Couples pucker up to make positive point

'Kiss-in' held near Temple Square to protest incident


Return To Article
  • Midde aged
    Nov. 4, 2009 9:55 a.m.

    I am a southern, middle-aged lesbian and property owner who absolutely believes in individual property rights. I am also totally grossed-out and offended by heterosexual PDA. Why? I don't know. I just am. It just seems so unnatural. I would hope that the Mormon church would "clamp down" on all forms of PDA just to be fair, I think my position is equally moral. Lastly, I think that the concept of "private ownership" is not so clear when owned by a tax exempt-collective who is calling upon tax-funded peace officers to intervene on a property that has all the appearances of a public space a park atmosphere. From the earliest time, parks (as opposed to open fields) have been common grounds. This "private" public place is at best, deception. The Mormon organization should be taxed for it. Also what is this testimony thing? Sound like cult language.

  • Jmann
    July 19, 2009 8:23 p.m.

    Is there a public service type sign within this area that states these "rules"? If i was asked to leave a property due to a PDA, i could understand being angered if it was not somewhere stated. I don't mean to say "stated on the news or in a comment in a newspaper", i mean somewhere in plain sight on this property. This is just my personal inquiry in an attempt to understand the full story. I highly doubt that the church "saw them peck and whipped out a pair of handcuffs", but that doesn't mean i agree with it. Either way, i would appreciate a comment or even an article with a much more detailed turn of events and the answer to my query. Thank You :)

  • Jrodr
    July 18, 2009 12:14 a.m.

    1. Any self-respecting organization would want to gather the facts before issuing a statement.

    2. The Church might, or might not, have security footage of the incident. (Did I miss something, or has it been established that such footage exists?)

    3. It seems highly unusual that a simple kiss on on the cheek would elicit a security response. As an Hispanic man, it is customary for me to kiss my male friends, my brother, my sons, on the cheek. We sometimes walk arm in arm down the street. I have done so countless times in the area in question without eliciting such a security response.

    4. Church security are highly trained individuals. If this were not the case, surely complaints of this nature would have occurred more frequently.

    The Church maintains that more was occurring than a simple "kiss on the cheek". I have to assume that there is some merit to this, as I have stated before, that I have "kissed" many male acquaintances on the cheek with affection in this same location without any problems.

  • @3:34
    July 17, 2009 4:01 p.m.

    I do not hate the Mormons. I am a mormon. I was meerly pointing out the suspiciousness of the Church in waiting a week.

    If it is as you say, "The Church isn't required to make a statement because it is a police issue" Then why do they bother.

    I was taught to question my surroundings, and read more into something to see if there is any other intent other that what is said.

    I am sorry if me posting my train of thought offended you.

  • Oh bother
    July 17, 2009 3:34 p.m.

    The Church isn't required to make a statement because it is a police issue. I am getting real sick of the "hate them because they are Mormon" attitude. Nope, still not Mormon and never will be..will until some Mormon decides to do something after I am dead, but I'm agnostic so it doesn't matter though I do find it silly. Still though, the issue remains, their property their rules.

  • @1:10
    July 17, 2009 3:00 p.m.

    The funny thing I would have to say about this comment that you made, and the churchroom made... Why is it being issued ONE WEEK after the original incident? Why not issue it the next day. It would have a lot more credibility. Also, the church has security footage of this incident, if they are bent on clearing the air on what "really" happened, why not release the footage. Put to rest the controversy.

    Maybe they won't do this because they are putting a spin on it to make them look better, and if the real evidence was released, we would see they are lying.

    Or maybe they don't want to add fuel to the fire, want to take the high road. If that is the case I am fine with it, but if it is again... Why a week later?

  • oh bother
    July 17, 2009 2:38 p.m.

    The government didn't "GIVE" temple square to the Mormons, the Mormon put in sweat equity and MADE Temple Square. It is private property just as my home and yard are private property. Just as I make rules for my property, so too may the Mormons create their own rules.

    A Gay couple was on private property and disobeyed the known rule...please do not suggest otherwise and no I'm not a Mormon. It was a purposeful act with an agenda. This "kiss in" is another agenda again on PRIVATE PROPERTY. I voted for gay marriage once...I won't do it again.

  • LDS newsroom
    July 17, 2009 1:55 p.m.

    "They were politely told"

    And the LDS newsroom "knows" this because.....

  • Focus on the facts...
    July 17, 2009 1:10 p.m.

    More information has come to light about this incident. Why it was left out of the original story is beyond my knowledge. However, the details provide more context and would have never been brought to light had these two men not made such a big deal out of it.

    "As we [LDS Newsroom] said earlier on this matter, these men were asked to stop engaging in behavior deemed inappropriate for any couple on the Plaza. There was much more involved than a simple kiss on the cheek. They engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language, and had obviously been using alcohol. They were politely told that the Plaza was not the place for such behavior and asked to stop. When they became belligerent, the two individuals were asked to leave Church property. Church security detained them and Salt Lake City police were called."

    (See LDS Newsroom, July 17, 2009)

    The actions of these two gentlemen may well have been addressed in a similar fashion in store or library. They did it in spite looking for a fight and this should simply be laid to rest. Let's move on.

  • re: lame waste
    July 17, 2009 12:58 p.m.

    "I've talked to plenty of people who practice homosexual behavior and they engage in it in pursuit of sexual gratification."

    If you believe the above then the only reason you married was for sexual gratification. I know hundreds of gay people, as my son is gay. I have lived with my son and his partner. Their relationship is as fulfilling and their commitment is as complete as any married couple I know. It is not any more about sexual gratification than my marriage to my wife is. Love extends far beyond the sex. They have been together long enough in a monogamous relationship to prove that to me. That's where you are wrong.

    Your argument re: it's senseless because there will be no kids is as dumb as saying people who don't want kids and therefore don't should not get married. But maybe you'd say that too.

  • Red
    July 17, 2009 12:10 p.m.

    "... as the gathering was beginning to disperse, about 35 protesters crossed onto church property and walked around the reflecting pond, eliciting a call to police ..."

    As described, the lip-locks had taken place on undisputed public-access land (non-LDS-controlled sidewalk), and were over.

    People who had attended the kiss-in -- but who, now, were perfectly demure non-demonstrators -- then calmly went to the reflecting pond and were forced to leave, despite behavior identical to everyone else who visited the pond.

    Doesn't sound right, if their behavior/dress/etc. *while on Church property* was unobjectionable.

    As described, they didn't go onto Church property to protest. They went sightseeing *after* a protest. If the report tells the whole story, they shouldn't have been asked to leave.

  • Red
    July 17, 2009 11:59 a.m.

    "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?"

    Fair 'nuff.

    However, if I'm not wearing any trousers, they've got to serve me, right?

  • re: re: re: to the lame waste
    July 17, 2009 7:40 a.m.

    I've talked to plenty of people who practice homosexual behavior and they engage in it in pursuit of sexual gratification.

    I don't necessarily choose my sexual feelings, but I do choose my sexual behavior, just like everybody else does. The question of recognizing homosexual behavior through marriage isn't one of "feelings," it's a question of what is best for society. Since we need population growth moving forward (how else are we going to pay for Obama's spending and proposed spending?), it makes no sense to recognize any kind of sexual behavior (through marriage or civil unions) other than what occurs between a man and a woman who are married to each other.

    Thank you for pointing out my ignorance (like a teenager to a parent). Now please tell me where I am wrong.

  • re: re: to the lame waste
    July 16, 2009 5:49 p.m.

    "Homosexual behavior produces and promotes nothing of value to society. It actually harms society by eliminating two potential procreators. Homosexual behavior is not one's identity. It is a chosen, unproductive, and unecessary form of sexual gratification."

    And so goes the beat of uninformed bigotry. Ever talked to a gay person? Asked them why they are gay? Asked them what they get out of their relationship? Asked them how they feel about the idea of having a heterosexual relationship instead?
    Did you choose your heterosexuality? Your ignorance on the subject is highlighted by "It (homosexuality)...is (an) unnecessary form of sexual gratification." You just don't get it.

  • re: To the lame "Waste"
    July 16, 2009 4:22 p.m.

    Religious behavior is a protected right...homosexual behavior is not.

    Here is why:

    religion produces a sense of self-worth, promotes order, peace (the most violent killers of the last century were atheists of Russia and China), and other society-benefiting virtues.

    Homosexual behavior produces and promotes nothing of value to society. It actually harms society by eliminating two potential procreators. Homosexual behavior is not one's identity. It is a chosen, unproductive, and unecessary form of sexual gratification.

    Check out DemographicWinterdotcom. For more information on the dangers of homosexuality to society.

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2009 4:11 p.m.

    First someone posting here yourself, is kinda hypocritical chastising me for posting.
    Second I have many outlets for my opinions, I'm just slumming in UTAH today. You can find me at Huffington Post and most major LGBT forums...oh you wouldn't even know where they are....nevermind.

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2009 4:07 p.m.

    Silly SJ.

    Anyone who does not enter a name is given the title "anonymous." It probably IS several different people.

  • SJ
    July 16, 2009 2:55 p.m.

    Mr. Anonymous seems to have been quite busy. He must not have a life so he hangs out on here making multiple posts that are absurd at best and are supposed to appear like they are from different people. Sad that this appears to be his only outlet in life.

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2009 2:13 p.m.

    Tourists Utah is knocking themselves out trying to attract as your foreclosures reach the top 5 states and jobs are dropping like flies. Aren't going to journey back to 2 Centuries ago to spend their money in your bigotted Hate state.
    So keep having your temple goons attack couples, kinda like they murdered the body guard of the elder who dared ordain a Black man. Same haters different year.
    It's your homes and your jobs that you hurt.

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2009 2:03 p.m.

    I suggest you keep YOUR missionaries off gay's and lesbian's private property. You aren't going to like OUR security guards knocking you to the ground, tie wrapping your wrists behind your back, and screaming how DISGUSTING you are.

    "treat others as you want to be treated"

    Guess you missed that RULE!

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2009 1:22 p.m.

    Nice how Mormons insist that nobody judge ALL of them by the actions of a few (like a certain seminary principal and pedophile), but then they use convenient labels such as "the gay community" to attack and dismiss ALL gay people with one harsh judgment!

    I guess by those standards, we are safe to say that Mormons are all bigots, right?

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2009 1:20 p.m.

    "only those who don't follow the universally known guidelines."

    How are they universally known? Did you know that public displays of affection were not allowed on the plaza? I didn't. I thought it was a regular occurance for couples to kiss and hug on these grounds.

    There is no listing of guidelines once you enter nor is there a statement that you are now on private property.

    How are these universally known?

    Please tell me the universally known dress code for the plaza. They have one, you know.

  • Dear Anonymous @ 12:01 pm
    July 16, 2009 12:24 p.m.

    We aren't normal. We're a peculiar people and proud of it. We aren't targeting pedestrians, only those who don't follow the universally known guidelines.

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2009 12:16 p.m.

    "Well, that is exactly how the gay community is acting. Stop being a bunch of whiny, screaming babies! It's really getting old. All of your protests and whatever other dramatic production you can come up with isn't going to change anything, it just makes you look bad. "

    How many showed up for that Kiss-in? 60? 100?

    Do you have any idea how many gays there are right here in the Salt Lake Valley?

    Please, yourself! Do not judge all gays by the actions of a few. It is as unfair as judging all seminary principals by...well, you can figure that out.

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2009 12:01 p.m.

    SLC residents,
    Ya do know NORMAL states don't give whole city blocks to a THEOCRACY with their private goon squads targeting pedestrians...don't ya?

  • Puh-lease!
    July 16, 2009 11:38 a.m.

    Have you ever seen a toddler throw a tantrum at the grocery store, or when they are told that it is nap time.. Well, that is exactly how the gay community is acting. Stop being a bunch of whiny, screaming babies! It's really getting old. All of your protests and whatever other dramatic production you can come up with isn't going to change anything, it just makes you look bad.

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2009 10:19 a.m.

    To Santa Claus | 9:29 a.m. July 16, 2009
    "What rights are you talking about? I assume it is not marriage because everyone has the right to marry."

    To the person that they want to? Like Loving v. Virginia, they were allowed to marry the person that they wanted to.

    What legal reasons do you have to keep two loving, committed gay people from marrying each other?

  • To Santa Claus
    July 16, 2009 9:29 a.m.

    What rights are you talking about? I assume it is not marriage because everyone has the right to marry.

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2009 8:23 a.m.

    On the 40th anniversary of Loving v Virginia, Mildred Loving released this statement:

    "My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.
    ...not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights."

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2009 8:10 a.m.

    "The actual law says that different races can marry each other, but it's also talking about men marrying women. There is nothing in it whatsoever about homosexual marriages. "

    There is nothing about men marrying women either. It just talks about "marriage."

    loving v. virginia:
    “ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

    Read Iowa's Supreme Court decision. It agrees with Loving v. Virginia that it is a 14th amendment right.

  • Re: Anonymous 4:57 pm
    July 15, 2009 8:59 p.m.

