Deseret News | Couples pucker up to make positive point

Reader comments
Couples pucker up to make positive point

475 comments | Read story

SLDrone | 12:54 p.m. July 12, 2009

By the way, Spencer Kimball used to kiss men on the cheek all the time, and walk with his arm around them.

Matt | 12:56 p.m. July 12, 2009

It's perfectly legal to discriminate (for any reason or no reason at all) when private property is involved, that's why they call it private. These 2 guys were asked to leave and the response by their own admonition was to use profanity. The police were called and they were issued a citation as evidence that they broke the law. If the LDS church wants to restrict gays or anyone for that matter, from showing affection on their property, they have every legal right to do so. The response from the gay community has been childish at best. It seems like when it comes to the gay community, it's their way or the highway.

Equality? | 12:57 p.m. July 12, 2009

Let's face it...odds are extremely good that the men in question were asked to leave because it was a homosexual display, not just a PDA. I haven't been to Temple Square in years, but last time I was there, I saw dozens of couples walking hand-in-hand...it is, however, private property. The owners have the right to enforce behavior as they see fit. Public access doesn't mean you don't have to respect the wishes of the owners, it just means you don't have to be part of a private group to use the space. I mean, campgrounds in the canyons are public access, but that doesn't mean I get to do whatever I want while using them. That being said, I do find the idea of encouraging anyone to leave the area because of a kiss to be ridiculous overkill. Who's at fault? Well, there's blame to be had on both sides of the issue. Stop being naive and assuming one or the other is completely in the clear. Neither side is doing much to win sympathy from anyone who's not already aligned in this.

Comments continue below

no tax | 1:01 p.m. July 12, 2009

sorry but being a religious entity, the LDS church does not pay property or any other tax on anything it owns or purchases.

Anonymous | 1:03 p.m. July 12, 2009

This is why Rocky, is his great wisdom, knew selling Main Street to a religion was a terrible idea. The LDS Church was able to create a wider and deeper chasm between it and the normal world.

Excuses | 1:06 p.m. July 12, 2009

OH, BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!!

Anonymous | 1:07 p.m. July 12, 2009

When another establishment has a sign that says "no shirt, no shoes, no service" and you don't have shoes on and they kick you out, does anybody put up a fit?

To Alex 12:53 | 1:07 p.m. July 12, 2009

I wonder why you call this demonstration "disrespectful". Who were they being disrespectful to? I read nothing about violence, name calling, profanity, angry mobs, etc. Just a bunch of people peacefully -and I believe quite respectfully - expressing their opinion.

@ not tax | 1:07 p.m. July 12, 2009

Do you pay taxes to use the Main street plaza park?

Shem | 1:11 p.m. July 12, 2009

Wow, the difference between the posts on Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune are night and day on this issue. Apparently this is the LDS apologists' website.

Look, I'm mormon- but to say that the church can legally discriminate against people, just because it occurs on private property is not legally correct, nor smart from a public relations stand-point.

Restaurants have the right to refuse service to anyone, but if they do so based on legally protected status' such as sex, race, religion or sexual orientation; then it is illegal.

Anyone who has ever walked through the plaza knows that PDA is perfectly acceptable. I've walked through there with my wife and I've held her hand and kissed her there. Security didn't get in my face and if they had, I would have taken offense.

Sexual orientation is a legally protected status, just like race. If they let hetrosexual couples hold hands and kiss on the property then there's a strong legal argument they should let gay couples do so too. But even more importantly, not doing so just makes the church look really bad to the non-mormon public.

Anonymous | 1:11 p.m. July 12, 2009

This is a great opportunity to plan for the general conference. Have a Kiss in on public property right in front of the bigots as they go to and from conference.

DONE! | 1:17 p.m. July 12, 2009

I was born into the LDS church but no longer have any respect of it.

Brains in Action | 1:18 p.m. July 12, 2009

They finally figured it out. They stayed on public property and you can kiss away. Congradulations!!! How they got a permit for the demonstration. It is the law!

Shem | 1:21 p.m. July 12, 2009

More on the public relations issue:

I don't know who is giving the church public relations advice, but whoever it is needs to be given a different church calling, because the church is taking a pounding in recent years.

