'Love advocates' plan 'kiss-in' at Main Street Plaza

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.

  • Justice
    July 16, 2009 5:54 p.m.

    "Just another way for the gay's to get some attention, and demonstrate their intolerance and pure hatred for mormons."

    I'm not gay and I am Mormon. However, this fiasco of kicking the two men off the property was so avoidable it's not even funny. The church deserves to be in the news getting bad press on this one.

  • Just another way....
    July 16, 2009 4:21 p.m.

    for the gay's to get some attention, and demonstrate their intolerance and pure hatred for mormons.

    Nothing new.

  • Re: Anonymous | 3:40
    July 16, 2009 4:15 p.m.

    In that case, maybe the gays should have their kiss-in in Mecca...

  • The Bottom Line is...
    July 16, 2009 4:09 p.m.

    It's private property...the owners of the property can do as they wish when it comes to prosecuting tresspassors. From the news coverage it sounds like this was more than just a peck or a short kiss. Had a heterosexual couple been making out I know they too would have been ask to cease and disist or suffer the same outcome as this homosexual couple did. Like I said at the first of this post though its totally up to the land owner and they can pick and chose what they want to do in situations like this.

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2009 3:40 p.m.

    @ask yourself

    Mormonism is NOT the fastest growing religion.
    You aren't even a BLIP on the radar compared to Buddhism and Islam and Catholicism globally.

    Try to get some facts...not published by the Quorum of Twelve....seriously.

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2009 3:05 p.m.

    Utah earning it's title as the HATE state one goon squad at a time.

    And then you wonder why your businesses and tourism is being boycotted?

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2009 2:07 p.m.

    KEEP your missionaries off gay's and lesbian's private property.
    Keep your HATE MONEY off our Constitutional Rights.

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2009 1:26 p.m.

    Give me a public display of affection, even among gays, than a public display of bigotry!

  • anti mormons
    July 15, 2009 9:59 a.m.

    The gays ought to realize we've dealt with the antimormons for years. Protests around temple square are almost normal. Except the anti mormons are a lot more dedicated. I see the same ones year after year.

  • ask yourselves ...
    July 14, 2009 4:43 p.m.

    Why don't we see stories about the Mormons going to gathering places for Gays? Does it happen?

    Why aren't the Mormons publishing the names and location of individual supporters of Gay lifestyles?

    Do the Mormons claim the members are perfect in following it's teachings?

    Did these 2 young men not realize they were on temple square in SLC? How can ANYone in SLC possibly not know the Mormons position on basic issues?

    Did the Security Guards say "Gays are not allowed to kiss here?"

    Has anyone ever noticed the standards the Mormons expect of their own members at other properties (BYU campus', meetinghouses, etc)?

    How did this situation move from "please leave" to "you're under arrest?"

    If Gays hate the Mormons so much why where they there? If my wife and I were on property that I knew didn't like my lifestyle, I wouldn't feel like kissing.

    If Mormons are so old fashioned, why is it one of the fastest growing religions in the world?

    Just take a few minutes and ask yourself a few of these questions. Do a little research...

  • =)
    July 14, 2009 4:37 p.m.

    The problem that I have with this, is that the church representative claimed they would ask anyone kissing in the plaza to leave. That is sooo unbelievably a lie. These men probably should have left when they were asked because at that point they did break the rules. However, I don't believe the LDS church would ask all people kissing to leave. Just like I don't believe the LDS church leaders, the leaders of the largest voting body in the state, when they claim the church to be politcally neutral and encourage members to "vote their conscience." These men were asked to leave because they were both men.

  • Ute Fan
    July 14, 2009 2:10 p.m.

    The lack of tolerance is from the homosexuals, not the Church. Believe it or not, I have the right to not agree with you. Gasp! Can that be possible?

    The two guys were asked to leave. They should leave. Deeda should get a real job.

    Do what you want on your time on your property. You can't force me to approve, tolerate or pay for it.

  • Stupid Is As Stupid Does
    July 14, 2009 1:52 p.m.

