Deseret News | Couples pucker up to make positive point

Reader comments
Couples pucker up to make positive point

475 comments | Read story

Bill | 8:39 p.m. July 12, 2009

Same-sex attraction is not a sin until it is acted upon. Once that is done then homsexuality becomes a sin. At all LDS Churchs and visitor centers we state emphatically that all are welcome. However, if a person should light up a cigarette, cigar, drink a beer or start making out (heterosexual couple), you would be asked to stop or leave the premises. If you failed to stop and even became beligerent the police would be called and you would be cited for trespassing. The two men state it was a peck on the cheek, since none of us were there we can't judge except to say I doubt that because I doubt if a peck and holding hands would have gotten the same reaction. Now if it was an open kiss just as a couple would have done then I would say emphatically they would be asked to stop. The fact they became beligerent and profane shows they were in the wrong.

The Church owns that property and thus has every right to say what happens there. Maybe the security guards were out of line but considering the response I feel the Church was justified.

Mike | 8:42 p.m. July 12, 2009

Wow all you people need a life

Ty | 8:47 p.m. July 12, 2009

Put a fence around it if it's PRIVATE PROPERTY !!

Comments continue below

Spencer | 8:49 p.m. July 12, 2009

The issue here is that it was private property and as such the owners can decide what sort of acts are acceptable or not on THEIR property. Ya, ya public access... whatever. There is public access granted to walk through a museum too, but if you don't follow their rules they will kick you out. If you walk in to a public library and refuse to be quiet you will be taken out as well. If your going to spend time on someone else's property you better be prepared to follow their rules. This protest is pointless. All it is is another attempt to break down a religion because of their ideals and morals based upon marriage.

scott in vegas | 9:04 p.m. July 12, 2009

The Kiss-in: tomorrow's forgotten news

observation | 9:23 p.m. July 12, 2009

They broke the law. It is as simple as that. They deserved and earned what they received.

sparks24 | 9:29 p.m. July 12, 2009

It is private property the LDS church can do what they want it is their property, to bad!!!! Go do your kissing in your homes I don't care!!!

property rights | 9:57 p.m. July 12, 2009

Many comments justify the church's actions based on "property rights." Okay. Then the Mormon Church should start paying property taxes like any other property owner.

@ Private Property | 10:11 p.m. July 12, 2009

I agree with that. Church shouldn't coat its beliefs or I must say, what it's really behind it. I don't understand why the PR women said that they don't allow any kissing because that doesn't sound right. But having been in PR before, I understand PR is trying to minimize the incident by no giving all the details of what really happened, something like not throwing more fuel to the fire. We just have the couple's version, some witnesses saying they were overly reacting but the Church had no given any detail of the incident.

I appreciate one of the comments here about they only get 60 people to do the protest while thousands were attending church or just minding their own business. So, I think this is what we, as members, should do. Leave it to the Church and mind our own business. Don't give any attention to the protesters and this will be forgotten soon.

Unfettered by fences | 10:16 p.m. July 12, 2009

The LDS Church was kind enough to allow public access to their private property and provide a beautiful area bridging their headquarters that was once a busy street. I don't think a fence is needed to designate the street as private property. Both ends of the plaza have pillars with the Church logo and name. The Main Street Plaza is more ornate and elaborate than any public park I've seen elsewhere in Utah and other western states. If it really will help the public realize that the area is private property, which I doubt, sure add a fence but make it as organic and non-intrusive as possible to send the message. It'll likely kill the amazing scenery visible from the plaza and likely spark protest about how the Church blocks the views with a fence. Meanwhile the hypocritical crowds should find more productive use of their time than trying to bully a religious organization and its people to accept and "tolerate" behavior against their religious beliefs. I said "behavior" mind you, not people. Love the person, hate the sin.

Just Me | 10:27 p.m. July 12, 2009

well we all know "the media" is not always correct with their stories. anyway this one is a lame story that creates a buzz in the comment section of it. Real news is people losing jobs, families needing support, shelters full, food banks empty, military men overseas, etc. now that is news that we need to know about and getting America back on track.

Anonymous | 10:29 p.m. July 12, 2009

Just2Stressed::: you want to do away with religion when it was the reason this country was founded.

