Deseret News | Reader comments: Couples pucker up to make positive point

Reader comments
Couples pucker up for positive point

475 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next >

who cares | 10:08 a.m. July 12, 2009

bleh...waste your time however you want

Anonymous | 10:19 a.m. July 12, 2009

What this article didn't explain is that the couple were handcuffed AFTER they started yelling profanities and creating a scene. There was nothing peaceful about their objections to being asked to leave.

Hollow Protest | 10:21 a.m. July 12, 2009

The individuals were on private property, and were asked to leave (for whatever reason) and they refused. That is when Police had to be involved. As stupidly politically correct as we are becoming, I still can't do whatever I want on your property.

Comments continue below

Hypocrisy | 10:21 a.m. July 12, 2009

Wow... More hypocrisy at it's purest.

We don't have to be tolerant of your beliefs, but you should be tolerant of ours!

the LDS church had a right to kick those two men out. They were on the church's property. Now, to further be an annoyance, people do this....

They aren't going to change the church's views on this matter. It's just an annoyance.

Robert - St. George | 10:21 a.m. July 12, 2009

I commented Friday on the Seminary Teacher who was arrested but I was rejected by the Deseret News. I would comment on the kissers but I would probably be rejected here as well even though I am siding with the Mormon Church on this particular issue, though not on the general attitude towards gay people by the Church.

Protest Ineffective | 10:24 a.m. July 12, 2009

All that this protest shows is the gay communities' intolerance of others' beliefs. They are exposing their need to have it their way in every situation, even on someone else's property. But I do thank them for showing their true colors so willingly. By the way, the LDS church will never bow to their protests (large or small).

Property Rights | 10:26 a.m. July 12, 2009

Yeah, it seems heavy-handed, but it is private property after all. If it were some other organization owning it, I wonder what reaction a similar incident would get.

The article doesn't show both sides of the story. What is church security's explanation? They saw them pecking, so they ran up with handcuffs? I doubt it.

Doug | 10:30 a.m. July 12, 2009

Gay people kissing on Temple Square is a provocative gesture designed to up the ante by the gay rights community. The Church is right to protect the conduct on Temple Square consistent with Church principles. Sadly, opponents of the Church's position on gay marriage have not shown the same decency as the Church has. Nor do they reserve the right for the Church and it's members to affirm their beliefs even though they seek the same respect for affirming their beliefs. Leaders have consistently issued public statements asking for respect for each other - regardless of what side you take on the marriage debate. Unfortunatley, the gay community has crossed the line thinking their position will gain sympathy with these latest tactics. What they hope to gain in media attention, they will lose in sympathy by open-minded individuals who will see such tactics for what they are: an attempt to embarrass the Church.

hate | 10:32 a.m. July 12, 2009

This kind of bigotry is why I resigned from the LDS church. When you proclaim your membership numbers, know that I will no longer be among them.

No you didn't | 10:43 a.m. July 12, 2009

resign from the LDS Church because of bigotry. You resigned because you do not have a testimony or belief in living prophets and the Divinity of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sorry you don't but now you are free from it's obligations upon its members.

Mike.. | 10:51 a.m. July 12, 2009

Did the church not promise "public access" during this whole debacle back when the property was sold. Don't promise us public access if you aren't going to allow the public to access it the way they would any other sidewalk downtown.

bronx1810 | 10:52 a.m. July 12, 2009

I am a New Yorker, where everything appears to be accepted but the folks commenting here about "unfair, bigotry etc" are missing out on a key element. This was private property, a church, a club etc all have rules and that are to be followed or leave. Simple response. You folks that seem offended should just realize what you are doing, you want to disobey and be glamorized for the action. As we say in the bronx "forgetaboutit"

George | 10:53 a.m. July 12, 2009

Once again a couple of individuals sought to get away with violating the law. Thanks to the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for standing up for what is right and wholesome once again!

@ hate | 10:54 a.m. July 12, 2009

Bummer man-- we'll miss you.. maybe....
I guess if you can live the standards there is always an excuse---- you now have yours, use it wisely.