Look, we don't have to allow members to be actively gay and stay in good standing in the church, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't treat homosexual individuals with respect in the secular realm.

What is the harm from allowing gay couples to hold hands or kiss on church property?

I've seen it mentioned that perhaps the gay couple was baiting the security, or that allowing them to show PDA on church property would promote others to do so. This is all the more reason to leave them alone. By making it a big deal you actually invite more attention to the issue.

Trying to kick that gay couple off church property for PDA makes the church looks intolerant and bigetous to the non-mormon public and leads to crowds of people on the church property protesting. Absolutely stupid move by church security.

Protest | 1:22 p.m. July 12, 2009

I am impressed. You were able to draw 60 people to your protest. Hope you get the message that your behavior is not acceptable.

Shem | 1:30 p.m. July 12, 2009

Still more on the public relations front:

Does it matter to have good PR? For whatever reason, in recent years the church appears to feel that it doesn't matter- That all they have to do is obey God's laws and it doesn't matter how anyone else perceives the church's actions.

I disagree, I think it does matter very much. I think we can live our beliefs without being bigots or intolerant of people who don't share our beliefs.

We are a missionary church which by definition means we are out proselytizing non-mormons. If we create a climate where most non-mormons think we are bigots then we are closing doors before we ever knock on them.

@ Shem | 1:33 p.m. July 12, 2009

"Restaurants have the right to refuse service to anyone, but if they do so based on legally protected status' such as sex, race, religion or sexual orientation; then it is illegal." So is it illegal to tell the missionaries to leave your house since religion is included?
What a mess!

Yawner | 1:36 p.m. July 12, 2009

{yawn}

@ alex | 1:38 p.m. July 12, 2009

She's a former councilwoman. She very nicely represented a portion of her constituency that is sadly under-represented most of the time. People knew her positions when they elected her.

Not every elected representative is going to represent YOUR views. Thank goodness.

Pro kiss in | 1:41 p.m. July 12, 2009

Its nice that someone was able to organize a protest outside of the church. Its sad when a religion controls the city and the sidewalks around its property. Its time to take back salt lake from the lds church and send them packing.

Breath Mints | 1:41 p.m. July 12, 2009

Hopefully they had breath mints! Kiss off.

toph | 1:41 p.m. July 12, 2009

I was actually there! It may come to a surprise to many of you, but it wasn't annoying at all--it was actually quite fun! Picture were taken and people kissed, and that's it. The Temple staff asked that we stay on the sidewalk and (at least while I was there) we obeyed as far as we could.

Got what they wanted | 1:47 p.m. July 12, 2009

It's no secret how to start a firestorm in SLC. These guys got exactly what they wanted.

Right on Par | 1:49 p.m. July 12, 2009

Demanding respect & tolerance yet offering none in return and being tacky and ill-mannered in the process. . .all par for the course for the gay agenda.

lindsy | 1:50 p.m. July 12, 2009

to Anonymous 12:51
You got it wrong, do your homework. The Mormans never bothered anyone, and certainly never percecuted anyone for beliveing different. It was the mobs that attacted, raped, murrdered, burned homes, and drove the mormons out, (because they believed different)

Matt | 1:57 p.m. July 12, 2009

I, for one, am glad the Church stood up for what is right. Gays and Lesbians kissing each other and holding hands in public is not appropriate. It is good that the Church enforced their beliefs on their property. We may have to put up with the filth in public but not on private property.

Andrew Thorn | 2:00 p.m. July 12, 2009

@ Pro kiss in
My Friend - Salt Lake was established by members of the LDS church. They came here because of the intolerance shown by the USA. There was nothing here but desert land - Our ancestors turned it into a desirable place.

Question - What do you mean that it is time to take it back and send us packing?

Missouri | 2:03 p.m. July 12, 2009

Anonymous, if you're trying to be offensive, you've done it. What happened to our ancestors in Missouri is to be treated with sacred respect. We honor their historical plight and sacrifice. You have no idea of what you are speaking about. Stand down.