    You should try actually READING Loving v. Virginia before you make that comment. The actual law says that different races can marry each other, but it's also talking about men marrying women. There is nothing in it whatsoever about homosexual marriages.

  • Anonymous
    July 15, 2009 4:57 p.m.

    " You can marry to. I can no more marry a man then you can. How is the law being applied different?"

    That argument was dismissed with Loving v. Virginia. People like you were arguing that Blacks and Whites both had the same rights - they could marry someone of their own race! The Supreme Court said Marriage is a right. You should be able to marry the one you love.

    "What right you want that you don't have in civil unions?"

    Do you live in Utah? There is a little thing here called Amendment 3 that states that civil unions betweens gays are ILLEGAL! If only I could even get a civil union...

  • RE: Santa Claus | 4:03 p
    July 15, 2009 4:37 p.m.

    You know that is a specious argument. I am not able to kiss the one I love which happens to be the same sex. Gay couples are treated differently than hetero couples. And saying why don't you kiss someone of the opposite sex is like saying go kiss your grandma...it just isn't the same.

  • Hey wasted!
    July 15, 2009 4:10 p.m.

    Wrong. Privileges do not have equal protection. If that was the case Polygamist would be marrying now. Your argument is not valid. The basic argument is that I can do nothing that you can't. And I can't. The same law that applies to you applies to me. Your choice is not a valid argument. You can marry to. I can no more marry a man then you can. How is the law being applied different? Now if made a law saying Gays cannot marry women but heterosexual men can then you would be in the right. But you not so get over it. Come at it from a different angle. What right you want that you don't have in civil unions? That is a more productive use of your time.

  • Anonymous
    July 15, 2009 3:29 p.m.

    NoRightToLove? Really? | 3:03
    What does Saudi Arabia has to do with anything? What a lame argument! I live in the US and it is here that I will push for my rights. Why don't you build a LDS temple in Saudi Arabia (See, very silly argument)

  • Hey wasted!
    July 15, 2009 3:21 p.m.

    Since you cannot understand our constitution, let me try and put it in simpler words.

    Marriage is a privilege that is given by the state. No state should pass any law that abridges the privileges of any citizen of the United States. As a United States citizen, you passed a law abridging my right to marry.

    OK? Simple enough?

  • Anonymous
    July 15, 2009 3:17 p.m.

    "She told me that she saw hundreds of her gay friends both male and female all die from the dreaded disease of aids. She was the only one who survived."

    And you believed her? Lesbians do NOT contract AIDS through sex. They actually have the LOWEST STD rate of any sexually active group, including married heterosexuals!

    This story is very far fetched unless all her lesbian friends were intro veinous drug users and shared needles, which has nothing to do with being homosexual.

    You need to get an education and not believe everything you hear.

  • Santa Claus
    July 15, 2009 3:11 p.m.

    Why are you talking about a celibate gay man for? Where did that even come from? What we are talking about is my right to do the same thing that others are allowed to do without consequence. That is, kissing whomever I choose. Gay people are being singled out for being gay. You and I both know that hetero couples kiss and hold hands in that plaza and they are not asked to leave.

  • NoRightToLove? Really?
    July 15, 2009 3:03 p.m.

    You want to know what right to love is, I tell you what. Go to Saudi Arabia have a Kiss In and tell me the results if you make it back. Now that is a state that is taking away your rights. Better learn the difference so we will not get all that Whine....

  • Waste
    July 15, 2009 2:52 p.m.

    Santa you a Celibate Gay man what particular right is being in that amendment? I did not tell you to cite the constitution I just asked you to name the right a single Celibate Gay man is being denied. Basically you passed on the question I guess that means there are none.

  • Santa Claus
    July 15, 2009 2:27 p.m.

    Here is a portion of the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Please pay particular attention to the last clause. It means I have the same rights as you do to assemble, to live, to love who I choose, etc.
    "Therefore, No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

  • Waste
    July 15, 2009 1:57 p.m.

    Santa Clause open your hears because you about to hear me say something you never thought I would. You know you're right. So what I need you to do is list for me your individual rights that are taken away by LDS or any other entity.

    Remember individual is what the founding fathers envisioned. I know you are going to say well "our" but really rights are individually assigned. Benefits are the only thing we have in our system that takes two people to recognize. Let's say you are going to be celibate the rest of your life what right do you not have in your new celibate life style that others have? I left a bunch of free space below for you to list them. But I think this is all the space you will need. _____.

  • Pink Sheep
    July 15, 2009 1:55 p.m.

    A second Kiss-in is planned at 12:15 this Sunday. Lets all go kiss our lovers on Main St Plaza!

  • Cindy
    July 15, 2009 1:53 p.m.

    Many years ago I knew a woman name Nancy who used to work at the same job that I was at. At the time, she was completely 100% straight. However she told me of her past of being totally gay and always pro gay activist while she lived in California. I asked her what made her change her lifestyle. She told me that she saw hundreds of her gay friends both male and female all die from the dreaded disease of aids. She was the only one who survived. She told me that she knew that God was trying to tell her that being gay and homosexual was not right. She turned her heart back to God and became a much happier person. I hope others will learn from Nancy and turn back to the way God would want them to be too.

  • Re: Santa Claus
    July 15, 2009 1:53 p.m.

    Except that they can. Unless a "right" is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, or is a universal right that everybody in the population has, it can be granted or taken away with a single vote. Since the right to be married isn't a universal right, each state votes on what they feel is acceptable in their own society. Not one of the states has voted to accept homosexual marriage, because it goes against the standards for decency the society feels are acceptable.

  • Anonymous
    July 15, 2009 1:41 p.m.

    We are doing Something like this in Minneapolis. People just need to see it and we need to come out and be cool with our self's ;0) Search Facebook for Big Gay Kiss on the Mall.

  • bwinla
    July 15, 2009 1:00 p.m.

    Odd they never get after all the couples who make out after walking out of the temple. Too bad the city government was corrupt in allowing that church to buy that once public street and make it private. Shows the lack seperation in Utah between church and state.

  • Santa Claus
    July 15, 2009 12:44 p.m.

    The United States of America is a republic. The founding fathers were well aware that the majority was capable of running over the rights of the minority and that is why we have a Bill of Rights. A large proportion of americans can believe that there is a god or that homosexuality is wrong, but they cannot vote to take away my rights because I feel differently than they do.

    July 15, 2009 12:24 p.m.

    Well do you know what they say about men who SHOUT about their homosexuality? Keep in mind it is not us that are asking to call our relationships the same as Gays. Remember it's you guys that are trying to be just like Mike. You wanna be like Mike. Like Mike if you could be like Mike.

  • Anonymous
    July 15, 2009 12:19 p.m.

    "Being Gay is illegal in some states. And being Gay was illegal in far more places in the past you are simply one law away from it happening again. States voted in 2004 to remove yet more rights from Gays. Being Gay is breaking the law in certain states are you going to tell those Gays to stop breaking the law?"

    Read Lawrence v. Texas and what the Supreme Court decided.

    Homosexuality is NOT ILLEGAL in any state of the Union. Please catch up with what is real.

    July 15, 2009 12:07 p.m.

    you know what they say about mean that have to SHOUT about their heterosexuality right?

  • RE: Santa Claus
    July 15, 2009 11:50 a.m.

    Before you call people dinosaurs keep in mind no state has voted FOR Gay Marriage yet. Gays have done back room deals that are probably going to make sure that there is going to be a whole lot of CHANGE in 2010. If liberal California is not down with it how do you think the rest of the country feels about it? If my thinking is such like a dinosaur let's put it to a national vote???? We will see who is dying out I do not talk the talk I walk the walk. Put up what you got I am willing to abide by the vote what say you? You scared of a dinosaur? You feel lucky Well DO YA?

  • Waste
    July 15, 2009 11:29 a.m.

    You would have a far stronger case Anonymous if you were claiming Housing discrimination, Job discrimination, voting discrimination, discrimination at a restaurant, Being paid less then straights, Discrimination in college admissions, discrimination of hospital treatment, being beat up for being Gay, and this would sound better if the church simply asked you to leave for being Gay not doing anything but politely sitting around minding your own business.

    In the civil rights struggle they did that. They sat at the counter politely not making a scene and not doing anything to get attention. That is the part of the lesson Gays forgot. Besides trying to claim violation of rights where it takes two people to make a case is bordering on the insane. I don't expect you to answer the discrepancy just for you to call me stupid for even bringing it up.

  • Santa Claus
    July 15, 2009 11:22 a.m.

    Re: Anonymous at 11:02
    There is no god so your argument means nothing. Being gay is not illegal in any state. Where do you get your information? I think you just make things up because you don't have a leg to stand on. Your outmoded thinking will go the way of the dinousaurs. You know dinosaurs, the creatures that existed millions of years ago before man evolved.

  • Anonymous
    July 15, 2009 11:02 a.m.

    Anonymous are you familiar with the term "But for the Grace of God Goes I"?, I think not? Being Gay is illegal in some states. And being Gay was illegal in far more places in the past you are simply one law away from it happening again. States voted in 2004 to remove yet more rights from Gays. Being Gay is breaking the law in certain states are you going to tell those Gays to stop breaking the law?
    So that argument just does not wash. The only argument that does wash is pursuit of happiness which means you have as much right as me, the polygamist, the incest, bestiality or anyone else to pursue happiness. And laws contrary to that are contrary to the spirit of the constitution. Although the Supreme court thus far has decided to late the states decide which behavior will be protected or not. So do not think you are in too different a position then they are.

  • Re:Anonymous | 10:04 a.m.
    July 15, 2009 10:36 a.m.

    Why hide as "anonymous"?

    Is it beacuse you are one of the gay-hate spammers who posts under a variety of names in order to appear that there a number of people who share ytour misguided opinions?

    Is it because you don not know or understand logic?

    Is it because you do not want your friends to laugh at you for showing ignorance in not being able to post a coherent thought?

    Is it because you have no rational answer and defense for the irresponsible hate posted by the gay defenders of the provocateurs who profaned Temple Square?


  • Uppity Gay
    July 15, 2009 10:18 a.m.

    So it looks like most of you folks are upset with the uppity gays. As long as we be quiet and stay in the closet then your comfort zone and view of the world won't be disrupted. Well I hate to break it to you, but I won't be in the closet, I won't sit at the back of the bus, and I will kiss my partner whenever and wherever I want to. You can be shocked, you can be dismayed, you can say that I am a sinner or worse, but I deserve the same rights that you have.

  • Anonymous
    July 15, 2009 10:04 a.m.

    Based on the comments by Jordan, TJustSaying, george and others, they apparently don't teach logic in the LDS Church or BYU! Too bad. I thought the glory of god was intelligence! There is no glory in Utah!

  • How strange!
    July 15, 2009 9:14 a.m.

    How strange it is that gays show no respect for those with different views, lifestyles, and while being in a small minority - studies repeatidly show gays to be no more that 1% - 3% of the population - demand that the majority adopt their actions as being something to celebrate.

    The more this gay hate attack on the 97% - 99% of the population unfolds, the more the gay hate attack focuses on religious organizations such as the LDS and Catholics, the less respect and less tolerance I, and many others have for ALL gays.

    Having a hard time with why responsible gays - if indeed there are such - do not denounce the actions of the gay haters who provoke, attack, and spew their hate.


  • Re: Anonymous | 8:44 a.m.
    July 15, 2009 9:11 a.m.

    Homosexuality is not illegal, you're right. But refusing to leave private property when asked to do so IS illegal, and that is why they were cited for trespassing. If they would have left when asked, they wouldn't have been cited.

  • Anonymous
    July 15, 2009 8:44 a.m.

    "Ask a polygamist if he is a polygamist based on your logic. I cannot discriminate against him or her either. He says it's natural I cannot prove it otherwise no more then I can prove your case. The same can be said of incest and bestiality, or Asexuals. "

    Polygamy, Incest, beastiality are all illegal. You can and should discriminate against those who are breaking the law. Homosexuality is not illegal.

    There is the main difference.

  • TJustSaying
    July 15, 2009 5:40 a.m.

    The KKK actively petitions against minority equal rights. They do not believe minorities should vote would it be a good idea to have a Kiss In in front of their facility? Maybe we could accuse them of taking away minority rights because they actively seek not only to remove minority rights but hopefully deport all minorities.

    Now I doubt the KKK feels much different about Gays but I have not heard or saw anyone in the Mormon church say Gays should not vote or should be deported yet they are in front of their door instead of the KKK.

    Talk about double talk. If the Mormons are actively removing your rights should have not asked for a federal investigation instead of a kiss in? If they are actively taking away your rights that is against federal law.

  • Darlene Wilcox
    July 15, 2009 2:32 a.m.

    Hey did you know that there was a Kiss in in Puebla Mexico also...There they made it illegal, a ticketable offence to kiss because they didn't want lesbians kissing in public, so the anual lesbian march stopped mid march to kiss...

  • george
    July 15, 2009 1:40 a.m.

    Can a church or organisation have a set of rules that they live by, or must it always be pathetically-labeled polically correct?