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

Do whatever you want. Just don't do it on church property. You don't purposely go in someones home and try to offend them, do you? Show some class and maturity. Nobody takes these 'jr.high school' protests seriously.

to "hate": | 10:57 a.m. July 12, 2009

No, the reason you resigned your membership is because you coundn't/wouldn't live the standards of the church and so now you feel obligated to take down others as well. The day I question my membership is the day that the church starts to loosen its standards because individuals and groups complain that the church takes a stand about certain things, when in fact it has every right to do so. You dont see the church staging protests on the property of gay home owners to make a point. Instead they use the legal system to express their concerns. They vote their position which the yhave every right to do and which is 100% constitutional. And now we are told that we cant even vote our position. Unbelievable hipocracy.

Ema | 11:05 a.m. July 12, 2009

From what I've read, the couple was walking across the Main Street Plaza holding hands and then one briefly kissed the other on the cheek. They were told to leave because public displays of affection are not allowed on the plaza. If that really is the whole story (and it's hard to know when the story is basically only coming from the couple), it just seems like a ridiculous reason to be asked to leave. Public displays of affection? Come on. I've passed through the area with my husband before holding hands, and I'm sure I've pecked him on the cheeks while viewing the lights at Christmas. A kiss on the cheek is just not a big deal and is barely noticeable.

Disrespectful | 11:13 a.m. July 12, 2009

If anyone is doing something contrary to the belief of those on the private grounds, security has every right to cite them to police. Let us not act like these two peaceful men were detained for no reason. I find the kissing display on Sunday to be disrespectful to the LDS church and the security who originally cited them. Why do we have to live in a world where if someone asks us not to do something we feel WE MUST gather a bunch of our friends and get even by disrespectfully going back to an area we were asked to leave and practicing the same action again. Disrespect to other beliefs will get the LGBT community nowhere.

Sooo | 11:37 a.m. July 12, 2009

let's just resolve the issue by posting signs at either end of the walkway with the international symbol for "no" and silhouettes depicting hand holding, kissing, walking arm-in-arm, hugging and proposing. The "no proposing" is for the convenience of the proposer and proposee who may, after the proposal, be inclined to engage in taboo hugging and kissing while still on the property.

Do photographers get chased away for engaging in commercial activities on the plaza or do they pay a fee for posing their clients there? Would a photographer posing a same gender couple for engagement shots by the beautiful reflecting fountain be chased off?

Phoebe | 11:46 a.m. July 12, 2009

What a delightful to get their point across--wish I'd been there, too!

Please help!!! | 11:49 a.m. July 12, 2009

I'm trying as hard as I can to be tolerant of those whose beliefs differ from mine, but every time they try to fight me on it, I (naturally) get defensive. I truly want to be accepting of the gay community, but would they be OK with 60 LDS missionaries showing up at the local chapter of the LGBT Alliance office to stage a "Preach-In?" Seriously, is sauce for the goose sauce for the gander?

Inlookout | 11:50 a.m. July 12, 2009

There is definitely a double standard here. Apparently it's perfectly okay for straight couples to exhibit the mildest forms of PDA on LDS property while it is not okay for two men or two women. And give me a break. Do people actually think they went out of their way, on purpose, to offend the church on "church" ground? Why just a peck on the cheek then? If I had been asked to leave I would have been difficult as well.

Too bad the kiss-in wasn't on Church property. That would have been a sight to see.

Stenar | 11:51 a.m. July 12, 2009

According to an interview in the City Weekly of the two men in question, they said at no point did they refuse to leave the plaza.

Dooku | 12:07 p.m. July 12, 2009

Mike.. | 10:51 a.m. July 12, 2009
Did the church not promise "public access" during this whole debacle back when the property was sold. Don't promise us public access if you aren't going to allow the public to access it the way they would any other sidewalk downtown.

As long as the public agrees to obey rules set in place by the property owner. Even public property which is owned by the city has rules, and people needs permission from the city to protest. Maybe you ought to try running around in the nude on the street near the Gallivan Center and see if Salt Lake Police won't respond to haul you away....

SLC City take property back | 12:09 p.m. July 12, 2009

Use eminent domain @ pay a fair market value, bull doze the plaza and turn it back into Main Street.

The SLC City Council, Deedee Corradini and Rocky sold us out on this deal. Who really runs SLC?