Not a Mormon | 2:08 p.m. July 12, 2009

But I am fully on the side of teh LDS church. what a joke, I'm glad the LDS church as taken a stand, they seem to be the only ones in this country left that will. Go to San Francisco and watch this so called public display of affecton it is gross. Gays tend to take it to another level just daring anyone to stop them. Oh and of course they are always innocent when they are asked to stop. Thank you LDS church for taking a stand for decency and what's right. As for the people protesting, enjoy each others company, nothing like a bunch of lowlifes that have nothing better to do.

Hymns in bars | 2:14 p.m. July 12, 2009

Hey, why not get a group of people to go and start singing hymns in the Bars? After all, it is public property.

flibbermajibit | 2:19 p.m. July 12, 2009

That is stupid if it is their property they can't be kissing and stuff if it goes against LDS beliefs. They had every right to kick them off the property. If they were doing that on my property I totally would. They have no right to be mad.

Anonymous | 2:22 p.m. July 12, 2009

every one is welcome to visit temple square, and all that is ask of anyone. is that you dont disrespect the ground or are belief's while doing so! it's that simple, why don people understand simple ask of respect, i was born an rasied in california, And have a few gay an lesbian friend's. And that ther life not mine, But when ask not to kiss around me They dont, And i love them for that, Is'nt that so simple, God bless us all, an keep us Safe

no | 2:25 p.m. July 12, 2009

Call me whatever names you want, but I am greatful that gay people are asked not to hold hands and kiss at temple square. Young men are encouraged to marry young women in the Salt Lake temple, so I hope to see a LOT of newly married couples expressing affection by the temple. Conversely, if a gay organization builds a facility and asks that certain standards be observed there, I promise I will not go there and kiss my wife, on the cheek OR even the mouth. Deal?

Eric | 2:36 p.m. July 12, 2009

They pay Tiger Wood 3 million dollars just to show up to play at a private golf club.(PRIVATE PROPERTY) If he doesn't show up with a collared shirt he must leave the coarse. I understand simple rules are many times tuff. Just ask a California student who is required to wear a collared shirt to school. Rules...Rules...Rules... where has our so called society gone. now....

Life Experiences | 2:41 p.m. July 12, 2009

In the early 80's I was on vacation in Italy. Touring the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City, I temporarily lost my mind (and all sense of respect) and got down on the floor to take a picture of the famous ceiling. I was promptly "escorted" from Vatican City--as I should have been.

It was a humiliating (yet powerful) learning experience for me. I wonder what those involved in this protest learned?

Gay Mormon | 2:51 p.m. July 12, 2009

I'm gay, was raised Mormon, and my name is still on the records. Today, while Deeda Seed and her well-meaning but misguided group further drives a wedge between the gay and LDS communities with their "kiss-in" on private property, I instead choose to celebrate the many, many, MANY Mormon family and friends who have found ways to stay true to their beliefs while also showering me with love and acceptance. Thanks to you all.

Kevin | 2:57 p.m. July 12, 2009

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

"... Sadly, opponents of the Church's position on gay marriage have not shown the same decency as the Church has."

And what decency is that?

tigerlily | 2:58 p.m. July 12, 2009

I hope these people realize that this little "kiss-in" isn't helping their cause

tigerlily | 3:00 p.m. July 12, 2009

Hate:: you do realize that unless you have your name removed from the church records you are still a member

tigerlily | 3:03 p.m. July 12, 2009

Mike:: there is public access there but it is conditional. the public has to respect the churches rules

It is a religious issue | 3:10 p.m. July 12, 2009

It is a religious issue.
While visiting Egypt several years ago I was told that in order to visit a historic Mosque of theirs, I would be required to cover my shoulders, and wear long pants (in 100 degree heat) because it is a holy place for them, and to be immodest would desecrate its sanctity.
This issue at Temple Square is no different. This is a holy sacred place for Mormons. And the GLBT community KNOWS this. This display of kissing at the temple was meant to be saucy sensationalism and fodder for the media. They were wanting to offend the church.
Now, if I had shown up to the mosque in a tasteful tank top and shorts that went to my knees...I would STILL have been asked to leave. AND IF I STARTED TO ARGUE THE ISSUE, use foul language, and be belligerent, yes, police would have been called on me. Because the owners of the Mosque state a standard that they expect as far as dress and conduct.
So NO THE LDS CHURCH SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BAN ALL DISPLAYS OF AFFECTION. Just the ones they FEEL DEFILE their holy place! Make sense?