Bill Kilpatrick | 12:47 a.m. July 13, 2009

This incident has done nothing but damage to the reputation of the LDS Church. Does it own the property in question? Yes. Does it have every right to decide who gets to stay and who has to go? Of course. Does it have a right to prosecute trespassers? Without a doubt. But was it wise for Church security to stop a gay couple, walking across the Plaza, over a casual PDA? Was it an inspired move to call the cops and turn these two into criminals - and then martyrs?

This kind of bunker mentality is counterproductive. Temple Square is not the Alamo. If anything, this incident has thrown light upon the controversial landswap, from ten years ago, between the Church and the city. That deal, turning the Plaza over to the Church, was transparently designed to gag protestors by giving them no public space from which to speak.

At a time when the Church is increasingly involving itself in politics, it might be wiser to limit such moments of imbecilic misjudgment, that is if it wants to avoid feeding the stereotype that Utah remains a kind of Saudi America.

Philip | 12:48 a.m. July 13, 2009

I'm not Mormon nor do I live in Utah but this story is making the rounds in Arizona and probably in a lot of the other States, as well. I imagine the LDS Church is getting a black eye because it sure sounds like it's picking on gays again. I think the problem is that it happened in the Plaza. Look at it from an outsider's point of view. I'm Catholic and the Catholic Church couldn't get away with buying a Plaza in any major city in the U.S. The fact that the LDS Church can get away with it in Salt Lake City shows how powerful the LDS Church is in Utah. The fact that the LDS Church is having people arrested for using what was once public land is not going to sit well with a lot of non-LDS people just like it wouldn't sit well with LDS folks if any Church other than the LDS Church had bought the Plaza then had people arrested for trespassing on it.

to hate | 12:53 a.m. July 13, 2009

Dear Hate--thank goodness you resigned from the Church. With your hatred, we don't need you. We need those who want to love not "hate".

I mostly see positive remarks so far in the comments. Thank goodness. We need more positiveness in this world.

Los Angeles | 12:54 a.m. July 13, 2009

This kind of thing makes me as a gay man traveler and a business owner not want to go to or do business (or locate a plant for my business) in Utah. It's terrible for your state economically. I saw Utah tourism ads on LA TV this spring -- I doubt they worked.

Personally, I don't believe in Public Displays of Affection in general. But I also don't want to be thrown out of a business for holding hands and that seems fine in Utah.

The LDS Church clearly runs things in Utah and they came to my state to take my civil rights away last year (it's about to overturned in Federal Court btw) -- yes it was the parishioners, so what.

I would have thought a church that has experienced so much discrimination would be less likely to practice it against others.

I am 45, a business owner, volunteer, church-goer (Episcopal, not every church has the LDS position on gay people), in a 10 yr very commited relationship, and help my elderly parents. What more must I do to prove I am equal to you under civil law?

How about Visa Versa?! | 1:04 a.m. July 13, 2009

OK, I'm sick of the LGBT community protesting the Church, its time the conservatives take some action. The LGBT of Utah is having a Dinner night thing at the JAM on Friday, August 28th, from 6-9 pm. How about we stage a protest for that date, time, and location against the LGBT?!

Quite honestly, I don't care what they do, but when they walk up to other religions sacred places, and protest right in front of it, it ticks me off! Time to get a taste of their own medicine!!!

For David Blimmo p3 7/12 | 1:07 a.m. July 13, 2009

If this is truly what you want to live with, hop a plane to China, or go live in one of the old communist strongholds in eastern/western Europe. That is what the Chinese and Russians did to their people.

JasnSan | 1:26 a.m. July 13, 2009

I read to page 4 of the comments and gave up (there were 6 at the time).

So many hateful comments and really turn ones stomach!

How so very sad that there was so much hate. And most of it coming from those who were yelling about how they get no respect or "tolerance".

I have been raised in the LDS faith and I have lived all over the western part of the US and I can truthfully say that I have NEVER met a Mormon that HATED the gays. They just do not agree with their lifestyle which is their right.

Yes, Christ said to love all people - he also said not to sin. If sinning were ok with him then why give the 10 Commandments? If you read the Old Testament you can get an idea of what Christ thought of those who did not do as he taught.

I was a missionary and if you don't want missionaries to come to your don't then put out a " No Solisating" sign on your gate or door and they will leave you alone.