The ACLU warmed the city that something like this would happen. Leave Temple square behind their gated walls.

sutton | 12:09 p.m. July 12, 2009

Have you all looked at the pictures yet? Yeah, these people do look like lowlife’s who are doing nothing more the "goin' after the church"*roll eyes*

Henry Drummond | 12:11 p.m. July 12, 2009

Everyone seems to be defending the Church's right to discriminate against gays holding hands and kissing on their property. In my mind there's no argument there. What I find strange is that the Church insists they don't allow kissing and holding hands by heterosexual couples either. I'm on the plaza sometimes three and four times a day and I'm sorry but that just doesn't pass the laugh test. There are weddings going on six days a week down there and yes there is plenty of affection being shown by newlyweds and others. Why not say just say that you object to gay couples showing affection?

C Almond | 12:14 p.m. July 12, 2009

Of course the Lds Church had the RIGHT to prohibit these men from kissing on their property, but does that make it ethical or good? There are many things which we have the legal right to do, but being good and moral goes so far beyond what our legal rights are. And as a religious institution, they should be held to even higher standards. Yes the Lds Church had the legal right to evict these men from their property, but was it ethical? Was it just? I believe it was not. "As You Have Done Unto the Least of These, You Have Done Unto Me". "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The important thing about these scriptures is they don't refer to only those who are in your group, or who you agree with. If they would not feel it just to be forced to leave an area for public kissing, something which is celebrated every day at temple square, then they should not do that to others.

gregZ | 12:16 p.m. July 12, 2009

Even in public areas there are rules and boundaries. For example, if I chose to wear a shirt with a large vulgarity printed on it, I could (and should) be asked to leave certain areas. If I were sitting with my girlfriend and we were kissing, that may be appropriate some places, but not others. I do not understand why this is "news" in Utah. So they got arrested, or removed. It's still not news. As such, this has reminded why I'm glad I moved out of Utah (yes, I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), and currently living in California.

Observer from the East | 12:18 p.m. July 12, 2009

All the name callers seem to be the ones that are intolerant. Plus they never have even a reasonable argument - usually just name calling - very mature folks. Private property is just that private so public displays are not appropriate when that is the desire of the owners. Got mu laugh for the day on some of these comments.

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

STUPID! If that was my property and I paid multi-millions to buy it and upkeep it. I would expect to receive the common courtesy of following a few simple rules. Remeber this is NOT a tax funded park. Personally I say tear the park down! Maybe they could build another building there. The people of SLC do not deserve that beautiful park.

C almond | 12:19 p.m. July 12, 2009

For the Church to claim they do not allow public displays of affection is...absurd. Is anyone familiar with temple square expected to believe this? I cannot even count the number of times I have seen newly married couples being photographed kissing in front of the reflecting pool in the plaza. I can however count the times I have seen these publicly affection newlyweds being stopped by security, let alone handcuffed and forced to the ground. The number is zero.

Anonymous | 12:19 p.m. July 12, 2009

One question,

Does the LDS pay taxes on this so called "private Property"???

To Stenar | 12:20 p.m. July 12, 2009

Of course the two men in question aren't going to say they refused to leave the plaza. But witnesses said they did.

Yeah......Right...... | 12:21 p.m. July 12, 2009

Stenar | 11:51 a.m. July 12, 2009
"According to an interview in the City Weekly of the two men in question, they said at no point did they refuse to leave the plaza."

A friend of mine saw the whole thing, and he said that the two were very belligerent and swearing and confrontational to the security officers.

C Almond | 12:26 p.m. July 12, 2009

gregz.
Yes public areas have rules and boundaries, but in modern society we expect those rules and boundaries to be enforced equally, not merely against one group. That is the meaning of discrimination. To my knowledge, the Church NEVER has behaved this way towards the thousands upon thousands of newly weds who engage in public displays of affection on main street plaza, many of them while being photographed.

How sad | 12:28 p.m. July 12, 2009

Henry Drummond brings up a valid point. The church releases a carefully worded statement to explain their actions. But the truth of the matter is that the Mormon church does not want gay couples to show affection on their property. Church spokeswoman: don't lie to us by saying all public displays of affection on church property are handled the same way, because they aren't. There is definitely a double standard here.

Anonymous | 12:30 p.m. July 12, 2009

This is the bottom line the property is privately owned by the LDS church. They have rules and people have to obey them. The church also has very strict standards and they want those to apply to the property they own. So basically the church is against same sex relationships and so why would they let them show there affection for them when they are against same sex relationships? Its not them being hypocrites its them standing up for what they believe in.