    We soon shall see individuals and organisations bringing law-suits against the so-called bigoted mormon church because the mormon church has a set of beliefs that it claims to have against a certain life-style.

    So, I am wondering, when will Chevez Regal or Marlboro bring charges against the mormon church because the mormons don't believe in drinking whiskey and smoking?

  • Anonymous
    July 14, 2009 8:46 p.m.

    To Rodney,


  • Rodney King
    July 14, 2009 7:05 p.m.

    Can't we all just get along? Really.

  • Immaturity
    July 14, 2009 5:30 p.m.

    This immature behavior has got to stop. It only hurts the gays and their reputation. It does not hurt the LDS church. The gay rights movement has become hostile, arrogant, and hateful. The only gays that deserve protection are those not involved and that have respect for others. These protesters who stick up for ones who break the law like Derick and Matt are at fault for the damage done.

  • Funny
    July 14, 2009 4:53 p.m.

    It's kind of funny that 'Waste' capitalizes the word, "gay." Their behavior doesn't deserve that kind of respect.

  • Exactly.
    July 14, 2009 4:49 p.m.

    Yes. Let's all admit we are being stupid and move on. By arguing, we are giving the LGBT community exactly what they want: attention and sympathy for their cause. Conservative Utah is surely the last place that gay marriage will be legalized, let alone recognized. Sorry for the publicity.

    Enough said.

    July 14, 2009 4:48 p.m.


  • Roy
    July 14, 2009 4:46 p.m.

    Is there a big sign on the walkway that says "Private Property - No 'Inappropriate' People Allowed"??

  • give me break
    July 14, 2009 4:43 p.m.

    these homosexual groups are trying to provoke the LDS church so they can make some sort of statement they are being picked on. Give me a break! I don't like seeing two men kiss and I don't want to see them kissing in front of a church or temple that people consider holy. These homosexual groups are mocking all people of faith, and thier agenda for America is too destory every faith in America that opposes thier deviant life style, now YOU know it's true, I know it's true, but we are letting these idiots tie our hands behind our backs with thier promotion of the homosexual life style. I live in MA and these homosexual groups by passed the people's vote, including mine, and got the Statehouse to pass this gay marriage bill..We the people need to stand up stronger to these groups before they destroy every decent thing in America with thier flith. They are targeting our young school kids now, so watch out!

  • Waste
    July 14, 2009 4:30 p.m.

    To The Lame your name is fitting. Here is why. Everyone wants to be some group. Those of us who have valid provable claims get to be one. There are a million people who want special status. How are we supposed to judge who is going to have the protection of law? Your way is to base it off of popular opinion. But the law needs standards. We have to set standards on how people become protected groups or we will have ciaos.The separation of Church and State is just that separation. They do not ask for special benefits. They do not want the state to perform security at the church. They do not seek federal money to keep the lights on or federal aid of any kind. If you are saying Gays fit that description then I stand corrected. Ask a polygamist if he is a polygamist based on your logic I cannot discriminate against him or her either. He says it's natural I cannot prove it otherwise no more then I can prove your case. The same can be said of incest and bestiality, or Asexuals.

  • To the lame "Waste"
    July 14, 2009 3:38 p.m.

    To Waste,

    "So calling yourself a group is putting the cart before the horse. First you need to be able to tell us how you can tell if people are Gay."

    Since when do civil rights depend on scientific and DNA evidence that a person is a human being?

    Our Constitution protects YOUR civil rights against infringement on the unfair basis of your religion. Tell me, how can you tell if you are Mormon? If you SAY you are Mormon, then you cannot be discriminated against on that basis! So YOU already prove your own (stupid) requirements: Ask a gay person if they are gay. If they say "yes" then you cannot discriminate against them based on their sexual preference.

    Is that too difficult for your puny brain to handle? Go get genetic testing, and if you are a member of a group of Down's syndrome people, then we will cut you some intellectual slack. Otherwise, admit you are being stupid and move on.

  • Anonymous
    July 14, 2009 3:38 p.m.

    "Put a Sign up saying No Same Sex Affection of any Kind allowed. Either that or wall the doggone thing up. "

    How about two women holding hands and/or two men holding hands with a big circle around it and a big diagonal line through it. I would understand that sign.

  • Solution
    July 14, 2009 3:28 p.m.

    Put a Sign up saying No Same Sex Affection of any Kind allowed. Either that or wall the doggone thing up.

  • Anonymous
    July 14, 2009 3:10 p.m.

    " If you don't like Utah's definition of a civil union, there are several states that will recognize your rights."

    Utah does NOT have civil unions! They will not even pass non discrimination legislation.

    Either you have rights by the US Constitution, or you don't. The constitution says that every state must honor the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Tell me why this is not happening...

  • Anonymous
    July 14, 2009 3:05 p.m.

    Please read the police report. They thought they were on public property. They did not know that they were being confronted by security guards at first. They admit that they became agressive in their speech. They had seen plenty of other couples hug and kiss and thought they were being singled out for being gay. They admit they had been drinking, but NO ONE was arrested for being drunk.

  • Waste
    July 14, 2009 2:49 p.m.

    The church is no more discriminating against you then Robert who has 10 wives or Ned who is married to his estranged sister Nilda. They do not believe in Polygamy, Incest, Homosexuality, and a whole host of other things.

    You cannot even claim a protect status as a group until you can prove scientifically how I would tell if a new born baby is Gay or not. Maybe you can answer why 20 and 30 year old people say I thought I was Gay but then I found out I like women too. I have seen the questions myself and had no answer.

    The truth be told no one is for sure how sexuality is determined. So calling yourself a group is putting the cart before the horse. First you need to be able to tell us how you can tell if people are Gay.

  • Yeah!
    July 14, 2009 2:09 p.m.

    Looks like this gay couple got exactly what they were looking for...
    1- Their names in the papers.
    2- Sparking up the controversy again over gay rights.
    I would say with all the hoo-hah that has been done about this story, it was well worth their time.

  • Joe
    July 14, 2009 1:58 p.m.

    I know my taxes are used to promote homosexuality and gay pride in liberal dominated Salt Lake City, but I still should have the right to go there, on private property,and not have my children visually raped by those who would force us to watch and explain their homoSEXUAL activities. You're free to do what you want in your rooms, but the LDS people still have some dwindling rights. And, while our rights to free speech have been taken away by the ACLU and other hateful activists (even in the deserts of Wyoming, on property which we have leased with no people for miles, Big Brother is still watching and censoring out religion, while on and around our property people freely vandalize, desecrate, and disrupt with malice-megaphones)yet, we still own property, and, have a small right to request that people not participate in SOME hateful, sexual, and other activities on our property. (And, if you think they were there because they love Mormons you have a lot to learn.) I can't see the "positive" message in lawberaking and promoting the intended hatred against Mormons that you see here in the comment section.

  • To Anonymous at 1:08 pm
    July 14, 2009 1:49 p.m.

    You have a point, but you are forgetting that Temple Square has the right to set their guidelines. Whether you like it or not, what the Church did was completely appropriate.

    Anonymous @ 1:16 pm, the Church will never back down on it's view of the family. You also say that the Church is "anti-gay." You make it sound like the Church hates gays, which they don't. They simply believe that the family is essential and marriage should be between a man and a woman. If you don't like Utah's definition of a civil union, there are several states that will recognize your rights. I don't have anything against gay people. I just don't approve of their choice of sexuality.

  • Anonymous
    July 14, 2009 1:16 p.m.

    If church security asks all couples to stop kissing, than it may be heavy-handed but its not really an issue. But, if they only ask same-sex couples to stop kissing, than its discrimination.

    I really don't understand why the LDS church continues to give itself a black eye over this issue. Same-sex marriage is coming: look at the public opinion by age group. A decade or two from now the church will be embarrassed about its anti-gay stance and will try to spin, deny or cover it up.

  • Anonymous
    July 14, 2009 1:13 p.m.

    " Which individual right have they denied you of "

    How about the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1, US Constitution.)

    I have been married in Massachusetts yet I am denied the privilege of enjoying the benefits of that union here in Utah. Totally unconstitutional, yes?

  • Anonymous
    July 14, 2009 1:08 p.m.

    "Comparing this incident to racial discrimination in a private diner is unnecessary and a bad argument. Doesn't the Church allow everyone to see Temple Square regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation? Yes. This IS different. Once the gay couple didn't adhere to the property's guidelines, they gave up the privilege to be there."

    Let's compare it to the white only lunch counter. Blacks could use the luncheonette too, but not the same way that whites could.

    Heterosexuals kiss and hug all the time in the plaza. It is only the gays that must walk through without holding hands or kissing.


  • Dear Waste,
    July 14, 2009 1:01 p.m.

    Thank you.

  • Waste
    July 14, 2009 12:44 p.m.

    Anonymous Mormons are not in Government at any level. There is a separation of church and state so they are litteraly in capable of that charge. You are basically lying on them. They cannot deny you of anything they do not have the power to do. Which individual right have they denied you of Anonymous? Name me one thing the law specifically says you cannot do that someone else can do? I.E vote? What about the right to assemble? What about the right to fair trial? Maybe they are allowed to speak to their representatives and you can't? Maybe they are allowed to petition the people for their support and you can't? Maybe they are allowed to raise money for their cause and you can't? Help me out here or are you just throwing a tantrum spouting off talking points? Show me the exact law in the constitution tell me what amendment or shut it...

  • This is getting ridiculous
    July 14, 2009 12:37 p.m.

    Comparing this incident to racial discrimination in a private diner is unnecessary and a bad argument. Doesn't the Church allow everyone to see Temple Square regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation? Yes. This IS different. Once the gay couple didn't adhere to the property's guidelines, they gave up the privilege to be there.
    Also, why do people always turn incidents where they assume the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is at fault into a bashing frenzy? If others who commented only knew how much it hurts when they call my church "a Church full of bigots."

  • Anonymous
    July 14, 2009 12:15 p.m.

    Do Utahans have a basic understanding of law?

    "...I think the real reason the ACLU waited until after the plaza was finished to bring suit was because they much preferred to protest in a park than on a street where they had to watch for cars."

    Could the reason have been the UCLU has no cause for a suit until the plaza was built. You can't sues for what hasn't happened anymore than you can't be arrested until you commit a crime.

    You have a group that purchases an public easement over 150 years old. No other church in Utah or our nation has been able to do this. You wonder why those you oppress don't like you.

    I feel more empathy for the people of Missouri daily. Mormons can't get a long with others. They lack empathy to others.

  • really?
    July 14, 2009 11:40 a.m.

    This private property argument is tired and ill-informed. If you provide public access to your private property, you can't then discriminate either in policy or in application of it. Businesses own (or at least own the rights to use) their buildings. Is it legal -- not to mention moral -- to prohibit black people from eating at your private diner? No. This isn't any different.

  • Anonymous
    July 14, 2009 11:38 a.m.

    good anonymous, because us bigots didn't want you to waste your time with us either. I guess everybody is happy then?

  • Anonymous
    July 14, 2009 11:19 a.m.

    I am an active member of the LDS Church, and I support this "kiss-in". I don't believe the actions of LDS security were appropriate. I would much rather see a public display of affection between two men than a public display of bigotry.

  • Anonymous
    July 14, 2009 10:51 a.m.

    To John Pack Lambert,

    "I had a roommate whose in-laws who were not members became more sympathetic to the Church after seeing the tactics used by the protestors on the plaza."

    That's funny. I was an active, Temple-recommend-holding member of the Church until I saw how the Church is attacking the civil liberties of gays and lesbians. Now I am much more sympathetic to gays and lesbians and am thinking I don't want to waste my time in a Church filled with bigots.

  • Anonymous
    July 14, 2009 10:44 a.m.

    To Waste,

    How is depriving gays and lesbians of equal protection under the law "respecting" their rights to believe AND LIVE as they would like???

    You Mormons have the most twisted logic I have ever seen!

  • I believed
    July 14, 2009 10:38 a.m.

    it would be a "little bit of Paris" just like they said. Silly me.

  • Waste
    July 14, 2009 8:56 a.m.

    "Maybe it is time for the city of Salt Lake to use its power of eminent domain to relieve the church of said plaza" Maybe it's time the state used its power of eminent domain and relieve the LGBT organizations of their buildings. Or maybe they can foreclose on all houses owned by Gays???? Yeah is that discrimination yes it is just like the state using eminent domain on that church is discrimination. Remember do onto others as you would have them do onto you. The church respects your right to believe as you do and to fight for it. But when the church does the same they are not afforded the same respect.

  • awsomeron
    July 14, 2009 6:19 a.m.

    Our House. Our Rules. Follow The Rules. No Displays of Public Affection on the Plaza, Means Just That.

    You cannot warm up your Hetro Honey for the trip back to the Marriot either.

    The Church wants the area Uptight and Affection Out of Sight.

    It is Church Property, bought and Paid for, Plain and Simple.

    The couple was asked to leave, then they needed to leave.

    Common Since should have said to simply leave them alone and let them move on through the Plaza. However The Church did Nothing Wrong in asking them to leave or having them arrested when they did Not Leave.

