Deseret News | Couples pucker up to make positive point

Reader comments
Couples pucker up to make positive point

475 comments | Read story

Thanks You - Pres. Monson | 9:27 a.m. July 13, 2009

I would like to thank President Monson, the Quorum or the Twelve, all Proposition 8 volunteers, Chris Buttars and many intolerant LDS Members. Thank you for uniting the Gay community nationwide and thank you for bringing out our straight allies everywhere!

Both sides of this issue are responsible for immature actions. Yes, it is private property, but yes it is also a major thorough fare and formerly main street.

The issue for the couple and most people is the blatant hypocrisy with everyone knowing that daily dozens and dozens of couple kiss on this plaza, often documenting with photographs. Yet none are every arrested, let alone thrown to the ground and handcuffed.

Again, the LDS Church has chosen to clearly define itself as being discriminatory toward gays and lesbians. Thank you, the world is watching.

@paul s | 9:30 a.m. July 13, 2009

That is some interesting history to bad it is not accurate. The church did not pay anywhere near 8 times what it was worth. The church did not donate land for city creek (they still own the rights to their fenced of part of that park). The original agreement was that their would be a public easement the LDs church decided not to honor that agreement and that is why it ended up in court. The court did not grant them anything the city and the LDS church came to an out of court settlement where the church gave the city a small lot of land on the west side to drop the court cases.

Stop pandering to their agenda.. | 9:39 a.m. July 13, 2009

The big question is WHY was so much space given to 35 selfish people? This was newsworthy? It looks like yellow journalism to me.

Comments continue below

Bonnie | 9:41 a.m. July 13, 2009

I have always thought it interesting that whenever a new Pope in ordained everyone always talks about how he is going to change the church...as in, the religion!! That never happens with our church because it will never change. Even if the leaders of the church wanted to allow gay marriage and such they don't have the power to change the gospel of Jesus Christ...no one does. So all this poltical correctness is a waste of time and energy because no amount of pressure is going to make anything change. The minute it does I'm out...not because I hate gays but because we would have given in to pressure to change our religion and that's not okay, for the LDS church, the Catholic church, or any church.

To: @ Private Property | 9:41 a.m. July 13, 2009

"I don't understand why the PR women said that they don't allow any kissing because that doesn't sound right."

It's actually the truth, though. While the rules are slightly different on a couple's wedding day, if a couple was kissing in the temple, or on temple grounds, beyond a quick peck, they'd be reminded that it wasn't appropriate behavior. If a couple is kissing in church beyond a quick peck, they'd be reminded that it's not appropriate behavior.

When it comes to this incident, the truth isn't clear. The couple and several people claiming to be witnesses to the scene claim one thing happened, while others who claim to be witnesses claim something very different happened. The church spokeswoman infers something between the two extremes is the truth.

Because no video of the event has surfaced, we all have to choose who to believe. While I don't think they were making out on the plaza, I also think it was more than just a simple peck on the cheek. Either way, they showed contempt for the rules when they became belligerant and refused to leave when asked.

City should have never sold it | 9:41 a.m. July 13, 2009

Blame DeDe Corradini--she's the one behind it. That plaza and it's exclusionary policies are a Cancer in the Heart of a Beatiful city.

Waste | 9:47 a.m. July 13, 2009

This not only waste time but it just pants Gays as over sexed deviants. Protest are useless unless they are for a specific aim. Like what do they want the church to do change it's position? Not likely and their stunt is only helping not hurting the church. Especially if the parishioners ignore them this will have a far more negative effect on the Gay community then the church. And for those that really want equal rights I apologize that you have people pulling stunts like this making your quest that much harder. I know you just love to wake up and see what have the extreme liberal elite done this time.

What the solution will be | 9:50 a.m. July 13, 2009

A sign that says "No PDA's" (if there isn't one already) and then it will only be enforced on Gay Men. I've never quite understood the intense dislike this org has for them.

