in Utah at ALL--we have bigger things to worry about. NO matter what the "Church" will continue on its own path of self-destruction without the need of these kissing fools.

I say sleep in. There is nothing progressive about a kiss-in. And the people that think they are making a difference are confused and setting back national & local LGBT efforts that we have been fervently working towards.

Just wondering | 10:36 p.m. July 11, 2009

If my morals and value system said that murder is the only way to get to heaven, than would that make it okay for me to do it? Could I impose this belief in others??

just be real | 10:42 p.m. July 11, 2009

Why do gays have to use deception, exaggerations, lies, trickery and grandstanding when they communicate? People are kicked off the plaza all the time for "inappropriate" behavior. But when they're gay, they have to call the paper, exaggerate the story and protest. Who are the tolerant ones, the church who allows the public to use its property as long as they are respectful, or the people who choose to protest a church's right to govern its own property?

The Deuce | 10:52 p.m. July 11, 2009

Do we have to jump on this merry-go-round again with the same old comments. I am not LDS but let's at least get on the same page so that we are arguing from solid ground. Whether you believe in the Bible or not, homosexuality is not accepted in the teachings. You can make all of the "Jesus" arguments you want. If you remember the story of the women caught in adultry, Jesus simply said "go they way and sin no more". Simple and straight forward. The Bible never shows Jesus tolerating what he terms sin. Are we on the same page yet? Second, since the LDS Church does own the property and PDA between same sex couples is not accepted, they too can ask the couple to leave. These are the facts whether we like them or not. Third, this issue has to do with the definition of marriage. If this is about rights, let's simply call a same-sex union a Domestic Partnership with all of the same legal rights and responsibilities. Let's call a union between a male and femal marriage. Both define things correctly and both have the same rights. Comments?

Timotheus | 10:54 p.m. July 11, 2009

I don't go preach in gay bars so, perhaps you could spare us the kiss in.

Sneej | 11:08 p.m. July 11, 2009

I love the "they had an agenda", "they did it to provoke" comments. They didn't have an agenda, they had a relationship. How many times have straight couples walked through that same easement holding hands or shared a simple kiss on the cheek? How many times were they told to "move on"?

The issue is not one of trespassing or private property rights being ignored. It's about these two adults who are in a relationship walking through a part of the city open to the public being singled out for doing the same thing that is allowed on the same property every day by straight couples - because they were two men instead of a man and a woman.

If you can't understand the unfairness of this and the resulting outrage that people feel from this, then you are right where you belong. In Utah, following the rest of the flock.

Anonymous | 11:23 p.m. July 11, 2009

Some say that mormons don't go and try to "offend" gays. Well, when missionaries walk up and tell us we are sinners, they protest pride and many other things I dont think that you can say mormons don't.

Also, if heterosexual couples can kiss at the plaza, there is no reason two guys shouldnt be able to. You try to claim that the only people that have rights are gays, but who spent millions trying to take rights from homosexuals? The LDS Church.

"Call it a lack civility, call it a lack courtesy, or call it a total lack of tolerance..." --Who are the ones being intolerant?

Sure, I disagree with many things gay activists do, but it doesnt excuse the church pushing its medieval beliefs on everyone. We aren't saying you have to be gay, just let us live in peace without meddling in our lives.

I have been patient and have stood up for the LDSchurch for about 8 years on this subject, but after prop 8 and this, I have no respect for the church. I still respect other christian religions that oppose us quietly, but not mormonism any longer.

David | 11:28 p.m. July 11, 2009

It is rather sad when the voice of one side of an issue insinuates their intolerance by changing the subject and calling others intolerant...

Anonymous | 11:34 p.m. July 11, 2009

@I stand in amazement:
Well, if one of the other religions bought public property and put it inbetween areas that are traveled to and from frequently, I am sure they would have still kissed there. Not because of the religion, but because they were being affectionate in the moment. No signs say no homosexual kissing, at least not on those 10' gates.

@Anonymous | 10:14 p.m. July 11, 2009
Mormons believe they are the "one true church" and have, in the past, shown their distaste for other religions. Also, you ask how they are bigoted for standing up for their beliefs..
Bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.
They are bigoted because of what you just said.

Ernest T. Bass | 11:37 p.m. July 11, 2009

Ms. Seed says what they did was not wrong. Sorry, but it was. They refused to leave private property when asked. The only reason they went their in the first place was to stir up controversy. Sounds childish to me.