    They where Breaking The Rules which I assume are Posted Somewhere.

    Why I would want to be Gay, and live in Utah is beyond me, but that is the couples legal right. However they cannot break the Rules Gay or Not.

    Most people to include me should have better things to do then even be remotely concerned about this topic.

    AOL Says it was 100 people. They have thousands of comments none of them mine, because their board moves way to fast.

  • Matthew S
    July 14, 2009 6:09 a.m.

    Maybe it is time for the city of Salt Lake to use its power of eminent domain to relieve the church of said plaza

  • Waste
    July 14, 2009 5:01 a.m.

    People might wonder why churches are not more vocal of the Gay lifestyle. I am pretty sure I know the most vocal protest against that lifestyle are the Gays themselves you just sit back let them be them and enjoy the show. You just cue up tape like those two gentlemen and you just say enough said.

    I cannot believe they refuse to learn from history and how others have conducted civil rights fights. Oh well those that do not learn from history are doomed to not only repeat it but in all likely hood fail. History smimish we got our own way.

  • OK
    July 13, 2009 8:44 p.m.

    Gay Rights Peaceful Demonstration - What an Oxymoron

  • Funny Stuff
    July 13, 2009 6:44 p.m.

    This is so funny....

    Re: Does anyone | 3:16 | 5:24 p.m. July 13, 2009
    Yes, I agree. Lets get a list. Then I can make sure I spend my money at LDS owned businesses. And while we are at it I'd like to get a list of businesses that support gay rights so I can make sure I don't spend my money there.

  • Waste
    July 13, 2009 6:42 p.m.

    Religion is not a democracy. We do not get to vote on what we are going to follow. Either you are down with it or you find a new gig. If their bible tells them homosexuality is wrong that's the end of discussion no changing their minds. You would no more want them trying to go to your place of work or your home trying to change your mind to save your soul. Just like they do not want you trying to educate them to the benefits of the Gay lifestyle. This is not a dictatorship and people are not obliged to support homosexuality. We are in a democracy so we can always agree to disagree and leave it at that. And that means they can fight for their side just as you can fight for yours.

  • pat
    July 13, 2009 6:06 p.m.

    I am sure there are many good people who are gay. I have a feeling though that those who were heading up this happening on Temple Square were paid radicals not Gays wanting to stir up trouble.
    Sad but true this happens quite often in other incidents.

  • Paul S.
    July 13, 2009 5:31 p.m.

    Well Philly

    Come to the table with facts and not your unitelligible drivel, and you won't have to be put in your place.

    You're Gay and you don't like the fact that the LDS Church does not condone your way of life.

    Don't pretend you know what you are talking about regarding the Church Plaza when you don't. When you state falsehoods, expect to be challenged.

    Live and let live, I say.

    The gauntlet was thrown down by 2 gay guys who sought and attained an altercation. The provacaters here was not the Church but your buddies.

    If anyone arrives on your porch and you ask them to leave, I will will defend your right with you, to have them arrested for trespassing.

    Private property is sacred is this Country. Respect it, no matter who it belongs to, or be held accountable. That applies to everyone of us.

  • To Naruto
    July 13, 2009 5:27 p.m.

    That includes you. I think it is funny when Utahans make fun of Utahans. You are making fun of yourself. hahahahahah

  • Re: Does anyone | 3:16
    July 13, 2009 5:24 p.m.

    Yes, I agree. Lets get a list. Then I can make sure I spend my money at LDS owned businesses. And while we are at it I'd like to get a list of businesses that support gay rights so I can make sure I don't spend my money there.

  • Oh brother....
    July 13, 2009 5:18 p.m.

    I'm sick of people attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints because of their position on homosexuality. Temple Square security politely asked the gay couple to refrain from their behavior. Instead, they decided to make a demonstration out of it. They made a scene and shouted obscenities. Perhaps security blew the whole situation out of proportion, but remember that this is private property. This means that you need to follow certain guidelines. Clearly the gay couple was at fault.

  • Arizona
    July 13, 2009 4:45 p.m.

    Well, OF COURSE it was staged!

    They were filming for Bruno II.

  • Dear Jeff:
    July 13, 2009 4:42 p.m.

    You Moron. The Mormon Church didn't turn this into a political issue. The publicity seeking idiot gay guys with the hidden agenda did.

    The church didn't call a press conference or attempt to further antagonize the situation by organizing a protest rally the next day.

    Did a bunch of missionaries show up at the 2 gay guys house and start reading "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" by megaphone while standing in their front yard? Or circle up hand in hand and start singing, "I am a Child of God" or "Keep the Commandments"?

    A public plaza on private property is just that, private. Using the word "Public" doesn't give you the right to behave boorishly, inappropriately or in bad taste. If you go to a public park or a school playground you have rules to follow, if you walk through naked, drinking alcohol or shouting profanities, you will be asked to leave. it's not that hard to figure out.

    and who cares about Europeans? They have nothing to do with anything.

  • Hey Noorvik:
    July 13, 2009 4:28 p.m.

    It's true the church doesn't pay taxes on all of it's holdings. But they more than make up for it with the millions upon millions they contribute annually in Humanitarian relief, both in materials and volunteer manpower hours.

    BTW, Gay rights organizations are non-profit and don't pay taxes either yet I don't remember hearing about them sending thousands of volunteers or millions of dollars in food, clothing, etc during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Why aren't you clammering for them to pay their fair share of taxes?! They don't contribute anything to make the world a better place, they apparently just go around causing trouble for others.

  • andrea
    July 13, 2009 4:19 p.m.

    You wouldn't go to a Jewish Synagogue and start eating pork would you? And if you did no one would blame them for asking you to leave. If they wanted to kiss, they only had to walk out of church property and no one would care. People need to understand that the church isn't a democracy. You can protest all you want but God isn't going to change his mind just because you disagree.

  • re - Positve Point???? 3:21 p.m
    July 13, 2009 4:05 p.m.

    the positive point was showing the stuffy mormons that even when 2 women make out in the street in front of the church, the sky doesn't open and the world doesn't fall apart.

    so all your paranoia about gays is just your little willy-nilly way of trying to make everyone just like you. And you know what? no one wants to be like you. what a boring place the world would be if we were just like you....

  • Positve Point????
    July 13, 2009 3:21 p.m.

    What was positive about this demonstration? Trespassing on private property to stick your finger in the eye of the church? Trying to bread discont and discord among individuals? I don't see anything positive about this.

  • Does anyone
    July 13, 2009 3:16 p.m.

    Does anyone have a list of all LDS properties and businesses so I can take my money somewhere else?

  • Naruto
    July 13, 2009 3:02 p.m.

    Isn't all this controversy fun!!!?
    I'm not mormon but I'm glad I live here, so much entertainment! It's like everyone that lives here acts like teenagers!

  • re: What the solution will be
    July 13, 2009 2:56 p.m.

    The church isn't standing against "gay" men, it's standing against "gay" behavior. Each person has a CHOICE as to what behavior to engage in, so there is no hate directed toward any individuals, which would be wrong if there was.

  • Anonymous
    July 13, 2009 2:54 p.m.

    These two kissing dudes knew exactly what they were doing. It is not like they did not understand the LDS church's stance on the gay situation. They were there to make a statement. The church doesn't force its values on all people, they had the right to chose to react however they wanted, but remember there are consequences to actions. There has to be an accountability factor here. Those gay men got what they chose, that was thier choice. They knew what they were doing. This was not ignorance. This was a slap in the face.

  • Waste
    July 13, 2009 2:52 p.m.

    This is what LDS did. They went out and won support for their position on Gay Marriage. They fought and won the support they needed in California and passed the bill. This is what the Gay community did, they had a tantrum because they lost and now want to break the law to show their disapproval. Basically blaming everyone for why they lost. Gays are working hard with stunts like this so next time this comes to a vote they can have even less support then they currently have.

  • Really..
    July 13, 2009 1:33 p.m.

    A "Kiss-in"? Really? 60 people attended? What a joke...

  • Get a life, k?
    July 13, 2009 1:12 p.m.

    A lot of comments on here are stating that the Church "Attacked" the Gay/lesbian communities? How so? Because they didn't give in and go against everything they stand for regarding gay marriage? Well, if that is what you concider "attacking" What do you call the kind of hatred that is coming from you? It seems to me that all of the "attacking" has come from anti-LDS people who feel the need to step onto church property and cause unnessesary disturbances. When the day comes that they are actually in front of your homes wearing their stupid little pink hearts protesting some stupid issue, then you will have something to complain about

  • To Thanks You - Pres. Monson
    July 13, 2009 12:54 p.m.

    And Thank YOU for showing how discriminatory YOU are. Until the day where members of the Church come onto YOUR property to show acts of hate, mind your own business and get on with your life. Go ahead and find something else to cry about

  • to brother chuck
    July 13, 2009 12:48 p.m.

    the day you only have "one more thought" will be the day.

  • @john pack lambert
    July 13, 2009 12:45 p.m.

    Wait I don’t understand something John if the LDS church is a religious institution why are the in the for profit sector of running malls. Oh that’s right they are "separate" until you need to argue they "do pay taxes" silly me. by the way this is the third time I have tried to make a comment about the churches little slight of hand when it comes to this but funny thing the DN keeps failing to post it. Oh that’s right they are another for profit owned by the LDS church. well probably wont see this one posted either but at least the moderator gets another point of view.

  • Sam BeGoode
    July 13, 2009 12:26 p.m.

    Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren - so you do unto me. Judge not, lest ye be judged. Before worrying about the splinter in your brother's eye, take the plank out of your own. Turn the other cheek. Love others as well as you love yourself. Why are these commandments so routinely broken by Christians?

  • John Pack Lambert
    July 13, 2009 12:23 p.m.

    A supportive note to Paul S.,
    I really appreciate your posts.
    It appears that there are too many parks in downtown Salt Lake City and so people can't keep them straight. The Church has done too much to beutify the area, so people get confused about the details behind the various projects.
    I had a roommate whose in-laws who were not members became more sympathetic to the Church after seeing the tactics used by the protestors on the plaza.
    One more tought, I think the real reason the ACLU waited until after the plaza was finnished to bring suit was because they much prefered to protest in a park than on a street where they had to watch for cars.

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

    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.

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

    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

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

    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.

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

    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.

  • Duh
    July 13, 2009 11:57 a.m.

    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.

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

    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!

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

    "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?

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

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

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

    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?

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

    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
    July 13, 2009 11:24 a.m.

    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.

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

    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
    July 13, 2009 11:16 a.m.

    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.

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

    "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!

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

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

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

    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.

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

    You had to see this demonstration coming....

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

    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.

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

    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
    July 13, 2009 10:43 a.m.

    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.

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

    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.

  • Duh!
    July 13, 2009 10:37 a.m.

    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!

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

    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.

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

    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?

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

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

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

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

    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.

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

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

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

    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.

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


    Your missionaries do that all the time!

    Get a clue, dude!

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

    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
    July 13, 2009 10:11 a.m.

    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.

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

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

  • fred
    July 13, 2009 10:04 a.m.

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

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    "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 -

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


    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

  • Waste
    July 13, 2009 9:47 a.m.

    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.

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

    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.

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

    "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.

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

    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.

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

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

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

    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.

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

    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.

  • A
    July 13, 2009 9:22 a.m.

    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.

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

    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!!!

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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!!

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

    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.

  • Ray
    July 13, 2009 8:52 a.m.

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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
    July 13, 2009 8:14 a.m.

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

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

    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.

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

    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

  • Fiona
    July 13, 2009 7:38 a.m.

    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

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


    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!

  • CK
    July 13, 2009 7:35 a.m.

    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!

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

    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.

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

    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.

  • Wow
    July 13, 2009 7:24 a.m.

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

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

    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.

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

    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!!!!

  • Vader
    July 13, 2009 7:08 a.m.

    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.

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

    "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.

  • @Jeff
    July 13, 2009 6:59 a.m.

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

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

    on my private property!

  • Jeff
    July 13, 2009 6:41 a.m.

    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.

  • Fun
    July 13, 2009 6:35 a.m.

    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.

  • jw
    July 13, 2009 6:25 a.m.

    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.

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

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

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

    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?

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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!

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

    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.

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

    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!!!

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

    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?

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

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

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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!!!

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

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

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

    The Kiss-in: tomorrow's forgotten news

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

    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.

  • Ty
    July 12, 2009 8:47 p.m.

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

  • Mike
    July 12, 2009 8:42 p.m.

    Wow all you people need a life

  • Bill
    July 12, 2009 8:39 p.m.

    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.

  • Michael
    July 12, 2009 8:16 p.m.

    Two guys 20 feet to the sidewalk walking off the plaza give each other a kiss - 10 pm at night on the way home from a concert - get handcuffed by private rent a cops and pushed to the floor - overreaction at best, assault causing injury at worst - get a sense of proportion, this is not good folks.

  • Outsider
    July 12, 2009 8:00 p.m.