To: @paul s | 9:51 a.m. July 13, 2009

Actually, it was the city who decided not to honor the agreement. The easement was originally designed to continue to allow public access, though the public still had to follow basic rules of conduct. When the LDS church stated that those rules included no anti-LDS demonstrations, the city tried to sue the church to change the rules, after they already sold the church the property under the original rules. The reason they caved out of court is because they would have lost on a federal level, and it was costing them money they didn't really have - which was the reason for the sale of the plaza in the first place. They needed the money.

Paul S. | 9:57 a.m. July 13, 2009

Phillip

You should really quit while you are already down.

There is a street in Salt Lake which was actually
given, not sold, to the Caholic Church, it was closed for a Nursing Home. Virtually the same size as the Main St. site.

There is no easment through the property, and if you trespass there as well and refuse to leave when asked to, for whatever reason, you also will be arrested.

These situations happen all the time all over the country. Land and easements are sold and traded, yes even with Church's. I've studied the case law on these situations, I sincerely doubt that you have.

Grow up and get a clue. Respect the rights of property or get your comeuppance. In the old West, you would have been dealt with more harshly.

Be grateful you are only politely asked to leave, and when you are, leave. Otherwise, it is trespassing, and not jsut in Utah. No petulant 2nd grade tantrums. Show some manners for crying out loud.

squire | 10:00 a.m. July 13, 2009

"That never happens with our church because it will never change."

Didn't you discriminate against blacks at one time?

Then a "vision" changed that -

Utah Dem | 10:00 a.m. July 13, 2009

To Philip in AZ, now I would assume you will say, well that is not a major US city, but does the size of the city really matter.
In Ogden Utah, daily I would drive east on 30th St and turn north onto Fowler Ave to head home, well a few years ago, shortly have the Salt Lake Main Street Plaza fiasco, I turned onto Fowler to find that it was no longer a through street but now a parking lot for St. Joseph's Catholic School.
I did some research with the city and its planning commission to find out the street was 'given' (never could find out if money was exchanged, some reliable sources say it wasn't) to the school so their students would not have to cross a non-busy street to get to a city park for recess.

What is done is done | 10:03 a.m. July 13, 2009

As a strong supporter of gay rights I have to say this was not a wise battle to fight. The two people that where on the plaza and refused to leave when asked where in violation of private property rights and should have moved along. I do not like the fact that the LDS church took over Main Street but what is done is done and it is private property.

Philip | 10:04 a.m. July 13, 2009

I've become Catholic Phil (love that). It's ironic but the more straight people talk publicly about gay people (especially in a negative way) the more straight support increases for gay people. I can't prove it with statistics but stories like this break down the barriers between gays and straights because it shows how two men minding their own business were treated harshly for doing something most of us would not give a second thought of doing publicly ourselves.

fred | 10:04 a.m. July 13, 2009

Does this mean the gay rights people say I should have the right to stand on their front yard and preach the gospel?

re: squire | 10:08 a.m. July 13, 2009

And Christs church discriminated against non-jews. But a vision changed that too.

Anonymous | 10:11 a.m. July 13, 2009

Garrot accused the Church of intolerance and being cruel to gays and lesbians. What about those gays and lesbians provoking the members of the Church? What is their intention in continually harassing the Church? Why are they so resentful and vindictive after Prop 8 passed in California? Why don't they just pursue their own lifestyle as they please and leave the LDS Church alone. Nothing bespeaks of cruelty and intolerance more than their constant inappropriate behavior and hatred towards those who do not conform to their way of life. They have to justify their actions and choices and that's their right. But leave the LDS Church alone and do your own thing. And look at the beam in your own eye instead of just picking on the mote in another's eyes.

Paul S. | 10:18 a.m. July 13, 2009

To@paul s

You are simply wrong on all counts. You are referring to Brigham Young Park. City Creek Park land was indeed traded for underground rights.

The Church never agreed to demonstations, on their land. The easement rules were abused immediately, as young Brides were called Harlots as they left he Temple on their wedding day.