Hypocrites | 12:30 p.m. July 12, 2009

LGBT are generally hypocrites. They cry for tolerance yet disrespect those who have a right to believe differently. A social group that is growing as the list of their unresolved issues grow. A continuous need to identify oneself through being different, oppositional, and defiant. Those in favor of these two individuals would be hard-pressed to live in New York or San Fran as they would be a drop in the LGBT pan. Baiting a moral institution into enforcing theology and higher standards is cowardly at best.

"Kissing"? | 12:35 p.m. July 12, 2009

Come on D-News, your article says the couple were "holding hands and kissing". Would you really classify a peck on the cheek as "kissing"? I think kissing requires two active sets of lips. I've given friends and family members a kiss on the cheek but I'd never say we were "kissing".

Justareader | 12:40 p.m. July 12, 2009

People will protest ANYTHING against the Mormon Church. If President Monson said;" We don't want ANy of the people that are not of our faith today baptised and become members" There would be hundred of people protesting and demanding to be baptised.
Get real!

Matt | 12:41 p.m. July 12, 2009

A lot of people are forgetting that the reason the couple started an altercation is because they pointed out to the security guards that straight couples show PDA all the time at the same location and nobody says a word, but along come a gay couple and here show up the security guards. I would fight it too. Should they have started using profanity? Give respect where respect is due, I say.

Anonymous | 12:42 p.m. July 12, 2009

For all those who think it is the LGBT community who are "intolerant"... I suppose you also think it was the Mormons who were intolerant in Missouri... after all those people who ran out the Mormons had beliefs as well, and those beliefs should have been respected right???

Have a Heart | 12:42 p.m. July 12, 2009

Yeah this was certainly a waste of time and got nothing accomplished...just a bunch of people who share a common belief gathering to express themselves. How many of you attended church today?

To Anonymous | 12:43 p.m. July 12, 2009

Of course the church pays taxes on this property. And it is not so called "private property" it IS private property owned by the LDS church.

Anonymous | 12:49 p.m. July 12, 2009

So when is the church going to buy south temple and impose their “morality” on us there???

Justin credible | 12:50 p.m. July 12, 2009

So, the next time 2 missionaries come knocking on my door and I tell them I'm not interested in listening to them and they keep on talking I should call the police. Is that how you want it?

Anonymous | 12:51 p.m. July 12, 2009

I am mormon, but all of you apologists sticking up for Temple Square security are being rediculus. Yes it is private property, but it also it public access- just like a shopping mall or your neighborhood grocery store.

If you were at the grocery store and you were holding hands with your girlfriend/wife/boyfriend/husband and security pounced on you and asked you to leave because public displays of affection (PDA) aren't allowed- you would get angry too.

Obviously, PDA is allowed at Temple Square as I've been there with my wife and have kissed her on the church's property. There is nothing wrong with doing so and security would have no right to get in my face about it.

What the Temple Square security did was wrong and they should apologize. They sure didn't do the church any favors. Does it really hurt the church if a gay couple holds hands while walking through the plaza or if they give each other a kiss on the cheek? Use your heads people.

SLDrone | 12:52 p.m. July 12, 2009

Wrong, the church does not pay taxes on properties oriented around it's "religious mission" only on commercial ventures like farms, ranches and industry. This property is tax free.

alex | 12:53 p.m. July 12, 2009

The protesters aren't the problem here. It is the Council woman who doesn't seem to mind ignoring that the majority of her constinuency happends to be law abiding people many of which happen to be LDS. To call on a "peaceful" demonstration doesn't mean a "disrespectful" demonstration. Salt Lake City voters take note. To respect the rights private property owners is a LDS or non-LDS public demonstration of civility. It would be nice to have several people have a "peaceful demonstration" of affection right in front of this council woman's home just to send the message that she should use her position to elevate the City ordenainces she's promised to suscribe to and to respect and follow the will of the people who voted her into office instead of having people follow HER will. But this Liberal pseudo-politician would immediately cry fowl and intimidation. Typical Liberal response.

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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.

6 photos

Brendan Sullivan, Deseret News

Frank Armstrong, left, Daniel Lara, former Salt Lake Councilwoman Deeda Seed and Laura Bradford take part in "kiss-in'' Sunday near Main Street Plaza.

Gallery (6 photos)