    I don't get the complaints here at all. It was private property. If you go on private property you sure better be willing to accept the rules for that property or you shouldn't be there. It sounds to me like the "kissing couple" was out of line from the start and then further escalated a situation they caused. Who would go to a church to make out?...come on.

  • Interesting
    July 12, 2009 7:58 p.m.

    It's interesting how 35 people protesting makes the news. I remember driving by the SL court house a few years ago a say the news crew filming 5 people protesting something. Later that night on the news they that news channel overplayed the turnout. "Many came to..." It shows you how desperate the news channels are for attention. I really wish they'd report of something worthwhile. Two men kissing and getting kicked out is funny but not newsworthy.

  • Trent
    July 12, 2009 7:48 p.m.

    I'll just say this. I have gay friends that I love very much. I may not agree with there decision to act on homosexual tendencies but it is their right and freedom to do so. It is my right and freedom when they come to my house or ranch that they refrain from actions that I don't believe in. I'm not saying that I won't try to make them feel welcome, only that being a true friend goes both ways. They'll respect my deep beliefs at my house and I theirs when I'm a guest at their house. If they don't respect my deep beliefs and offend they would be asked to leave. If they refused they would also be charged with trespassing. Maybe the Church should close the easement to the public and let it's members enjoy the beauty.

  • Nicholas
    July 12, 2009 7:43 p.m.

    Wow. I am always amazed when I read comments on Deseret News articles. To make the argument that a protest only involving kissing (which did not take place on Church property!) qualifies as some kind of persecution is truly, truly insane. I am an LDS member, but come on! The "everyone is out to get us" complex is ridiculous. Most of these arguments are only buttressed by a willful refusal to interpret events as reported.

    Church spokesperson Kim Farah made the comment that the two men in question were treated "just as any other couple." This is demonstrably false. She is either lying outright, or betraying ignorance so profound that she has no business working in a public relations capacity.

    The two men in question were walking home from a concert, not staging some kind of sexual publicity stunt. They were IN THE PROCESS OF LEAVING the plaza, when stopped by security, who then DETAINED THEM! Had security done nothing, the men would have been off the plaza in half a minute.

    And Anonymous, "homosexuality" is NOT "a sin," not even in the most conservative imagination. Homosexual ACTS may be sins, but "homosexuality" merely describes an attraction.

  • anonymous
    July 12, 2009 7:39 p.m.

    Did anyone hear of the tyranny of tolerance? Clearly, this is such a case.

  • Thomas
    July 12, 2009 7:38 p.m.

    My feeling on the situation is simply this. Protest what you want when you want but do it on your own property. This is not an issue over discrimination this is a issue of being asked to leave, refusing, police being called, and citations issued for lack of a better word throwing a fit. I am fed up with people on both sides of the issue acting like they have to bad mouth one another and belittle. I am a proud bisexual man and a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We have common ground focus on that and stop the nonsence I for one am saddened that members of the gay/strait community and members of the church on both sides of the so called "issue" are acting in a way that to a logical person would seem somewhat childish so lets get to the real issues and stop the behavior on both sides.

  • Only 60 people?
    July 12, 2009 7:35 p.m.

    Wait, something surprises me about this. You people could only draw 60 supporters to your demonstration? That sounds like a lot but then you have to factor all the Sunday church attending people in the thousands that went to church today in Utah and who don't really care about your protest. Way to go!

  • Why comment on here?
    July 12, 2009 7:32 p.m.

    I always get the biggest kick out of people arguing or bashing on the LDS church on a church-owned newspaper's website.

    Re: Jessica - The Mormon church is actually growing from this issue and people respect it more. I take it that you don't like religion because of how much it it pushes its agenda on people. You'll hate the Christ-run theocracy that comes when world ends and the wicked are burned.

  • Kris
    July 12, 2009 7:32 p.m.

    Please tell me how pregnant adolescents and old men with multiple young wives are somehow better than gay relationships. The members of LDS share this view with the tribal Arabs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. All of them need to be dragged into the 21st Century before sanctimonious hypocrisy destroys the entire planet. This is America. Mormons are not "more equal" than am I or anyone else. Heterosexuals are not "more equal" than gays. If you don't like that, you are disregarding the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. America, love it or leave it.

  • straight supporter of gay rights
    July 12, 2009 7:25 p.m.

    those that argue the gays' rights movement is intolerant of others' beliefs, consider this: how is one supposed to be tolerant of people who do not tolerate you. This is not an issue of reciprocal tolerance, this is an issue of a church trampling on people's freedom to be themselves (without hurting anyone else). Maybe the church was in her legal rights to ask the men to leave their premises, but it was a petty reaction born out of a disrespect for people who are not like them.

  • Private property
    July 12, 2009 7:22 p.m.

    Anonymous 6:43: I don't think you should be allowed to kiss your pet either. I do have a question though. Could the church refuse to allow Blacks, Hispanics, other minorities on their property? It is private property after all. I suppose they can but the excuse would be quite lame, just like the kissing excuse was lame. They said that kissing of any kind was "inappropriate" but I've kissed and hugged my wife on temple square, and I've seen wedding photos of newlyweds kissing in front of the temple. Perhaps it would be better for the church to be blunt and just say that same sex kissing is forbidden. Telling falsehoods in order to minimize a situation has just made things worse. My father always told me to tell the truth no matter how painful it might be. Perhaps the church should learn that lesson as well.

  • rocket scientist??
    July 12, 2009 7:19 p.m.

    If I were asked to stop public affection on private property, I might think it a little stupid. But it would still stop without argument. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the owners have the right to allow/or not allow behavior that is consistent with their standards. Homosexual behavior is not consistent with the Church's standards (very well publicized and known fact). And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that when you are asked to leave private property and you don't, then you can be charged with trespassing. I've never quite understood why gays and lesbians feel discriminated against because of their sexuality preferences. There are many studies showing that it is behavioral choices and very rarely biological. So it is not who they are, but what they choose.

  • Comments R USA
    July 12, 2009 7:14 p.m.

    The Real Gay Agenda is Life liberty and the pursuit to have their mothers benefits!

    The Fact is, Gays already have the same rights as any hetro-sexual male, what they don't have is womens rights?....Period!

  • Jessica
    July 12, 2009 7:13 p.m.

    Some people are gay. Get over it!

    The world is watching the intollerance of the mormon church. Its not a pretty sight from the other side of the Atlantic.
    churches should not force their beliefs on others
    using civic law and campaigning for removal of others rights.
    Karma has a habit of resiprosity.

  • Joanne
    July 12, 2009 7:09 p.m.

    The only ones that are hurt are the "kissing' partners of the same sex. This is not the way to get approval from anybody. Any public display of affection is just showing others that someone "loves" me. Why don't you love yourself enough to keep personal relationships personal.

  • lance gilchrist
    July 12, 2009 6:59 p.m.

    The church has the right to dictate behaviour on it's property. That's the reason the main street plaza deal went down in the first place; it enabled us to take rights away from what was a public place. That was our goal, or at least the goal of the church and the city council acting on behalf of their masters. It was a mistake when we did it, and it is being proven so now.

  • just me
    July 12, 2009 6:58 p.m.

    in the last days Satan will have control over his dominion---

  • U.S. Constitutional Analysis
    July 12, 2009 6:58 p.m.

    If heterosexual couples show identical forms of affection without intervention, then LDS reaction to homosexual couples represents prima facie discrimination. Ironically, the same group that financed Prop 8 in California may, by losing on a U.S. Constitutional discrimination argument, may be responsible for legitimizing homosexual conduct at the federal level.

    The (non-Latter Day cosmogonical) universe is not without a sense of humor.

  • Clay Forrester
    July 12, 2009 6:58 p.m.

    Gays predated Christianity and hence will post date
    Christianity. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  • Gadaki
    July 12, 2009 6:56 p.m.

    So, if I ask someone to leave my property, for whatever reason, and they get argumentative and I have to call the police to have them go, I can expect a city council person to post on Facebook that they need to have a demonstration in front of my house? What is this country coming to?

  • Morgan
    July 12, 2009 6:54 p.m.

    Its Church Property like what others said they think they can do whatever they want, but at least do it on your own land and not others. I think gay should treat our LDS property like how they would treat theirs.

  • commentsareus
    July 12, 2009 6:45 p.m.

    The Real gay agenda; Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  • Anonymous
    July 12, 2009 6:43 p.m.

    Let's call it the way it is. Homosexuality is a sin. Period and simple. The plaza is owned by a Church that believes that so. A kiss on the check from a parent to a child is no wrong. Neither between a couple or newlyweds. It is when it's about same gender couple. That falls into improper conduct and the sign outside says don't do that. They did. Security asked them to leave because, according to Church beliefs, it is improper. They did not leave but instead overly reacted. That's when police was called. It's on the newspapers, on the tv, on the media. Now, we have councilpeople, meaning, politicians, as usual, fishing in every single oportunity they have, to gain votes. Don't give me the so "I can't allowed this in my city". It's private property and the owner has the right to allow or dismissed whoever they want. When the Church bought the plaza, I wondered why? but now, I understand and hope, they simply put some gates and keep the sanctity of the House of the Lord. That should be done at all costs.

  • Anonymous
    July 12, 2009 6:42 p.m.

    everyone is missing the point on public affection same sex affection is against the churches values and teachings and thats all they should have to say to ask a person to leave their private property. if it fits within their values why should they care. the church will never change their view point on someone's sexual prefence thats against their teachings and why should they. gay is not a race its a choice

  • ElBorba
    July 12, 2009 6:42 p.m.

    What's gonna' be really funny, is when this goes to court and the gay couple challenges the church and wins, then you're going to see a kiss-in the likes of which you Mormons have never imagined. I say strip the LDS church of it's status, and treat it like the hateful criminal enterprise which it has always been!!

  • Anonymous
    July 12, 2009 6:42 p.m.

    You can't teach a pig to sing. Teaching a pig to sing, won't give you a singing pig, only a angry pig.

    I'm blessed I live in a city were out Main Thoroughfare belongs equally to all its citizens. Stories, like this make the higher taxes I pay to live in California seen like a small price to be liberated from living in Utah.

    Read LDS history. Mormons have never gotten along with others. My Mormon family can't get a long.

  • Reality
    July 12, 2009 6:39 p.m.

    This is the fault of the democratic leadership in SLC.....the Church paid 13 Million to buy the Main Street and later paid for it again when Rocky Anderson thought they didn't pay enough......
    Time for the Silent Majority to throw the Democrats out of Office....

    The Church owns the property and what the Church does behind closed fences is the Churches own business....I am sick of the Gay Agenda sticking their noses where they are not welcome.....

    To protest the gays....I am buying a car from Grandma Garff, and I suggest you join me!

  • Allan Lykins-Scappoose oregon
    July 12, 2009 6:39 p.m.

    yes it was handled poorly but it IS private property and, to many people, sacred ground. The church has every right to ask for compliance on their own property...but ...the degree of hatred, ignorance and homophobic vitriol spewing forth makes me grieve for the souls of "the rightous"."What you do unto the least of these...." you deserve any judgements your actions bring.

  • Todd
    July 12, 2009 6:38 p.m.

    I am always saddened by the lack of sympathy I see on these discussion boards. A statement like "I just don't want to see gay couples at all" and all of the fear-mongering makes me deeply sad. It seems as though a disciple of Jesus has a duty to try to understand the feelings and situations even of those we disagree with, and to speak and act with love.

  • A little honesty here?
    July 12, 2009 6:38 p.m.

    Did the 35 people who walked around the reflecting pond start demonstrating, or were they just taking in the sights after their little kissing demonstration? The church needs to start being honest and just come out of the closet and say that they do not want homosexuals showing any amount of affection on church property. It is untrue when they say that kissing of any kind is not allowed. I've kissed my wife on temple grounds and nobody did anything and I've seen lots of photographs of newlywed couples kissing outside of the temple. Until the church can learn to be honest with itself and others and just stick up for what they believe rather than try to play it both ways, they might as well just lock the gate until it all blows over. Somebody is going to have to be offended, but right now the church is offending lots of folks from all walks of life with their "nobody can kiss on temple grounds" garbage.

  • re:How sad
    July 12, 2009 6:36 p.m.

    It would be well worth your time to "first" try to understand what the LDS Church's views are on homosexuality before passing wrongful judgement. The Church invites any and all homosexuals into full church activity as long as they DON'T cross the line into sexual debauchery and yes even kissing is sexual especially betten two men or two women. The LDS Church follows the exact same rules of conduct as the Catholic and Baptist church's regarding homosexuality and also the same as those taught in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul.

  • Big Dave
    July 12, 2009 6:28 p.m.

    This is ridiculous. Every year you have someone loons trying to break into a temple or going on temple square and doing things that they know are not allowed on church property. Once again it comes to the same ole thing - GAYS feel they can FORCE their values on others and have NO RESPECT of others and their values. It's like a Nazi going into a Jewish Sinagog and marching around with posters of Hitler and then complaining after getting tossed out on the steet that their freedom of speech was violated. Gays want tolerance but offer NONE to any one else. With Gays it's always "we're right and you are wrong so deal with it".