I'm saddened | 11:39 p.m. July 11, 2009

I'm gay, yet I feel the community is doing what they always do when something doesn't go our way. They shout/protest and draw attention...I'm very disappointed by the gay community, they need to look at the big picture and realize these two men were on private property, owned by huge religious church, they were in the wrong, they should have left when asked. Im disappointed that they represented us in such an awful manner. I'm also disappointed in the church security guards, they should have represented the church in a better manner. I do hope the gays tomorrow have fun with their choice, I will not support the gay community. I just wish they'd really think about who they're dealing with before crying about it. This is a complete hypocrisy....ON BOTH PARTS.

To Hope @ 9:51 | 11:44 p.m. July 11, 2009

Jesus would tell them to get the Hades off the private property.

Intolerance | 11:45 p.m. July 11, 2009

Those who decry the supposed "intolerance" of the LDS Church are now going to stage an extended scene of anti-religious intolerance against the LDS Church, its teachings, and its people. They know their conduct will offend people, which is why they are doing it, in the shadow of one of the LDS church's most sacred sights, the temple. It is akin to parading around a Jewish synagogue with a Nazi flag.

Here is the truth, for any with courage to hear it:

“The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such behavior from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature or the seriousness of the practice. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men have bodies which can be defiled.” LDS President Spencer W. Kimball

An example | 12:07 a.m. July 12, 2009

This situation is a perfect example of why hate crimes legislation is wrong. Look at all the different posts of people saying "They did it to make a point", others saying, "No, they were just showing affection." Everyone has an opinion, but how can it possibly be proven what their intentions, thoughts, or motivations were?? There is no way to enter someone's mind & determine that sort of thing.

Ron | 12:08 a.m. July 12, 2009

It is curious that Deeda Seed does not list her private property address in the phone book. It seems as though she wants her private property respected, but could care less about the LDS church's private property rights.

Jen | 12:09 a.m. July 12, 2009

This is not a disagreement about private property. It is true that people have a right to make rules to govern the actions of people on their private property, and it is true that the couple in question here should NOT have made a scene when asked to leave.

HOWEVER! It is not legal, nor is it acceptable to make rules governing your private property that violate the rights and laws of the country- you can't, for instance, make beating your wife an "allowed" behavior just because it takes place on your private property.

The issue here is that it is ok in Utah and far to many other places for gays expressing affection to be treated differently from straight people expressing affection. If the LDS church had a problem with ANY PDA on the square, and asked all kissing couples to leave, there would be no issue here. However, I'm in a heterosexual relationship and have kissed (quite passionately) in the square with no adverse reaction.

The issue here is that the government has not provided the same anti-discrimination protection to gays that it has provided to women, blacks- even Mormons!

Re: Jen | 1:51 a.m. July 12, 2009

Jen you are WAY off!

You state that "it is not legal, nor is it acceptable to make rules governing your private property that violate the rights and laws of the country..."

Your example of "...beating your wife..." is just plain silly and wrong headed.

As a point of fact when it comes to law, you CAN in fact make rules for private property that COMPLETELY violates laws of personal freedom and security.

A private company can dictate that only black people can work there. Did you know that? Yes, it is true, and they are NOT breaking the rules. As long as this company is NOT publicly traded or has contracts with a publicly traded company or a government agency, it is totally legal.

The church can make whatever rules they want for their PRIVATE PROPERTY. They are not publicly traded, nor do they have contracts with publicly traded companies or government agencies. See how easy that is!

Issues of safety are different matter, such as the "beating your wife" comment. That you simply cannot do, anywhere. No one has the right to harm another for any reason, except for the defense of others or self.

Easy!

JKutah | 2:10 a.m. July 12, 2009

Just face it all homosexuals and “open-minded” people alike... You're wrong. The homosexual lifestyle is wrong. Just look at the human anatomy… intercourse between same-sexes doesn’t have any natural part in the circle of life.

People have gay tendencies because we are a more twisted and deviant society... I can’t believe that it’s been completely justified and forced as being normal, or even right.

I understand that the attraction is real, but it’s not normal, not natural, and not healthy. Why is that so hard to see? Are there any healthy minded people left in this world???? Thank goodness for the Mormons sticking to their values!

Whatever though… just keep on justifying it so that you don’t have to fix it. Keeping your head in the sand is easier than seeing the truth.

JKutah | 2:21 a.m. July 12, 2009

What I forgot to say... if the Mormons don't like you being gay, or fondling each other on their property, then so be it... go somewhere else and stop trying to stir the pot. This is an attempt at trying to justify an unnatural lifestyle by making conservative religious beliefs seem wrong... by making them the discriminating "bigots".