    Just how classless and blind is the homosexual community?

    Apparently quite a bit.

    PRIVATE property is PRIVATE property! You DON'T get to act how you want, whenever you want and say whatever you want in however you want to express it on somebody's PRIVATE property.

    I mean just how stupid can you guys be??????

    If you choose to have a massive display of affection on the LDS church's private property you can expect to ONLY be made out to be massive idiots. It is not the LDS church who will look absolutely moronic in the eyes of the public but the gay community.

    The harder you push for "gay equality" the more you tick off the majority of your fellow Americans.

  • Trust Us
    July 14, 2009 10:35 a.m.

    "It'll be a little bit of Paris" uhhh huh, right.

  • Bill
    July 14, 2009 10:16 a.m.

    Private property is private property. I have the right to determine what happens on my property. No troops can force their way onto my property or make a encampment on my property unless I give them that right and then they have to pay for that right with compensation I DEEM is right. The same goes for anyone who comes on my property.

    As for missionaries coming to the door at all hours of the night, how incorrect is this. They knock on doors generally between the hours of 10am to approximately 8pm. They don't do it all day long as they do have to eat and teach, therefore the likely hood of them coming to anyones door at all hours is an incorrect statement. Secondly, a member of the church is a member until they are removed from its roles. We are the only Church that has a thorough record of all members of it. It is true some get lost and leave no forwarding address and it comes back to the parents or family to possibly assist. You are not forced to give this information. Read Christ's own feelings on sheep that become lost.

  • To Beth at 11:11
    July 14, 2009 6:39 a.m.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is what the US Constitution has to say about "private property":

    'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'

    Sorry, Beth, but that doesn't exactly cover the Mormons from detaining and zip-tying two young men, despite what you want to think.

    Imagine a privately owned and operated restaurant asking two people to leave because they are Asian. Private property, right? The restaurant should be entitled, right? Sorry, doesn't work that way, and for good reason. The Mormon's "guidelines" don't supersede law, even in Utah.

  • New Mexico
    July 13, 2009 9:37 p.m.

    On a recent visit to the Plaza area, my very heterosexual LDS son and his wife sat down and shared a couple of kisses---- and guess what???? Security came and kindly asked that they refrain from doing that or leave the property. So there you go--- it isn't just all about harrassing homosexuals! They are fair across the board.

  • WWJD
    July 13, 2009 5:53 p.m.

    If Jesus had been asked to leave the property of another, I am sure he would politely do as they asked.

    I hope the security guards keep up the good work. When I visit Temple Square I don't want to be offended by any homosexual acts.

  • to heppo
    July 13, 2009 5:05 p.m.

    Wow, could you possibly come off as a bigger racist? Is that the 'tolerance' you were taught? "Negros"? Really? Are you stuck in some 1960's world?

    You are perfect representation to the rest of the world on how bigoted Mormons can be.

  • Jake
    July 13, 2009 4:52 p.m.

    Some thoughts to consider:

    1. It is impossible to tell what the intentions of the two men were.

    2. The church purchased that land from the city and has the right to regulate behavior as it sees fit.

    3. Property owners are under no legal obligation to post all prohibited behaviors on their property in order to enforce them.

    4. Some people are offended by displays of affection between homosexuals, no matter its sincerity.

    5. Some people are offended by Mormons, no matter their sincerity.

    While I'm repeatedly annoyed by both parties to this argument, I recognize that the church is in the right here. Only an idiot would believe the kiss-in is meant to spread love. It's intended to repeat the provocation on a larger scale and with as much publicity as possible. They don't want to see you lip-locked, and you don't want to hear their sermons. The difference is, you're on their property and you've chosen to be there.

  • Wow what a stupid plan
    July 13, 2009 12:36 p.m.

    Tolerence | 4:08 p.m. July 11, 2009
    AMEN! You said it!

    GET A ROOM!!!!!! The same would have taken place if it were a hetero couple. Stop playing the victim, it's really pathetic.

  • Beth
    July 13, 2009 11:11 a.m.