The value the Church paid was indeed 8 times the assessed value, would you like to see the documents?

You know this revisionist history won't fly here. It's as silly as Rocky claiming ignorance and blaming Deedee for this sale, when the final deed which finalized the deal, has Rocky's signature on it. I have a copy of this and all the document's.

Listen, respect others property, leave when asked to or be arrested, it's your choice.

The Church did not invest millions for the most beautiful spot is Salt Lake City to have twerps like you defile it.

They fought the fight and won. You and all rude and childish tantrum throwers did not. Grow up.

Anonymous | 10:27 a.m. July 13, 2009

Fred,

Your missionaries do that all the time!

Get a clue, dude!

It's about the children | 10:27 a.m. July 13, 2009

As a mother, it seems that in addition to the intolerance of the GLBT community toward others' beliefs they are forgetting that homosexual behavior is considered a deviant sexual behavior to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and always will be short of divine revelation to the contrary (regardless of how many protests they make). As loving parents it is our job to keep as much unnecessary societal filth from our children as we can. Having children exposed to such homosexual behavior is age-inappropriate for young children. To appropriately explain such behavior is beyond their ability to grasp. It's the same reason you wouldn't take young children to a violent or sexually overt movie without it having consequences on their development. Things like Gender Identity Disorder are fed by such casual displays of homosexual behavior. For the sake of society such behavior at the very least needs to remain private. As much as GLBTs may not want to accept LDS beliefs and sensitivities, I hope they will have the decency to respect our children.

Baloney | 10:28 a.m. July 13, 2009

I have yet to see a "peaceful" demonstration by a gay group yet!!!

Common Folks | 10:31 a.m. July 13, 2009

This has nothing to do with private property. The premise was that the church does not permit public displays of affection on its property. But we all know this is not true as every day, of every week, it is practiced in a very public way. This was about whom, not what.

Now these gents out of respect should have honored the property owners beleifs, even if they did not personally share them. It was in poor taste. This is not a mormon problem, but a problem many churchs face whose property is deemed a tourist destination.

The bigger problem is not that the church was within its rights, but how and when they choose to enforce those rights. There are many times in life that being in the right but at the wrong time creates a public relations nightmare. And that is what the church has here. Rather than let two disrespectful individuals move on, they put the spot light on them, giving the world a chance to criticise the church for the uneven application of its own rules.

If kissing is banned, it should be banned for all. Not just for those to whom you object.

Anonymous | 10:32 a.m. July 13, 2009

I would much rather see a public display of affection between two men...

...than see a public display of intolerance, bigotry, and religious extremism!

Question Prudence? | 10:34 a.m. July 13, 2009

Why would someone who is Gay or Lesbian walk across property owned by an organization/group that is internationally know for being anti-gay?

Wouldn't you want to avoid any association this organization? This groups has spent millions and spend exhorbitant hours explaining their disdain for Gays & Lesbians, as well as promoting laws that discriminate against Non-LDS American citizens.

Wouldn't the "Ick" factor or "Guilty by Association" make you want to avoid this group at all cost? If you don't support discriminatory behaviour, wouldn't you avoid being around those that promote discrimination?

Can't leave the church | 10:36 a.m. July 13, 2009

I'm amazed that people can LEAVE the Church but not LEAVE THE CHURCH ALONE. Dude, if I left an organization because of belief-differences you can bet I'd never go near it again. These people are unreal.

Duh! | 10:37 a.m. July 13, 2009

This is why they went there for ! to cause and Issue!
Why else would they be there!

Get a life ! And respect those who do not want your life!

Waste | 10:43 a.m. July 13, 2009

How will you ever achieve equal rights? You are making so many enemies with stunts like this. You do not have equal rights yet you continue to engage in counter productive nonsense. If you were running my civil rights movement I would fire you without pay. You can catch more flies with honey then with vinegar.

Private property means private. The Catholic church says a Priest has to be celibate to join. We can complain that this discriminates against heterosexual people because they cannot marry. I guess asexual people would not feel a thing wrong. But the rules clearly state you must be celibate.