Those two guys knew what they were doing... and don't play dumb like you didn't know that already!

Tell It Like It Is | 4:38 a.m. July 12, 2009

These perverts do stuff like this -- absolutely cram their deviancy in our faces through infantile and offensive publicity stunts like this, and then expect us to "tolerate" them? THis only drives a lot of reasonable people the other direction. When you can show a little dignity and tolerance yourselves, then contact us. Until then, go back in your closets.

To: hope & Sneej | 5:36 a.m. July 12, 2009

Eyewitnesses to the scene have said that it wasn't just a peck on the cheek, or even a brief kiss. They were standing in place, groping each other and essentially making out for several minutes before they were asked to leave. If a heterosexual couple had done that, there's no question that they'd be asked to stop, too. That kind of behavior in public is wildly inappropriate.

Instead of doing what the security guard asked, they became verbally abusive and started yelling obscenities, which is also inappropriate public behavior.

Would you behave that way in a public library? How about a classroom at school? In a pew at church? In line at the grocery store? No, you wouldn't.

Because the plaza is private property, the LDS church can ask people to do anything they want them to, and those rules need to be obeyed. They could insist that unless you hop across the plaza on one foot, you'll need to leave, and they'd be perfectly within their rights to bar access to anybody choosing to walk instead. The only ones in the wrong here were these two men who refused to follow the rules.

Anonymous | 7:03 a.m. July 12, 2009

The anti-Mormon hatred that seethes in comments on stories like this is truly amazing.

Dear Deeda, | 8:46 a.m. July 12, 2009

Don't you think you're planned "love in" is just a little immature? Perhaps a bit of an overreaction?

Second, the two men mentioned weren't arrested because they kissed (though that action was certainly inappropriate). Police were necessary because they were profane and disruptive.

The LDS Church is on pretty firm ground, here.

AMAZING!!!!!! | 9:54 a.m. July 12, 2009

Is this really a news worthy report, incident, or even worth the public debate? Cure wounds by "LOVE" WOW... what a concept. Thought wounds were healed by medical means and emotional by communication, tolerance, and patience.
Rules are rules despite the oppinions of other peoples beliefs, race, gender, or whatever it may be. Change is enevidable, how come we can't learn to go with the flow and accept it making the best of it. Even if most don't agree with how things were done with main street, I for one consider it still a pretty and worthwhile change.
Breaking the rules and being belidgerant towards authorities requesting the obedience of rules gets twisted into this? SERIOUSLY.. Only in utah...
Are all rules going to start being twisted into a personal attack against sexual orientation, race, religion?
Lets step back and take a look at what battles are worth this sort of protest...

hypocrisy at its best | 10:19 a.m. July 12, 2009

This is hypocrisy at its best. If you think I am talking about the LDS church you would be mistaking. So, people want to promote what they label as "love" What about LOVE for your neighbor regardless of their religous persuation...EVEN...gasp...LDS. Does it really show love to go on to private property and try to make a public disturbance? You be the judge. If you came onto my property and tried to offend me, I think I would have to call that anti-love or hate. The truth is the LDS church is hated by many people in Utah. Somehow the Mormons are supposed to just sit back and accept it. I with stand in TRUE LOVE with all my mormon friends and condemn the actions of these so called love activist. You want to show love--respect their property. Oh, and by the way, we already have to much public affection. I can barely walk anywhere without seeing something inappropriate. We as a society are just loosing our sense of decensy. Kudos to the Mormon church

Yay for love | 10:28 a.m. July 12, 2009

And Yay for human rights!

Brian | 10:56 a.m. July 12, 2009

Good is called evil and evil good. Hate is called love and love is called hate. Welcome to the last days!

Zero Tolerance to Rudeness | 11:44 a.m. July 12, 2009

There is no common sense to find the church wrong on this issue. The Church was not the Rude Party. To have ignored it would have been to invite an immoral injustice for the sake of compromising. Something that the church should never give into. The guilty parties were given ample oppurtunity to leave peacefully...their choices were wrong and it's quite obvious they went there with a possible disruptive intent....They violated the owners privete rights to set standards that may be even higher than the local communities. Your dealing with private property not public. If you don't know the laws then like every other law...ignorance is no excuse. The Church has a right to say,deem or set as appropriate or inappropriate a higher standardard within the confines of their property within that community as pertaining to private property. Because of this right of the legal ownwer to set their own standards they were asked to leave....they chose not to, but chose rather to make a specticle.... they got their noses rubbed in the dirt.... they were wrong on all counts...The police did the right thing. If you don't like it tough.