  • to anon @ 4:26
    July 12, 2009 6:26 p.m.

    Hang in there dude & live the good life. If you do, there won't be any gay couples where you end up.

  • Sassy
    July 12, 2009 6:25 p.m.

    It did not prove anything,just that people are crude, rude,lewd,vulgar and have no class whether they are straight or gay.Those kinds displays are meant for the bedroom.Just good old fashioned morals and common sense will tell you that.I personally believe if man was meant to be with man or woman with woman it would be just one or the other sex created.I also do not buy into the bisexual thing.Gay means you are with the same sex ,bisexual just means you will take sex any way you can get it.You have a right to your beliefs and I have a right to mine. So do NOT tell me I am discriminating! I am NOT discriminating any more than you discriminate against me for my beliefs.

  • To anonymous 4:26
    July 12, 2009 6:24 p.m.

    Yes, that is wrong. Unless you just never leave your own house. You don't have the right for us not to exist.

  • Lee
    July 12, 2009 6:24 p.m.

    Kiss kiss. Smooch smooch. Gay kiss. Straight kiss.

    Gay hug. Straight hug.

  • rogerma
    July 12, 2009 6:23 p.m.

    I'm sure that Jesus and his apostles, emmbraced and gave each other kisses, on the cheek, when they greeted or said goodbye. Men in different cultures act in different ways. Why isn't the LDS accepting and knowledgable of this?

  • Rebel Yell
    July 12, 2009 6:22 p.m.

    To the first poster, Anonymous:

    If you don't want to see gay couples, then just don't go out in public. We are everywhere, and we're not about to go away-

  • Cynder
    July 12, 2009 6:20 p.m.

    I get the argument that it is private property. Gays should follow the rules.
    Except that Mormons and other bigots seem to extend their rule to include the sidewalk, the schools, the library and even my home.

    Your personal beliefs are as offensive to me as I am to you.

  • Respect each other
    July 12, 2009 6:19 p.m.

    If the gays want to be treated equally and respected for their beliefs and lifestyles, they must also learn to respect beliefs and lifestyles of others. they might not have the same beliefs as LDS church but the church has their own property and are not trespassing to others. "Live and Let Live".

  • Tommy Mulder
    July 12, 2009 6:19 p.m.

    Just what is wrong with kissing another man?

  • Sam
    July 12, 2009 6:15 p.m.

    I wish I knew this was being organized. My wife and I were in the area and would have participated.

  • kathrin
    July 12, 2009 6:12 p.m.

    Unless we know how the LDS church would have reacted if a heterosexual couple had made out on church property , we are in no position to judge.

  • City Boy
    July 12, 2009 6:11 p.m.

    Deeda Seed back in the news.... Performing with Rocky on his desk is old news I guess, time for her to do something else stupid to make news.

  • Jeff H in TX
    July 12, 2009 6:11 p.m.

    Normally you would not see very many gay people at all because gays only represent maybe five percent of the population and always have, no more and no less.
    But because of the way church officials reacted, SLC is probably going to see A LOT of gay activity from now on.
    Don't want to see? Move off planet Earth.
    Gays have always existed, even in the animal kingdom.
    It's genetic and it's not going away.
    Learn to accept minority differences instead of pretending they don't exist.

  • pack it up
    July 12, 2009 6:11 p.m.

    You don't want to see gay couples? Don't look, you jerk.

  • John
    July 12, 2009 6:07 p.m.

    If a church isn't about love than what good is it?

  • Just a Question
    July 12, 2009 6:06 p.m.

    Would you D-News readers take exception if you were told to leave a restaurant because you were reading the Book of Mormon at your table? Would you protest the principle, even though "they can do whatever they want because it's private property"?

  • clear-headed in Clearwater
    July 12, 2009 6:05 p.m.

    The government should take the property using Eminent Domain and then sell the land to the Scientologists. Exchange one homophobic cult for another. That seems fair.

  • Colorado Cougar
    July 12, 2009 6:05 p.m.

    Took my wife and children to the Temple Square Plaza last Sunday. We had a great time, and no we didn't see any gays kissing. It would have taken away from the sacredness of the experience. Thank you LDS Church for standing up for our beliefs and standards. Yes, some of us, LDS and non-LDS alike, do believe gay lifestyle is contrary to the commandments of God. I just pray the Church leaders don't cave to the gay mafia and willing accomplices in the media.

    For those goons who say the LDS Church needs to respect others, it does. When I was on a mission in the Philippines, we were forbidden to preach to Muslims. In Israel the Church forbids it's members from discussing the gospel. The fact is, the Church respects the laws and cultures of the land.

    Go to any Church property (BYU, meeting houses) and exhibit gay PDA (or other unacceptable behavior, i.e. not wearing a shirt), you will be asked to stop. If you don't, the police will be called and you will be cited for trespassing. Pretty Simple!!

  • Praise Him
    July 12, 2009 6:04 p.m.

    This is a typical gay-organized agitation tactic that has gone on here in California for many years.
    It does not help their cause, but only annoys those of use who get sick of them with "in-your-face arrogance. This happens in places like Disneyland too. Kudos to the L.D.S. church for sticking up for standards that I as a Protestant Christian also follow.

  • squire4
    July 12, 2009 6:04 p.m.

    Hypocrisy is the fundamental tenet, it seems, of LDS people.

  • I like this forum
    July 12, 2009 6:02 p.m.

    I commented and expressed my views and opinions on this matter on SLtrib.com. I was bombarded with insults and irrational arguments because I sided with the church's obligation to stand up for it's beliefs and property. This is a lot better to hear people actually supporting the CORRECT actions taken by the LDS security.

  • Jack
    July 12, 2009 6:01 p.m.

    For those of you who hold the church "innocent" in this relationship. How often has the church invaded gay and lesbian territory--political territory--and invested member money and time in fighting them? In doing what it can to determine what rights they can and can't have? This--a person's life--is personal terrain. This--an individual's rights--is private property. The church has never restrained itself in trespassing onto that property and being active and loud and belligerent in "protesting" what it wants. When gays start to tell church members what rights they can and cannot have, then you people may have an argument. When gays start showing up on Temple Square and protesting against polygamy, or Wonder Bread for sacrament, then you may have a legitimate gripe. At least you'll know what real "trespassing" feels like. In the meantime, if the church can't keep its nose out of other people's business, it doesn't have a leg to stand on when people decide to respond. Stop holding the church innocent. Stop the victim nonsense.

  • Bill Baumgardner Sr.
    July 12, 2009 5:58 p.m.

    I find it amazing that these same people are FOR the hate crime law, which is a law to control our thoughts. Well, I have to say that the only reason these two persons would kiss where they did is to use their thoughts to disrupt the serenity near the Lord's Property, so they committed a hate crime. Right? Oh, I forgot, these people also back abortion, but fight capitol punishment. So how do you deal with 1/2 wits like this? I know, but I can not post my real feelings here. It would be a hate crime. :)

  • HifiDuke
    July 12, 2009 5:58 p.m.

    Ditto on SLDrone!

  • George Wines
    July 12, 2009 5:58 p.m.

    Didn't the LDS church recently hire a major NYC PR firm to suggest ways so that Americans would like the Mormons more? What was church security thinking? 10PM in the evening, the two guys were the only people on the walk-through plaza. What were they hurting? The PR firm may want to consider returning the

  • Robert
    July 12, 2009 5:56 p.m.

    As a gay man, I could not be more annoyed at how the gay community handles... anything. That couple that got handcuffed, they were told to leave, and didn't. They assumed it was because they were gay, when they don't know if the security would have that policy with a straight couple, so how would they know? Then this protest? Really? Is that a joke! Does the gay community do anything that isn't childish anymore? This is just... stupid. Being a gay couple does not mean you are above the law, and I thank those security officers and the LDS community for actually trying to hold them to it.

  • Yikes
    July 12, 2009 5:55 p.m.

    Holding hands and smooching! Now that's a political agenda. C'mon Mormons (I'm one, too). They weren't rolling all over the place. I wasn't there, but I have a lot more to worry about than a kiss. What if two macho native Italian (straight) guys ran into each other and gave the traditional smooch...would they be picking prunes in Palermo now? Get a life, Salt Lake.

  • Kevin
    July 12, 2009 5:53 p.m.

    "Anonymous" posted at 12:51 (above) makes the essential point. LDS couples often use the square to engage in considerable displays of affection, without being busted. The anger reported from the gay couple who were harassed is a natural reaction to the security guard's offensive over-reaction. Two gay men holding hands and kissing on the cheek is offensive only to homophobic bigots.
    Also, there's a real issue here re. whether the LDS church can claim such control over a stretch of property which is open to public access - clearly, a judge needs to sort this out - or the City needs a better agreement with the church.
    To this straight, married guy (not LDS) I just wish we could have been at this kiss-in, sounds like fun to me. I like kissing my wife . . .
    And yes, I still plan to be polite the next (inevitable) time that LDS missionaries appear at my door.
    The LDS Church needs to evolve, as they already have in dropping their overt bigotry towards folks of (recent) African descent. It only took them until 1978 to realize that ALL of us are of African descent.

  • Open Minded
    July 12, 2009 5:53 p.m.

    Wow, I'm seeing tons of Utah homophobes. You inbred fools need to see the world a little bit. You clothe your bigotry by pinning it on private property rights. Bullsquat! While the law might protect LDS and their discrimination, that doesn't make it right. If it didn't have to do with homosexuality, let's say a restaurant kicked a bunch of people out because they could be overheard talking about their Mormon faith, there's no way you'd all be praying to the god of private property and excusing the rudeness. Flippin' inbreds, stop believing in your dumbass Mormon fairy tales and enlighten yourselves.

  • Dr. Shelly Boyd phd.
    July 12, 2009 5:50 p.m.

    To "ANONMYMOUS"...At Least I put My Name To My POST! Are You HYPOCRITICAL, to say such a Bigott ed thing, & HIDE? WHAT Are YOU "Married to a Man With FOUR or FIVE OTHER WIVEs, Or Are You A Man Who Has Muultiple Wives?
    Dr.Shelly Boyd,phd.

  • Kris
    July 12, 2009 5:50 p.m.

    This gay couple is facing the same type of bigotry that faced inter-racial couples back in the 1960s. Mormons (of all people) should be cautions about criticizing the relationships of others, living as they do in their glass houses. They pretend to "protect marriage," but their history of polygamy and child brides and pregnant 13-year olds belie their actions. God save us all from these True Believers, the American version of the Taliban. SLC should declare this area a public zone where all are treated equally. Tax exemptions for organized bigotry is UnAmerican. Revoke the tax status of LDS, and see how quickly they embrace the American idea that all are created equally.

  • Jess
    July 12, 2009 5:49 p.m.

    I've tried to be understanding and open minded regarding homosexuals but their tactics are so confrontational and provocative and mean spirited, my efforts are undermined by the very people that want my understanding. Be good citizens and respectful and stop trying to annoy your neighbors and perhaps you will get something accomplished.

  • Lurpy
    July 12, 2009 5:47 p.m.

    Yes, the Church has the right to make rules for their private property, even with public access. But applying those rules differently to certain groups is the definition of discrimination. If the Vatican were to say that LDS couples visiting St. Peter's Square were not allowed to hold hands or show affection, there would likely--and rightly--be an uproar over the discriminatory treatment of one particular group. So why is it okay for the LDS church to do the same thing to the gay community?

  • Mainstream American
    July 12, 2009 5:46 p.m.

    Sounds like the Church of LDS can dish it out but not take it. If they're going to incite ugly and ignorant behavior amongst their flock, they should expect a backlash eventually from the community. You can only pump out toxic ideas into a society so long before people take notice and do something about it.

  • Stu Cohen
    July 12, 2009 5:46 p.m.

    WOW. No wonder Utah has the reputation it does. What a bunch of narrow minded scary people.

    Good on the LGBT folk who have the courage to live there with these bigoted folks.

    It's going to get scarier and scarier for them as our country becomes more and more diverse. I feel so sorry for the children growing up with these attitudes. They will be left behind. Pathetic.

  • anon6129
    July 12, 2009 5:45 p.m.

    The LDS Church should have never been "allowed" to purchase that property and this is exactly why. It makes me sick.

  • Ms. Marple
    July 12, 2009 5:45 p.m.

    Yes, please explain to me again about how gays are destroying your marriage. I suppose they forced John Ensign to cheat on his wife and then try to pay her off and sent Mark Sanford out on the Appalachian Trail to Argentina. The Mormon church is just Scientology with a choir and a lot more hypocrisy!

  • Davvid
    July 12, 2009 5:45 p.m.

    Am I correct if I say that anyone that preaches tolerance is immediately a hypocrite because of their intolerance of those who are intolerant?

  • Lurpy
    July 12, 2009 5:43 p.m.

    Question for the LDS people here: Which do you think is going to hurt the church more--allowing a guy to kiss his partner on the cheek in an area where light PDAs are commonplace, or furthering your organization's image as bigoted, hateful, and discriminatory?