There is no debate. I guess if you are Gay you must practice the same celibacy. Rules are part of religion if you do not like the rules find a different religion. Simple right versus wrong. Acting like a Assss is not going to win you support.

John Pack Lambert | 10:43 a.m. July 13, 2009

All those who are claiming this was a mere peck on the lips are speaking falsehoods. They were "hugging and Kissing". Some statements suggest that even that is too moderate a description.
From what some have said, it appears that what these men were doing would have been called out if any two people had been doing it on the plaza.
I tend to believe that Kim Farah is telling the truth, and that the Church has clear policies against public displays of affection like this couple was doing. No self-respecting parent would tolerate their children watching what this couple was doing, no matter what the genders of those involved were.

RE: Leave the LDS Church Alone | 10:44 a.m. July 13, 2009

Anonymous - The answer as to why some will not leave the LDS Church alone is simple. Because they did not leave others alone. When you attack families who are not LDS and change a constitution to deny them equal access to government programs, they are going to be angry. Not so difficult to understand.

Before you all go off about the LDS Church didn't change the Calornia constitution, the voters did, blah, blah, blah. Your own (LDS) lobbyist explained how 88% of the volunteer effort were from the LDS Church and a majority of the money came from the LDS Church and it's members. When LDS temple workers were pulled from their assignments to promote amendment H8, its hard for any rational human being to deny the impact.

And that would include your own (LDS hired) lobbyist who admitted if the LDS Church had not played such a significant role, it would not have passed.

John Pack Lambert | 10:47 a.m. July 13, 2009

The claim that the LDS Church does not pay property tax is false. It most certainly does pay property taxes on its mall properties, on many of the ranches it operates, and actually pays property tax on the London Temple.
I do not know if it pays property tax on the mainstreet plaza, but it payed serveral million dollars to purchase that property.
However, the Church most certainly does pay propety taxes on many of its properties.

Anonymous | 10:49 a.m. July 13, 2009

You had to see this demonstration coming....

Anonymous | 10:50 a.m. July 13, 2009

From an article printed in the Des News in July of 2007 -

"The deal for the city to give the Church its easement on the plaza closed on Monday at 11:00 a.m. As of that time, pedestrians no longer have the legal right to walk through the plaza. Church officials, however, say the plaza will remain open to the public for the foreseeable future. Still, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will have the right to control how people behave or dress and what they can and can't do or say on its property."

There it is, in full compliance with the law. Pedestrians are guests allowed on the plaza only because the LDS church is willing to let them walk on it. The church also has the right to ask anybody to leave who doesn't comply with their standards of decency in dress, speech and behavior.

Once they ask you to leave, any rights you had until that point are gone. If you refuse to leave, you're trespassing and are able to be arrested and escorted off the property. If you argue, that can add to the charges. End of story.

Correction: | 10:51 a.m. July 13, 2009

The article was from July of 2003. Excuse the typo.

Waste | 10:55 a.m. July 13, 2009

Wake up unless God comes back on earth and say you know guys I was wrong about that Homosexual thing please except it as an alternative lifestyle there is no way these churches are going to bend their beliefs to satisfy some powerful interest group. Unless you can show some right the church is violating then you have no case. If they were going to Gay people's house and reading bible versus then you could accuse them of religious extremism. Religious intolerance and extremism is what they have in Iran.

John Pack Lambert | 11:05 a.m. July 13, 2009

To the 4:46 commentator,
My first guess is because there is a greater desire to push anything against the Mormon Church. The attack on the LDS Church in Olympia, Washington has been better covered than the one on Mount Hope Christian in Lansing, Michigan. Both were done by the anarchist group Bash Back. Why this group even cares about Prop 8 is incomprehensible, they want to abolish all government, so disliking people restricting what it does is illogical.
That said, the Washington Case involved mere vandalism, while the Michigan case involved invasion of the church during services, shouting things like "Jesus was gay", throwing around condoms and setting off the fire alarm. The amazing thing is that this flagrantly illegal act did not make it into any papers here.
On the El Paso case, the first I heard about it was when the ACLU decided to sue the El Paso Police Department for not prosecuting the restraunt for removing disruptive patrons.
I think why the Salt Lake Case gets more coverage is because there are fewer witnesses, and with the limited public acces rules it is not a pure private property issue, evidently you can never fully buy property.