Stenar | 11:47 a.m. July 12, 2009

They didn't deliberately go where LDS families were to make a point. They were walking home from a concert at 11pm at night. There was NO ONE ELSE on the plaza. They didn't realize LDS security watches every movement on the plaza with security cameras. They were just walking home, as they live on the other side of the plaza. They stopped for a brief second, while they thought they were entirely alone and one gave a small peck on the cheek of the other one.

Way to Go! | 11:51 a.m. July 12, 2009

Excellent idea, this kiss-in! Once people see gay couples kissing, maybe they'll realize that the earth won't stall in its orbit when they do. It's just a happy couple, loving one another. Gay or straight, that kind of love is always a cause for celebration, as far as I'm concerned.

sneej | 11:58 a.m. July 12, 2009

My previous post was removed, I'm not sure why. I said, "Eyewitnesses to the scene have said that it wasn't just a peck on the cheek, or even a brief kiss. They were standing in place, groping each other and essentially making out for several minutes before they were asked to leave. " That is a completely FALSE statement, one that is easily refuted with research and first-hand accounts. Please stop inflaming this already sensitive issue with mistruths and outlandish rumor attempts.

Real Tolerance | 12:08 p.m. July 12, 2009

Hey, mormons: for years you were driven out of the rest of the country. You espouse that you want people to be tolerant of your belief in whatever it is you believe in. Fine, great! You have a whole state of your fellow believers.

But guess what? Tolerance is a two way street. Also I absolutely DARE you to use the same arguments against bi-racial couples you are using against gays.

To the other "Tolerance," you say "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."

Ha! Apply that to yourself, please.

redditor | 12:18 p.m. July 12, 2009

Salt Lake City: never gonna visit. Ever.

Jack | 12:45 p.m. July 12, 2009

A question was asked about what would Jesus do in considering the act on the plaza owned by the LDS Church. If I recall 2 situations in the Bible, this same Jesus cast out the money changers from the temple because of inappropriate behavior. Jesus showed a great deal of love, but please give me chapter and verse where he condoned sin.
When we are on public property in front of sacred buildings throughout the world, I hope we would show respect. When you enter those buildings I hope you would follow the appropriate actions of reverance, profound respect, for the edifice and the sacred, historical, or national significance of the place you are visiting. If you don't, you will be asked to leave by the care takers of the property, and if you make a scene you will be hauled off to jail in any country and in any state of this nation.
I am afraid we are loosing our well founded teachings of respect for the property rights of others and the correct manner in which we should honor sacred or hallowed buildings of this or any other county.

spamlds | 1:25 p.m. July 12, 2009

To David, who wrote: " I'm going to now require that nobody can be Mormon on my property. Let's see how fast those bicycling evangelists can get off my property!"

Having been a Mormon missionary myself, I know that all you have to do is tell our elders you're not interested and they will go away. You won't see them again unless they randomly knock on your door again after a couple of years goes by.

The trespassing legally occurred when the two men refused to leave after being asked and then resorted to profanity and hostile language. No LDS missionary is going to cuss you out when you ask them to leave your doorstep.

On the other hand, as a LDS missionary, I was the recipient of verbal abuse and even assaulted on a number of occasions. I was hit in the head with a brick and had a bag of glass bottles dropped down from a high balcony window that narrowly missed me. I've had a Baptist deacon take a swing at me with a shovel!

The actions of the two men was intentionally provocative. Mormons are not at fault here.

Your hypocrisy is laughable | 1:33 p.m. July 12, 2009

It is so amusing to listen to people completely undermine themselves and their opinions. The effort expended on repeatedly condemning homosexual behavior is wasteful and downright spiteful. And it does nothing but make a mockery of the very people and their religion who cannot get their fill of making it known that they don't support homosexuality.

And the ludicrous lengths used to support their passive aggressive intolerance are even more amusing. Private property, please. Nobody is fooled by this use of semantics and nobody believes that this is about anything other than discrimination for people that, in this case Mormons, feel superior to.

It's a comfort to know that these sorts of incidents are simply the frantic struggling efforts of the hypothetical playground bully who won't allow anyone to play a game he doesn't want to play and won't simply allow everyone to share the playground equally. Private property, maybe. But we all play on the playground earth and nobody likes a bully.

And as for the insinuation that homosexuals are "shoving this in people's faces" well that's just another poor excuse for a lack of tolerance.

God bless EVERYONE. Every. One.

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.