From Argentina | 3:12 p.m. July 12, 2009

Be wise, don't spend your time in what is worthless. They are looking for media attention. As the Savior did, love them and teach them the way of happiness, respectfuly and sincerely. They lack of their true identity as sons of God.

Us. vs. Them Chasm | 3:17 p.m. July 12, 2009

The divide between Mormons and Non-Mormons in Salt Lake City just seems to get wider and wider everyday, and it's really a shame.

Sooner or later both sides are going to have to wake up and see that polar extremes only make the city weaker, and the residents needlessly scared of each other.

In all of my travels and experiences, I have never seen a city (with so many positive attributes) so divided and bitter. It's truly sad.

NO RESPECT LGBT | 3:27 p.m. July 12, 2009

Key word proper affection.If two gay men want to go on church property then they need to obey and RESPECT the views of the property. The LGBT just wants attention. Let's discuss the facts if a staight couple is acting unappropiately they are asked to leave the grounds I am sure. To the LDS church to men holding hands is not appropiate and they have the right on there property to ask them to stop. These men did not stop and got offended because they could not do whatever they wanted on church property. Yeah the plaza is public access but that does not mean you can do what ever you want on the plaza. You have to respect the property owners rights.It is called trespassing if you don't do as the security officers did do. So if you don't like following the rules then walk around the church property.If you want respect then give respect back but that is not the LGBT is hell or high water with you guys. You want everything but you will not give the same respect. Don't go on property if you can't follow the rules.

Anonymous | 3:31 p.m. July 12, 2009

Wow, the gay community just doesn't get it, do they?! Engaging in behavior on church/private property that is not congruent with church teachings or beliefs is extremely disrespectful and smacks of pride. Contrary to popular belief, you can't do whatever you want whenever you want or wherever you want.

Belgie | 3:35 p.m. July 12, 2009

This happened Sunday morning? All the people that the protesters were hoping to offend were in church.

C Almond | 3:36 p.m. July 12, 2009

Get a clue buddy!!!!!!!!! There are alot of difference between a man and women kissing then two men kissing. For one the church allows men & women to kiss. They DO NOT SUPPORT MEN KISSING WHETHER IT IS A PECK OR NOT.Also not holding hands. I will say if a man & women are acting inappriotely then they are asked to leave and if they said no like these two young men did the same would happen I would believe there is no double standard. Case and point did the security guards do anything to people outside on public property during the kiss-in today? No they did not why they respected the rights of people do what they pleased on public property.So they respected the publics rights on public property. But the 2 gay men in question did not respect the property rights of the LDS Chruch did they? So before you go accussing the people of something you ought to understand the property rights first.

Skippy | 3:36 p.m. July 12, 2009

Kiss my grits.

Dear 'Anonymous': | 3:39 p.m. July 12, 2009

You aren't fooling anybody with your post. You're not a mormon, you're a troll.
If you were a Mormon it wouldn't be that hard for you to figure it out. If you wanted to sit in the plaza and drink a bottle of water nobody would bother you. You could drink as much water as you want with no interference. However, if you chose to drink a 6 pack of beer whilst sitting in the plaza, I've no doubt you would be asked to leave or even cited. It's private property and the owner of that property has the right to determine the standards by which users of the plaza must adhere to.

The standards of the church are pretty clear. If you weren't really a gay person trolling on this message board you would understand this. A husband and wife holding hands falls clearly within the bounds of church standards. two stupid gay men looking to cause trouble by behaving inappropriately fall clearly outside the bounds of church standards. It's not that hard to figure out.

Re: Hollow Protest | 3:40 p.m. July 12, 2009

First of all, there were no police involved. It was the church security guards. They are ONLY there as security for church grounds. They can arrest people, but they can't detain them. They can only arrest someone if they have probable cause to do so, i.e. they are becoming physically violent. As far as I am aware, these two men were not violent.

It is public-access property which happens to be owned by the church. It is a public thoroughfare. I can't tell you how namy times I have seen other couples sharing a kiss all up and down the area. I just can't help but look at this as a "zero tolerance" situation. Two gay men sharing a kiss were arrested for doing so. That's all it boils down to.

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)