Scott | 11:06 a.m. July 13, 2009

Any sort of protest can go from peaceful to out of control in the blink of an eye. I wouldn't want people protesting on my doorstep no matter what the cause or how peaceful they seemed at the moment.

These people have the whole rest of the world in which to protest, make their point and push their agenda. If they're choosing to be right in peoples faces about it they can't pretend their motives are inocent or benevolent.

When you go on the offensive you have to expect to be treated as a threat and not as a friend. A protester on neutral ground may claim to be peaceful, but when they're standing on your doorstep it's a different story. The fact that the land is public property may make it legal, but it doesn't make it neutral ground.

Anonymous | 11:11 a.m. July 13, 2009

"I'm amazed that people can LEAVE the Church but not LEAVE THE CHURCH ALONE."

As soon as the Church leaves the rest of us alone and stops sending 50,000 missionaries out, and as soon as the Church stops calling me and my family members trying to get phone numbers for the membership department, and as soon as the Church leaves gays and lesbians alone and stops interfering with their rights, THEN we will leave the Church alone!

Until that day, expect us to interfere and intervene!

John Pack Lambert | 11:16 a.m. July 13, 2009

To sleepdawg,
Properties in Salt Lake City have been sold to a great many churches by the city. Some how in other cases no one found a need to bring a suit.
I have been in other cities council meetings were an easement was vacated to a church without anyone commenting on it, and the case I am thinking of involves a city where city council meetings regularly run seven hours because of people commenting on virtually everything.
The reason to sell the street was that with so many LDS developments on both sides, cross traffic was becoming an issue and people were in great danger of being hurt. If you really don't like the rules, just walk around the outside of the bloc, it won't kill you that's for sure. Most Americans need more exercise.

Philip | 11:20 a.m. July 13, 2009

Paul S., are you always this abusive with people you don't agree with? Am I suppose to cringe at this abuse? My strength comes in knowing that more and more straight people are accepting gay people just as they are. Yes, even some Mormons and Catholics. I hope Mormon gays especially take away that knowledge from this discussion. Utah will just have to be on the wrong side of history again.

John Pack Lambert | 11:24 a.m. July 13, 2009

To the 5:26 poster,
First off, you are engaged in a hard core false attack. Liberty University has no policies against inter-racial dating.
You are thinking of Bob Jones University. However that is not actually an issue, because Bob Jones University revoked its rules against inter-racial dating. They have only been brought up recently to fuel false charges.
Anyway, this was not just a couple holding hands. This was a couple doing a full make-out session.
Beyond this, you assume that race can be easily identified. The black and white couple I think of first, or at least that I know by far the best, involves a man who does not look black at all but he certainly has ancestors who were slaves in the United States, which makes him more of a truly historic black than our current President.

Dianne | 11:24 a.m. July 13, 2009

When I was a nursing mother, I knew that some might not be comfortable with my nursing in public (even with a cover), so I never did it, except in places designated or appropriate to do so.
Nursing is a very natural and right thing to do, but many people consider it uncomfortable in public.
So, most mothers are considerate of the feelings of the public and are very discreet about it.

Why couldn't these two men be respectful and considerate of the place they were, and refrain from an activity that might be uncomfortable for the majority that would be there?

It's just a matter of respect, and they had none!