    Despite the fact that there weren't signs posted warning of private property they were warned, when they were asked to leave by the security officer. After they were warned and refused to leave then law enforcement intervened. And don't tell me that the offending couple didn't know, they were walking HOME. They live in Salt Lake!

    A few years ago I was at the plaza, sitting on the edge of the reflection pool with some friends in front of the temple. Two gay men walked in front of us and when they saw us one man proceeded to glare at us while grabbing his companion's butt. Were they deliberately trying to offend me? Absolutely! Was I offended? Not really, mostly I just thought that they were ridiculous.

    Was the current incident a statement (perhaps impromptu) or just a brief, innocent, spontaneous kiss? Probably not. But does it even matter? No, because they were on private property and when they were informed about the property rules/regulations they chose to ignore them.

    Private property is a constitutional right. Kissing on any private property is not. This instance was an assault on freedom of religion, not gay rights.

  • To Anonymous | 9:35
    July 13, 2009 10:59 a.m.

    That's nice. Your not the only LDS person who is confused by the gay rights movement.

  • To Name | 5:00
    July 13, 2009 10:54 a.m.

    Is your front lawn accessible? I think I would like to come hang out with a few of my friends. Maybe camp out for a few days.

  • To Anonymous | 4:18
    July 13, 2009 10:52 a.m.

    Maybe the city should seize your private property while they are at it.

  • Anonymous
    July 13, 2009 9:35 a.m.

    I am active LDS and I support this kiss-in. There was no reason for LDS security guards to say anything to these men. This was a bad mistake and it is an embarassment to me.

  • Consider the big picture
    July 13, 2009 7:10 a.m.

    Some comments suggest that the "gays" should keep their noses out of the LDS church and its interests, staying away from its "private" property. The LDS church had no qualms about disrupting the lives of gay and lesbian Californians by actively campaigning for Proposition 8. It's a beautiful thing to see the LDS church (and some of its members) exposed as a minority organization fighting against the rights of minorities. A "private space" that should be protected more than a square or park is the union between two loving adults.

  • To: Emshowg
    July 12, 2009 10:41 p.m.

    "These men should not have been charged with trespassing since there was no warning to them that they were breaking your rules."

    Um, the warning to them that they were breaking the rules would have been the security guard coming up to them and asking them politely to leave. They were cited for trespassing when they became verbally abusive and loudly refused to leave after being asked to do so.

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

    Wow, I wonder if this kind of behavior happened 6000 years ago when the world was "created". lol

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

    These comments only prove how deluded the LDS slaves are. They're too busy hating and waving their flags to realize their hypocrisy.

  • yeah
    July 12, 2009 7:41 p.m.

    If the LDS want private property respected so much (to the point of removing gay couples for kissing on a previously public area) then why are two twenty-year solicitors encouraged to show up unannounced on my front porch at any hour of any day?

    And when will headquarters stop calling our home to get inactive family members' unpublished phone numbers (which are unpublished for a reason)?

    The last is a lot more frustrating- if the inactives wanted the you to know their info, they'd tell you when they go to church.

  • Emshowg
    July 12, 2009 6:32 p.m.

    This wasn't private property until the city sold the public walkway to you guys a few years ago. Which they should have never done.

    The easement for mandatory allowance of public usage on said now "private property" allowed the public to continue to use it. If you wish to control the public's actions on your property you had better clearly post what you wish to allow and not allow on said property. These men should not have been charged with trespassing since there was no warning to them that they were breaking your rules. If the it states that public usage is allowed unless people break your permitted conduct, then you should be required to post what conduct that is that you do and do not permit.

  • buck nuggets
    July 12, 2009 6:13 p.m.

    Have people considered that perhaps this wasn't a deliberate provocation?

    Perhaps the couple were just infused with some kind of orgasmic religious experience (being so close to the temple) and they lost control. You have to admit that there's something undeniably masculine & virile about it. Hell, makes me want to kiss another man just thinking about it.

  • compassion
    July 12, 2009 5:59 p.m.