You can dress it up all you want - but these guys were wrong!

Waaaaaaaaa | 2:13 a.m. July 13, 2009

If the LDS church is so evil, what would happen if you protesters did your little demonstration at The Dome of the Rock or in Mecca?.......that's right, your head and your hand would be separated from the rest of your body. That is what you call being 'heavy handed'!

No matter how much you guys cry and play the victim card when this whole incident was a purposeful act on Friday night, the Gay & Lesbian community has never had an extermination order issued against them. The activist G&L community needs to realize they are the ones doing the evil bidding here. You need to respect other's beliefs before you're taken seriously by the religious majority.

Sariah | 5:58 a.m. July 13, 2009

LDS Church owned property should be fenced off and available only to those wishing to partake of the spirituality of the area. It is not a public street and should not be available for a public thoroughfare.

Discretion and restraint in all displays of affection should be the norm anywhere in public... keep displays of affection PRIVATE. When in public consider how your conduct affects others.

Homosexual acts are an abomination to the Lord, and also to many, including myself. It is disgusting, immoral, and perverted.

JohnAH | 6:10 a.m. July 13, 2009

A portion of my family is eastern European Jewish and typically our male family members kiss on the lips as a greeting although it's always been a bit awkward for me; there is nothing wrong or sexual about it. I wonder if my father and I would get arrested for saying good bye?

go away | 6:24 a.m. July 13, 2009

do us all a favor and just go to an island or something.

jw | 6:25 a.m. July 13, 2009

Hate & Mike. First of all, Hate, like has been said. First of all I think your post is bogus. I don't think any true LDS member would write in an say they are no longer members over something like this. If you are for real...... sorry we aren't going to do like the people of old and change our views to keep the general public happy. That is what the gays and evidently you are wanting us to do. As for Mike. The church never said the walkway was going to be made public for things that go totally against their beliefs. They are public as long as people respect this. Which is evidently asking to much for SOME groups. The reason they made it private in the first place was because people like you were saying totally inappropriate things to newly weds etc and doing what you do best.... annoy people.

Fun | 6:35 a.m. July 13, 2009

Why doesn't Equality Utah ever do something fun like this? Their boring approach was supposed to be more "effective" but heh, sometimes there just isn't common ground until you poke a little fun at how silly the other side is being.

Jeff | 6:41 a.m. July 13, 2009

What these individuals have failed to recognize is that this clearly shows that our culture is not willing to accept homosexual behavior. In our culture, whether they want to believe it or not, two men holding hands and kissing is not an acceptable form of behavior. That’s what this is really about.

try that | 6:57 a.m. July 13, 2009

on my private property!

@Jeff | 6:59 a.m. July 13, 2009

Mormon culture is not American culture. This has been clear since Nauvoo and will remain so (just as President Mitt.)

@Jeff 6:41 | 7:01 a.m. July 13, 2009

"Our culture"? I think what you really meant to say was "our church is not willing to accept homosexual behavior". Many, many people, all active participants and contributors to the local culture obviously don't have the same problem with it. The days of a mono-culture in Utah are long gone.

Vader | 7:08 a.m. July 13, 2009

This is what the church wanted; to increase the area of influence of the vice and virtue police. Geographically speaking, we must prevent future expansion of the empire.

Bonnie | 7:18 a.m. July 13, 2009

I don't know why people keep saying "double standard"...it's not a double standard, it's just the STANDARD!! Yes, newlynewds kissing on Temple Square is beautiful and welcomed because they are living the standards of the gospel. A gay couple kissing, on the other hand, is not in accordance with the standards of the gospel and so therefore should not be allowed on the Church's property. There is no argument here, as is usually the case with these horrible people!! Stop saying double standard because it is not. Be respectful and just leave us alone. You have your standards, however loose they may be, and we have ours...there is no story here!!! The people of the Church may bend on this issue and some may support the efforts of the gay community but the GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST NEVER WILL BOW TO POLITCAL AGENDAS...it's just not going to happen...ever!! It's not up to the people in the Church or even it's leadership. This is Christ's church now and forever!! END OF STORY!!!!