John Pack Lambert | 11:45 a.m. July 13, 2009

To the 6:38 commentator,
The Church has the unequivocal right to take all actions neccesary to prevent demonstrations on its property. This means they can declare individuals personas non gratis because of participation in a demonstration and ban their entrance on the property in theory indefinantly. In this case they had on multiple occasions told the demonstrators not to come on the property and then they willfully and knowingly disobeyed the order.
What surprises me is that the police did not cite these people for protest.
The Church has an unequivocable right to decide what dehavior is ok and what is not ok on its property.
Although the rules clearly apply to PDA of all kinds, acceptable homosexual displays of affection are a contradiction in terms, and the church has the right to decide what is an is not acceptable showing of affection on its property.
The analogy to inter-racial couples is both stupid and immaterial. Sex is a clear and absolute physical characteristic. Race is a social construct. Even its boundaries are complexed and often contradictory.
My question to you, would you object to seeing a Korean man holding hands with his Japanese wife?

Anonymous | 11:47 a.m. July 13, 2009

there gay.. so they should be treated differently. get off the church grounds

@its about the children | 11:53 a.m. July 13, 2009

"Things like Gender Identity Disorder are fed by such casual displays of homosexual behavior." really? I have masters degree in mental health and been a mental health professional for over 20 years and read mountains of research on childhood development this is a new one to me care to share your references?

Thank you DNEWS | 11:57 a.m. July 13, 2009

This is great news coverage of this incident..... THE THE SL LIBUNE ON THE OTHER HAND HAS A FRONT PAGE PICTURE of some a-typical gay old geezer in a lock lip with some 15 yr old gay partner....SICK!!....THREW UP my breakfast!

Duh | 11:57 a.m. July 13, 2009

This was NOT about PDA, people. It was about TRESSPASSING! I love how these kinds of things get twisted up into something about the Church. Yes, it was Church property and Church security. But that's all. The two gentleman could have shown some respect and done as they were asked. They were asking for trouble and they got what they deserved when they wouldn't comply.

John Pack Lambert | 11:59 a.m. July 13, 2009

To Philip,
The LDS Church did not buy the plaza. They bought a stinking piece of raod with lots of concreate, that was part of way too many roads.
So the Church bought the property for a few million, and then paid to tear out the ugly concreate and create a beutiful and wonderful plaza.
A good analogy would be, would the Catholic Church tolerate a gay couple making out on the property of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Detroit.
This is sacred space right by the Salt Lake Temple, we do not want people displaying same-sex affection there. This was clearly a display of people who have a sexual attraction to eachother, and to try to claim it was anything else is just to ignore the facts.
It also appears that the perpetrators stopped intentionally close to the Salt Lake Temple to make their desicration all the more galling. They may have even planned it so they would offend temple workers on their way home.

Anonymous | 12:09 p.m. July 13, 2009

The REALLY important things are right here in Utah. Judging by the quantity of posts the REALLY important things are the Main Street Plaza and the Stadium of Fire ISSUES. But Iraq, the Congo and the Sudan do affect you Mr. and Mrs. Utah. Neil Diamond tells you how. "Coming to America" as refugees from all the violence in Africa and the Middle East. Your tax dollars paid for the invasion of Iraq and the anarchy there. Your taxes pay for the thousands of refugees being settled in Utah and in the United States. President Obama is correct when he says Africa needs to stop destroying itself with violence and corruption. America needs to not shoot itself in the foot AGAIN in the future (example Iraq) and to support prosperity and good government in the Third World.

And for those Obama detractors, YES we need more prosperity and good government here in Utah and the USA. The devil is in the details.

Enough | 12:16 p.m. July 13, 2009

You all are just beating a dead horse, here. You all really have nothing better to do than sit there are force your opinions on others.. how sad is that. This subject is never going to get past the point it is at now. So forget about it and get a life. Also, if living in Utah is THAT terrible, you are more than free to leave. We'd be happy to see you go

Tynkyr Belle | 12:20 p.m. July 13, 2009

Substitute GAY with BLACK and the entire story would look differently - and I'd LOVE to hear you try and justify that. The point I'm making is that while you'd think twice before denying access to a PUBLIC AREA (private property or not) by any other minority - you think it's perfectly acceptable to be homophobic bastards.

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)