    California boy: I've never had a gay guy try to convert me to homosexuality. I have had an LDS missionary try to convert me to the Church. I don't begrudge the missionary--we actually had a good conversation about our respective philosophies--but if you're going to claim that gays are "trying to force their lifestyle on the rest of the world," you may want to stop your church from doing the same thing. Remove the beam in thine own eye, and all that.

  • Dave
    July 12, 2009 5:41 p.m.

    Is the "gay agenda" like that pesky "women's agenda" a few years back? Man, we have to stop handing out equal rights like candy...between this and the complexion of the PA pool club, I feel like America went in a backwards time warp.

  • Dave
    July 12, 2009 5:40 p.m.

    Why can't people respect private property? The LDS Church owns the property and can establish its standards for its use. If someone violates church policy then the police come in to handle the situation.

    The same would be true for my personal property. If a couple showed up on my front lawn, strangers for that matter, and kissed or showed intimate behavior, I would ask them to leave and if they refused I would call police. I think any private property owner would do the same.

    So gays are simply trying to again force their agenda upon us. The issue here is not even public displays of affection. The issue is the rights of a property owner to actually own its property!

    I am so tired of the gay community.

  • somethingorother
    July 12, 2009 5:40 p.m.

    I used to live in SLC, but moved because I was tired of all the tolerance I received there. I wish I had been welcomed and respected rather than simply tolerated. I got tired of all the "disappointment" I caused by being comfortable with my spiritual beliefs.

    So before decrying the lack of respect the LGBT community shows your church (and keep a sense of perspective here...there were only 60 people today, protesting the treatment of two people), I suggest that you search your own hearts and evaluate your own actions to determine if you are loving unconditionally and leaving the judgment for God, or if you are only being tolerant.

    I leave you with this quote "Most men worry about their own bellies, and other people's souls, when we all ought to be worried about our own souls, and other people's bellies." --Rabbi Israel Salanter 1810-1883

  • Davvid
    July 12, 2009 5:38 p.m.

    The private property argument is moot. This is why there was a PROTEST and not a LAWSUIT. Rights were not violated. That doesn't necessarily mean the church security acted appropriately.

  • David Blimmo
    July 12, 2009 5:38 p.m.

    I look forward to the day when we tear down and burn ALL churches, temples, mosques, Synagogues, and all other monuments to ignorance, stupidity, hate and superstition. We got rid of religion/superstition in posy WWII Japan, and we can do it legally here:

    1. Require that all religious/superstitious cult leaders provide credible scientific evidence to support their claims or to admit that they are lying.

    2. Under our existing truth in advertising laws, prosecute for criminal fraud all religious/superstitious cult leaders who are unable to provide credible scientific evidence to support their claims.

    3. Require all schools, public and private, to teach all known scientific, archeological, historical, psychological, sociological facts regarding all the major religions/superstitions.

    4. Make it felony child abuse for any person or organization to indoctrinate any minor child into any delusional belief system.

  • Sanity
    July 12, 2009 5:38 p.m.

    Do what you want. Just do it away from me.

  • Cats
    July 12, 2009 5:38 p.m.

    The Church shouldn't have to put up with "in-your-face" behavior from anyone on Church property. That's the bottom line. This is sacred ground and no one should have the right to come there and engage in this kind of behaviour--especially in view of children and others who come there for spiritual enrichment.

    I have no sympathy for the gay political agenda. Any amount of sympathy I may have for them as individuals is fading fast.

  • pjkool
    July 12, 2009 5:37 p.m.

    The gay community is everywhere. Mostly college educated, we are the teachers, doctors, nurses, lawers, engineers and many other professions that make America what it is. Education=money=power. We aren't going away.

  • Underdog
    July 12, 2009 5:37 p.m.

    Mormonism is a cult.

  • CHris
    July 12, 2009 5:35 p.m.

    I do not care who you love. Love all for who they are and if you sleep with a woman or a man who cares as long as the parties are consenting adults and they are happy I say go for it.

  • Ryan
    July 12, 2009 5:34 p.m.

    If I saw two gays holding hands and kissing on my property, I'd tell them to leave too.
    I'm sure there's more to the story than just two gays holding hands and kissing on the cheek

  • SLC City take property back | 12
    July 12, 2009 5:34 p.m.

    Well, if you knew your history, the church was here first own the land outright, donated the land to the city for a street and then had to pay 5 million to buy it back.

    Selling out? Whatever, know your history, and leave the church alone. Or simple head N, S, E, or W and leave utah for good.

    I am sick of people who try to force the this state to change the laws/lifestyle just because they are use to a different way of life. You choose to live here, therefore live by the stands that has been apart of the culture since it was established.

  • Anonymous
    July 12, 2009 5:29 p.m.

    I think that the LDS Church should not be allowed to buy these properties where they are going to dictate to others how to behave. Streets and walkways should be government owned so all kinds of lifestyles will be permitted. Utah has a real problem separating church and state. Church seems to be heavy handed. All the more reason not to elect Romney.

  • Circus
    July 12, 2009 5:28 p.m.

    Yet again,! Clowns acting out thinking its funny.
    I think it gone beyond a joke for these turkeys, they should go and grandstand in front of the white house lawn, maybe then they will get good serious publicity.
    The mentality of these people are very childish, and to think that they want to be taken seriously,..get real!!

  • Are we out of our minds?
    July 12, 2009 5:27 p.m.

    So I guess the guards would have thrown out Jesus when Judas gave Him the kiss.

  • Naomi Stein
    July 12, 2009 5:23 p.m.

    Reminds me of the scene in Religulous when the mormon fuzz tell Bill and crew to get off the property. Religion = always afraid that a crack will lead to a torrent of reason and be the end of the superstition.

  • J. Smith
    July 12, 2009 5:22 p.m.

    I don't want to see judgmental bigots hiding behind their religion.

    Is that so wrong?

  • Straight Mike from Philly
    July 12, 2009 5:20 p.m.

    Typically, the most vocal and outspoken homophobes are really closeted gays themselves....so come on out of your closets people

  • They started it...
    July 12, 2009 5:20 p.m.

    The LDS church will finish it. These yahoos had no business to be on church grounds let alone kiss. The church had every right to enforce God's law!

  • Paul
    July 12, 2009 5:20 p.m.

    Gay people, like all minorities, are part of the population. This incident, if one can call it that, occurred in the downtown area of a major American city. If you don't want to see gay people, buy a cave and disappear from civilized society.

  • Indie Voice
    July 12, 2009 5:17 p.m.

    BAD PR for " The Church". Not worth the public scrutiny. Perception outside the state will continue to be one which will damage reality.

  • Cold Beer
    July 12, 2009 5:17 p.m.

    It just goes to show you how pitifully scared the LDS are of Gay folks. It's sad really. Really, the rest of the world doesn't really care if they held hands and gave one another a peck on the cheek. Good grief it's 2009. Oh, I forgot, it's Utah.

  • Rights
    July 12, 2009 5:16 p.m.

    So are signs posted that say you are leaving PUBLIC property and entering PRIVATE property where all your constitutional rights are now no longer available? The 14th amendment means equal protection under the law. Why is religion a protected class (and it is entirely a choice) but being LGBT is not? What about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Only available to LDS members?

  • Anonymous
    July 12, 2009 5:16 p.m.

    If the same thing happened to a couple holding hands while walking on Liberty University's campus, because the husband is black and the wife is white, would that be ok too? Private property.

  • Anonymous2
    July 12, 2009 5:14 p.m.

    I just don't want to see any children at all.

    Is that so wrong?

  • cityprof
    July 12, 2009 5:14 p.m.

    Thank God I didn't grow up in the LDS church. I grew up in a church that was full of love and all welcoming to everyone. The doors were open around the clock so that anyone of any faith could go inside and pray and commune. If such an incident such as two men or two women kissing had occurred on church property, the minister would not have called the police but may have sat down with the couple for a little talk about appropriate behavior in the Lord's house. My church still struggles with homosexuality and how to treat them, but it is not a struggle with hate. All outreach is full of love. Remember Christ's love was unconditional.

    I feel so sorry and some pity for those in the LDS that do not know that love must be there for everyone, and even and especially for those it's hardest to love. Would Christ have called the police? I don't think so.

  • Elisabeth
    July 12, 2009 5:13 p.m.

    If this were a Muslim group which owned the streets near a mosque, I guarantee a huge portion of the conservatives/LDS/homophobes here would do a complete about-face and instead of screaming about 'private property' would be all impassioned about separation of church and state and free expression.

  • Pete
    July 12, 2009 5:13 p.m.

    Are gay's deaf and dumb. Don't they understand what it means to stay off of private property? Hello

  • Jeff
    July 12, 2009 5:11 p.m.

    Only the Mormon Church could turn a simple display of affection into a political issue.

    Sometimes a kiss is just a kiss.

    Lots of men kiss, especially Europeans. It was a kiss on the cheek.

    A public plaza is public, not private.

    A church should be about love, not hatred.

  • jphiggins
    July 12, 2009 5:11 p.m.

    I don't want to see Mormons at all. Is that so wrong?

  • Maggie May
    July 12, 2009 5:11 p.m.

    Have Mormons ever considered they make more enemies than friends by constantly being so holier than thou and attacking every group that they disagree with? Why can't you learn to live and let live.

    No one expects the Mormon church to support gay marriage, or same sex activity. But it is one thing to not support it and quite another to go after it with such venom. Practice your religion and let others follow their own moral codes. Quit beating your breasts and being so obnoxiously self righteously indignant and holier than thou.

  • Dear Anonymous
    July 12, 2009 5:11 p.m.

    I don't want to see them either, but they are children of God. I do my best to avoid T.V. shows and other things that have those type of characters in them. We should be tolerant and respectful, so if I meet or even know someone who is gay, (I had a gay neighbor. He was very nice. I'm sure he had relationships, but I never knew about them.) I would only avoid them if they were showing behavior that I found unacceptable.

  • aj
    July 12, 2009 5:10 p.m.

    Knock yourself out people. Just don't do it on Church property. Have at it. And when you are finished with your kiss in, then what?

    Another example of the Gay community not having respect or sensibiltites for anyone who differs with them.

    They tried to force their way into the Boy Scouts, they assault Church's and the 5,000 year old status quo of marriage, and debase the public square like the party crashers they are.

    What next? Will they be seen disrupting and making out in an Evangelical Church service in Michigan or maybe throwing red dye on people in St.Patricks Cathedral in New York or maybe vandalizing LDS Churches and Temples, or sending white powder to Mormon Temples, or will they may make politcal ads depicting Mormon Missionaries as breaking into lesbians homes, ranskacking them and tearing up wedding certificates? Oh sorry, The Gay community has already been there and done that.

    PR Nightmares? look in the mirror gay communiity. Your petulant behavior is now your burden.

  • New Yorker
    July 12, 2009 5:09 p.m.

    Wow, you people have definitely all drank the koolaid. What a bunch of brainwashed sheep. You sound like members of a cult. Oh, that's right, you are.

  • Andrew Lin
    July 12, 2009 5:09 p.m.

    "I just don't want to see gay couples at all. Is that so wrong? -- Anonymous"

    Yes, it's called homophobia. It's a mental problem. But, you can overcome it by learning that homosexuality is not a disorder and that because of that gay people are just as good as heterosexuals. Like any other form of prejudice, homophobia is bad for society, including the homophobic people. It causes families to be split apart, and a lot of unnecessary suffering.

  • No
    July 12, 2009 5:09 p.m.

    America is so immature when it comes to homosexuality. So MANY of the comments here reflect the thinking usually accomplished by simple minded 5th grade boys.

  • Sleepdawg
    July 12, 2009 5:09 p.m.

    The question going unanswered: why was this public property ever "sold" to the church in the first place? What possible excuse can be given for taking public resources and giving them to a private yet tax-exempt institution? I understand that pressure was applied. This is intolerable. That property needs to be restored via eminent domain to its rightful owners, the taxpayers of Utah. Further, discrimination is intolerable and hiding behind religion to do it is unacceptable. It is time to control the overreaching influence of LDS in SLC.

  • Stop the lies
    July 12, 2009 5:08 p.m.

    Is it really private property? Entire street and area are all paid for by the churhc in cluding all maintenance? If local police paid by PUBLIC tax payers is being used to enforce a discriminatory groups PRIVATE beliefs -- isn't that by definition using PUBLIC funds?

  • Trissy Star
    July 12, 2009 5:08 p.m.

    I've been to the area and have saw many 'straight' couples walking , holding hands, and even give the occasional little kiss. Nothing happened to them.

    The couple who was cuffed didn't want to leave because they weren't doing anything wrong. Its called being prejudiced. Haven't we been taught since we were babies not to be like that?

  • free thinker
    July 12, 2009 5:07 p.m.

    The mormon church is nothing but a cult anyway. It's right there on par with scientologists. Their "religion" was pulled out of a hat and they should be stripped of their tax exempt status for their involvement in politics.

  • GreenMountainBoy
    July 12, 2009 5:06 p.m.

    The anti-gay and negative posters here are all cowards and losers who don't even have the guts to post their real names.