SLC gal | 7:20 a.m. July 13, 2009

How gay - as in gay, I mean stupid. Seriously, I would side with the church on thise one, becuase gays are WAY too quick with the discrimination card.

Wow | 7:24 a.m. July 13, 2009

Judgmental Bigots hiding behind Gay morality. Now that's a good one.

In perspective | 7:30 a.m. July 13, 2009

My husband and I have been married 40 years, 30 of them under a Temple sealing. We have, many times, walked hand-in-hand through both the Plaza area and Temple Square itself. We have, many times, exchanged loving kisses (not the get-a-room type) and have done so in front of Church security guards. In other words we have engaged in the so-called forbidden Public Displays of Affection under circumstances which, if the ban was equally applied, would have resulted in a request to us that we restrain our behavior. NOTHING has EVER been said to us about our PDAs in over 30 years.

The issue here is not a PDA. The issue is the people who engaged in a loving, chaste, peck-on-the-cheek PDA. That is discrimination, and does not reflect well on the LDS Church.

Philip | 7:35 a.m. July 13, 2009

Some have stated that our culture is not willing to accept homosexual behavior. Yes, and in the last century our culture was not willing to accept interracial behavior. I am old enough to remember there was religious objections to accepting interracial couples. That's not true anymore. Partly because we have a Constitition and partly because as a culture we saw the double standard in treating one couple one way and another couple another way. Cultures change and, if you haven't noticed, on the subject of homosexuality this culture is changing dramatically. For instance, we are discussing homosexuality in this newspaper and that wasn't true years ago.

CK | 7:35 a.m. July 13, 2009

The LDS church should have the right to protect their private property. I do! As for the disrespect shown by the gay and lesbian community towards our faith, you know what you are doing is not condoned by the mainstream public but still you continue. The LDS church will never bow to you and you should be ashamed for the way you protray yourselves. My brother is gay and he would never do what you all have been doing downtown. He has too much respect for the church and believes it shouldn't be targeted just because it has such firm beliefs. He and his friends are just like the rest of us in the way they go to work, play and live their lives. He doesn't try to force his lifestyle on us and vice versa so I can't see why you all should be trying to force your lifestyle on us either. Temple Square is a sacred place and is private property. We go there to enjoy the peace there, not to have see protests over our faith and its views. The only kissing I want to see is couples after being sealed in the temple!

Paul S. | 7:36 a.m. July 13, 2009

Phillip

Let's educate you as to the Plaza.

The LDS Church traded "surface land" (worth millions), which is now City Creek Park, for the "underground" rights to one block of Main Street, for an underground parking garage.

Imaigne trading surface land for underground land.

Then the Church paid millions of dollars more for the "surface rights" of this block. Eight times the asessed value, mind you.

This went through all of the proper, legal channels and permits.

At this point, The Church spent even millions more, to create the beautiful Plaza now there. "This Plaza did not exist before the Church spent their money build it."

After it was built, the ACLU field suit, for sidewalk access, for years it went through the Courts, ultimately, the 10th Circuit Court granted the easement to the Church.

Only after it donated yet even more land, worth even millions more, to the City.

The cash cow that keeps on giving.

Irony, back in the 1850's the LDS Church "gave" what was to become Main Street to the City.

Private Property is Constitutionally protected in this Country, it's sacred. Respect others property, or be arrested.

It's that simple!

Fiona | 7:38 a.m. July 13, 2009

Gay people, and ill- mannered heterosexual people are not winning points by doing this, except in their own choirs.

It is unseemly for couples to openly demonstrate affection in front of persons who are likely to be offended. People have a right to be offended for any number of things.

The Bible asks us "to as far as possible, live peaceably with all men" and to honor other people's customs where they do not conflict with the Laws of God.

My children knew that sexual behavior was something for a private time, not for open demonstration in the public square.

Gay or not, maybe it is time for Americans to re visit basic good manners

Re Phillip in AZ. | 7:55 a.m. July 13, 2009

Catholic Phillip said that the Catholic church couldn't get away with buying a plaza!

Obviously you dont know your own catholic history.

The vatican was established as its own country by the Catholic Church to keep the Italians from claiming all the art, architecture the Cath

Anonymous | 7:58 a.m. July 13, 2009

Homosexuals will turn our cities and neighborhoods into ONE BIG DOO DAH parade as they garner support.

The prepubescent sexuality is offensive to many, yet this nasty contingent doesn't care.

I want it outlawed.

Anonymous | 8:14 a.m. July 13, 2009

Look at the number of comments! Again, Utah is obsessed with this issue. So much for concern about real news.

Double standard | 8:16 a.m. July 13, 2009

There is a double standard here. There are two relationship stories that broke this weekend.

Comments on the two individuals kissing imply that they represent the whole gay community.

Comments on the other story imply the individual having a relationship with a teenager does not represent the whole LDS community.

Either they're both true or they're both not. But in one case the action is not illegal (kissing is not a crime) and in the other case the action was VERY illegal.

One of these groups also mounted a organized systematic effort to interfere with the rights of the other. It was not the action of an individual but of the whole group.

Anonymous | 8:33 a.m. July 13, 2009

For the LDS church not to say something about homosexual, and perhaps even extreme displays of affection by strait couples, wouild appear as if they condone the behavior. Anyone who doens't know what the church teaches regarding homosexuality, chastity, etc is in the dark, and those who do know and choose to call it old fashioned are just stupid. once again, we see the lack of tolerance by those who claim to need it the most.

Ray | 8:52 a.m. July 13, 2009

This is either a public place or its not. if you going to open a private space to the public, then your rules must apply to all equally or not at all.
Public display of affection in the aquare must be prohibited for all..ie. weddings religious ceremonies where affection is displayed in public.
I find it personally offensive to see a heterosexual couple practically having sex while walking in a public place or the male grabing the female inappropriately, yet no one says a word about this.

Philip | 8:54 a.m. July 13, 2009

Paul S.

Paul S. thanks for the education but my objection has nothing to do with the legality of it. I understand the land was arrived at legally. I still think the LDS Church got away with something the Catholic Church could not get away with in a major U.S. city. I mean could you imagine the Catholic Church making such a deal with say Chicago even if the Catholic Church promised eight times what the Plaza was worth and to spend millions more beautifying it. The public would revolt. My objection is to public land being taken away from the public. No amount of parsing and prettying up will change that fact. I mean take this gay couple for instance. Now they can be told to leave an area that once they had public access to. This may be legal but it gives a black eye to the LDS Church for yet, once again, singling out gays for special treatment. The LDS Church has a right to discriminate against any group they want on this property that was once public land and that is what I am objecting to.

Bonnie | 9:09 a.m. July 13, 2009

Hey Anonymous who said this isn't real news and we are obsessed with this issue...to those of us within the church our faith is everything to us and therefore it IS REAL NEWS!! Our way of life and that of our children is being bombarded in a way that we find very, very disturbing and that is why we are so concerned with this REAL NEW issue!!

@Unfettered by fences | 9:12 a.m. July 13, 2009

While I agree with most of your post about no need for fences and that it is private property, I do have to point out that saying "the LDS Church was kind enough to allow public access to their private property and provide a beautiful area bridging their headquarters that was once a busy street," is a bit of a revisionist history at best. I think most of us are old enough to remember how the whole main street plaza really came about. Having said that what is done is done and it is now private property so as much as I support gay rights, I also support private property rights and the LDs church has the right to regulate what happens on their property.

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

And Catholic Philip doesn't know all the plazas that the Catholic Church owns in Central and South America. I can say they own one in New York, Manhattan to be precise. I visited that one myself.

Arugula | 9:20 a.m. July 13, 2009

I love the kiss-in. I'm sending a big kiss to all the folks who went down there. Just because the LDS is homophobic doesn't mean the people don't have an equal right to kiss on the sidewalk in front of the church. I think it is ridiculous that people consider gay people kissing in public offensive, but straight people kissing in public aren't even noticed. Get a grip. It's a kiss! A wonderful thing! We should be happy people are kissing, it means they are with someone who delights them!!!

A | 9:22 a.m. July 13, 2009

These kind of "in your face" actions by the Gay and lesbian communities have really changed my mind about them in the last year. I used to be more tolerant of them and their lifestyle. However, I am really tired of their little demonstrations and cramming their ideas down my throat at every turn. I find them more and more obnoxious every day. I certainly have changed my opinion of them and their cause and am no longer one of their supporters.

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)