  • New Yorker
    July 12, 2009 5:05 p.m.

    Organized religion is the most devisive and destructive invention that mankind has ever come up with. The Mormons just happen to be one of the worst examples, along with the Taliban and the Evangelicals. The funniest thing about it is the hypocracy. Just look at Ted Haggert. You simple minded sheep will believe anything.

  • ummers?
    July 12, 2009 5:05 p.m.

    A my kids kissed on temple square while they dating. so why didn't they kick them out???????

  • Just2Stressed
    July 12, 2009 5:03 p.m.

    The church/religion is the most cruel organization in the world. I am not an atheist, but it would be nice if we did away with religion/church.

  • Leonid
    July 12, 2009 4:59 p.m.

    I suspect the offense here wasn't so much that it was a "gay" couple but that it was an open show of affection.
    The Mormon community frowns on such displays and is probably the most unaffectionate group of people I've ever experienced.

  • YUCK
    July 12, 2009 4:57 p.m.

    I think I just threw up a little in my mouth!!!

  • Fred Smith
    July 12, 2009 4:57 p.m.

    Church security should have just simply ignored them. If they had done that, the couple would have left and the church wouldn't have been met with another PR mess.

  • Reanna
    July 12, 2009 4:56 p.m.

    The Gay Agenda:

    The radical idea that people deserve the same rights no matter who they love.

  • Anonymous
    July 12, 2009 4:55 p.m.

    It's a free country so believe what you want, but push the Gay agenda somewhere else and not on private property.

  • Noorvik
    July 12, 2009 4:53 p.m.

    The two guys were not "escorted off private property" ... the LDS is heavily subsidized by all of the taxpayers of the US ... including the 30 million or so 'Gay' taxpayers ... by virtue of your "tax exempt' status as a so-called, 'church'. In my opinion, 'churches' should put up or shut up. Pay your fair share of taxes like everyone else, or keep your self righteous 'moral' opinions to yourselves.

  • Anonymous
    July 12, 2009 4:51 p.m.

    "I am impressed. You were able to draw 60 people to your protest. Hope you get the message that your behavior is not acceptable." That's 49 more than attended the "teabag" rally the week before, and there was no advertising for it from Fox News. Not a good PR move for a group that traditionally has spread their word through missionaries (who must go to other people's property to spread the word). I little consistency would help your cause greatly.

  • Karen Anne
    July 12, 2009 4:51 p.m.

    It is way past time to stop all financial Tax benefits for any Church, be it LDS, Catholic, Baptist, JW, Protestant, Methodist, etc. And, I mean in the United States of America!Let them all pay their fair share at the going corporate Tax rates, no exemptions!!!

  • FreedomOfInformationAct
    July 12, 2009 4:48 p.m.

    don't like the gays in your churches, don't outlaw marriage for others outside your church!

    You brought your misguided religious beliefs to bear on Proposition H8 in California, now you reap what you have sowed.

  • David Taylor
    July 12, 2009 4:46 p.m.

    Yes, Justin. Last week I had the opportunity to tell a Mormon missionary who approached me at a gas station that I would not talk to him because of his church's intolerance. Once they were abused because they were different. Now they have become abusers of others not like them. Mormons have a growing PR problem, I think. They certainly do not make a statement that they are kind and tolerant to others who do not believe as they do.

  • old el-paso
    July 12, 2009 4:46 p.m.

    Similar incident here in El Paso. Two men kissing in a taco restaurant were asked to leave after customers complained. Now there are protesters in the streets and the media was called.

    Interesting to me how I have only seen the incident in Salt Lake City involving the Mormon Church in the national news. How come?

  • To: Logic
    July 12, 2009 4:45 p.m.

    You don't know what they intended to do. It seems pretty clear by the way they responded to a courteous request to leave that they had an agenda in mind when they started smooching on each other. You don't know how far they were willing to take their display to get the reaction they were hoping for. The fact that they raised a scene and became beligerant tells me they had a deeper purpose.

  • is that so wrong
    July 12, 2009 4:43 p.m.

    I don't want to see Mormon missionaries on my porch, but I have had to get used to it.

  • hate gaysandlez
    July 12, 2009 4:41 p.m.

    you give them an inch they take a mile that is why we fight for our rights you dont see gays in a public hot tub kissing or manig ment would be told about it right away.

  • distatsteful
    July 12, 2009 4:39 p.m.

    The power of love also includes the power of respect, not in your face demonstrations. A city council memebers represents all citizens just not her gay friends.

    Congratulations to the LDS church for having standards.

  • No Double Standard
    July 12, 2009 4:39 p.m.

    This whole thing about a supposed double standard is driving me nuts.

    There is NO DOUBLE STANDARD. If a heterosexual couple walked through the square behaving in a grotesque and inappropriate fashion they would be asked to leave as well. If they then got ugly, shouted profanities and refused to leave privately owned property, police would have no choice but to treat them in the same manner as those two extremely rude, out of line, gay men were treated.

    Let's be clear on this. A husband and wife holding hands is appropriate behavior. Even if he kisses her on the cheek, that's still appropriate behavior. If they start slobbering all over each other, then that's inappropriate and they will be asked to leave.

  • Tired of it
    July 12, 2009 4:35 p.m.

    I am tired of hearing about the Gay agenda.

    Maybe the LDSers should make a call for more Saints to move into SLC and again take the majority. The minority has moved into SLC and love playing the victim.

    Take SLC back.

  • I Getta Kick...
    July 12, 2009 4:35 p.m.

    Out of the LGBT Crowd crying discrimination and that a Church does not have a right to beleive what they believe. Last time I checked The GOVERNMENT CANNOT infere with religious beliefs. We beleive that homosexual behavior is immoral. The Government cannot enforce us to beleive otherwise under the 1st Amendment.

    Here in So. Cal, I deal with LGBT crowd everyday. What I have discovered is that currently it is "IN" to engage in homosexual behavior and call onself "gay" or "bi". Many "straight" people engaged in homosexual beahavior for the thrill, or experimentation. I hear it discussed everyday. For those of the LGBT crowd who "claim" that they are products of nature, these people are not helping your cause.

    Finally, if you want to see how the LGBT want to undermine American Religion, watch the Documentary "For The Bible Tells Me So". It outlines how the LGBT militant groups plan to use these tactics and media exploitation to get religions to accept their lifestyle.

  • Truth
    July 12, 2009 4:32 p.m.

    Here is the truth:

    “The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such desires and tendencies, he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. . . . Again, contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this sin, like fornication, is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means total abandonment and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such behavior from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature or the seriousness of the practice. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men have bodies which can be defiled.” LDS President Spencer W. Kimball

  • To 'Inlookout':
    July 12, 2009 4:29 p.m.

    You're almost getting it. I'll type this slowly so that you can understand it....it is okay for heterosexual PDA's (within reason) by heterosexual couples. That is what the church preaches. It's not a double standard, it's a very single clear standard called the Law of Chastity.

    If you'd like to know more about it, I can send over 2 straight clean cut young men who can give you the basics in six short discussions.

  • Anonymous
    July 12, 2009 4:26 p.m.

    I just don't want to see gay couples at all.

    Is that so wrong?

  • Dear Stenar
    July 12, 2009 4:24 p.m.

    of course they behaved like gentleman and the police always go around handcuffing innocent folks who are being repsectful and courteous of others.

  • California boy
    July 12, 2009 4:23 p.m.

    Good for the LDS church. I'm so tired of the gay agenda here in California. People on here hit the nail on the head. The gays talk about tolerance, respect, and acceptance. Yet they don't have any tolerance or respect for others rights.

    They keep trying to force their lifestyle on the rest of the world yet they keep coming off as whackos.

    Good for the church. Don't let them ruin things like they have here in California!

  • question
    July 12, 2009 4:23 p.m.

    The alleged display of affection took place on private property. People do not have the right to do whatever they want on private property. Get over it.

  • Dear Gay Boy:
    July 12, 2009 4:22 p.m.

    The Mormons are practicing what they preach. Maybe the 2 gay men should practice a little of what they preach and that's showing some tolerance and respect of other's beliefs.

  • good grief
    July 12, 2009 4:21 p.m.

    Heterosexual couples have also been asked to stop kissing on the PRIVATELY owned church property. Who cares? This is just another reason for vocal minority within the gay community to embarrass everyone else in the gay community by throwing a two-year-old-esq public temper tantrum. Best thing to do in this situation? Ignore them and walk away.

  • Dear 'Inlookout':
    July 12, 2009 4:21 p.m.

    Are you really this stupid? There is no double standard. There's the church's standard which is relations between a man and a woman are okay. Any other form, man and a man, woman and a woman, man and an animal, woman and an animal, man and a little boy, etc are inviolate and not within the standards of the church.

    Since it's the church's property, they set the standard by which people must behave. It's not that hard to figure out.

  • Anonymous
    July 12, 2009 4:18 p.m.

    Oh those militant Mormons with their hidden agenda are showing their hatred again!

  • Logic
    July 12, 2009 4:05 p.m.

    Had the couple not been stopped by security, they would have continued on their way and would have been off the property within moments. They were just passing through like thousands of people do everyday.

    Sad that people here believe that love is only reserved for people of a certain belief. Many here don't seem to truly understand Christ's teachings.

  • Counter Protest
    July 12, 2009 3:55 p.m.

    Maybe we should organize counter-protests and send people to the homes of hte gay men and the former councilwoman and stand in their yards and with bullhorns read "the Family: A Proclamation to the World" out loud to them and sing hymns to them. Maybe the first hymn can be, "Because I have been given much I too must give."

  • Thin Pancake
    July 12, 2009 3:50 p.m.

    Here's the deal folks, IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY!! Nothing else matters, nothing! If I am on private property and am asked to leave, FOR WHAT EVER REASON, I have to leave. If I dont then I am tresspassing, it really is just that simple. I could be asked to leave because of the color of my shirt, or the way I comb my hair, or the kind of shoes I am wearing, or because I crossed my eyes funny, or for absolutely no reason at all. I can choose to leave or choose to tresspass, and then I deal with the consequence of my decision, good or bad. It's an issue of property rights, not gay rights, nothing more

  • Apology
    July 12, 2009 3:49 p.m.

    LGBT should apologize to LDS chruch for not following the rules of the plaza. They should say that these two men were wrong in displaying affection on chruch property and not leaving after they were asked to stop. But we all know they won't because the LGBT community thinks that everything is there and that everyone should have to see things there way. Sorry people if you don't like to be asked not to display affection then don't go on church property and be profane and beligerant that is the real reason we are even talking about this.

  • Dear "Mike":
    July 12, 2009 3:48 p.m.

    So, does public access mean that the public is allowed to do whatever they feel like? Can they walk naked through the plaza or just up and hold a giant Woodstock if they feel like it?

    Let's not be stupid here. The public does have access but they have to respect the property, and the church has the right to ask people who are behaving inappropriately to leave, just like a privately owned business that's open to the public has the right to refuse service to anyone.

    Having public access doesn't mean you can do whatever you like. Even in public parks there are things you're not allowed to do. Show some intelligence here, please. These lame arguments and protests are beginning to get on my nerves.

  • To Mormons
    July 12, 2009 3:44 p.m.

    Gay boy here.... Practice what you preach.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    Kiss my grits.

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

    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.

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

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

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

    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.

    July 12, 2009 3:27 p.m.

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Kevin
    July 12, 2009 2:57 p.m.

    @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?

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

    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.

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

    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?

  • Eric
    July 12, 2009 2:36 p.m.

    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....

  • no
    July 12, 2009 2:25 p.m.

    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?

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

    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

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

    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.

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

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

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    @ 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?

  • Matt
    July 12, 2009 1:57 p.m.

    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.

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

    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)

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

    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.

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

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

  • toph
    July 12, 2009 1:41 p.m.

    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.

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

    Hopefully they had breath mints! Kiss off.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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


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

    "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!

  • Shem
    July 12, 2009 1:30 p.m.

    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.

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

    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
    July 12, 2009 1:21 p.m.

    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.

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

    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!

  • DONE!
    July 12, 2009 1:17 p.m.

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

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

    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.

  • Shem
    July 12, 2009 1:11 p.m.

    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.

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

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

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

    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.

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

    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?

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


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

    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.

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

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

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

    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.

  • Matt
    July 12, 2009 12:56 p.m.

    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.

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

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

  • alex
    July 12, 2009 12:53 p.m.

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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
    July 12, 2009 12:49 p.m.

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

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

    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.

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

    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?

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

    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???

  • Matt
    July 12, 2009 12:41 p.m.

    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.

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

    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!

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

    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".

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

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

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

    One question,

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

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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?

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

    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*

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

    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.

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

    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....

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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?

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

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

  • Sooo
    July 12, 2009 11:37 a.m.

    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?

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

    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.

  • Ema
    July 12, 2009 11:05 a.m.

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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!

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

    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"

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

    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.

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

    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.

  • hate
    July 12, 2009 10:32 a.m.

    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.

  • Doug
    July 12, 2009 10:30 a.m.

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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).

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    bleh...waste your time however you want