    Everyone just use common sense and reason, try to understand where the other is coming from and come up with a result that both can agree with.

    There is a difference between tasteful displays of affection and blatently pushing the line to offend others. That line is very clear. Same-sex couples should be allowed to express themselves in a decent fashion, and the LDS church should very much tolerate that. However, behaviour that the church would not condone on its property between couples of different sexes should not be allowed.

    Both sides know where the line is. Just spend a little time pondering potential outcomes and you'll see this can be a non-issue.

  • Phil
    July 12, 2009 5:48 p.m.

    Ha Ha...this is classic pay back for all the times I've had to deal with door to door Mormons. You can come to my house but we can't come to yours?

  • misunderstanding
    July 12, 2009 5:31 p.m.

    If its obviously private property that does not permit pedestrian traffic, it is indeed trespassing. However, if its commonly and openly used by the public without incident, its discriminatory to select certain people to hit with a trespassing charge--especially if it isn't clearly marked.

    Nevertheless, i can see these men as having thought they were being singled out for their orientation in the absence of private property markers. I dont blame them for getting upset, but when trespassing is concerned, its always wise to be polite and apologetic. You never know what kind of people you are dealing with until after the fact. When the affection-related social norms straight people take for granted are broadened to a more egalitarian perspective, misunderstandings like this are bound to become an artifact of the past. I just wish our civilization would hurry along and grow up already.

    As for the kiss-in, people will always find a way to gather in order to increase awareness when issues collide. Inform more people about who cares about what, and people will think critically about it for themselves.

  • heppo
    July 12, 2009 5:09 p.m.

    Yeah, it's private property, so the church has the right to tell them to get off, and they should leave politely. This is just like what happened with the Negroes decades ago. They all decided to hold sit ins in places where they weren't wanted, and refused to get out, and now look at em'. They get to go everywhere! I took the fam to dinner and a negro couple was sitting right by us, like they was normal people? First the negroes, then the gays... what's next?

    I don't understand what's happening to this country

  • Andrew
    July 12, 2009 5:01 p.m.

    Many of the commenters seem to be claiming that the plaza is private property and therefore subject to whatever rules the Mormons see fit to decree. Would this apply if the Mormons decided that black people shouldn't be on the square? Or if they decided that anybody in a wheelchair was an offense to God? No...there would be an ensuing legal battle. Regardless of what your religious beliefs are, don't try to suggest that they are legally entitled to what they did.

  • Name
    July 12, 2009 5:00 p.m.

    To all of those saying what the LDS church did should be tolerated because the incident occurred on private property, you are mistaken about discrimination. It doesn't matter if the area is private property or not, if you make an area accessible to the public then you cannot discriminate against those that visit it.

    Would you feel the same if the Mormon Church had arrested a black couple for trespassing? Of course not. The LDS can either operate a public space and make it available to everyone or they can close the street down. No such bigotry should be accepted in our society, even when it comes from an institution like a church.

  • Jason
    July 12, 2009 4:30 p.m.

    Wait...so Mormon bigots donate money to pass a hate law in California and then get upset when someone shows up in their backyard to smooch? This outdated religion is on the wrong side of history. Your religion is already filled with closeted homosexuals - I know because I've slept with them - so what's the problem?

  • Daniel
    July 12, 2009 4:19 p.m.

    I am a native, born and raised Utahn...and I am truly ashamed of nearly everyone in my state. Gay or straight or bi, black, white, hispanic...none of it matters. God wants you to treat everyone like he/she is your brother/sister. I'm disappointed in the LDS members who can't even practice what they are taught, and most of them have been on missions. How can you expect people to take you seriously when you're the largest group of hypocrites amassed in one state?

    The LDS church teaches against homosexuality as a sin, but what they don't teach you is to hate ANYONE. Just because someone has a different life than you, doesn't make you better or make you any more/less important. When Mormons stop hating people, you will open new doors and make more progress to a happier union with all members of the community, not just the people who have the same faith.

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

    The city should seize back the easement, problem solved. Then tell everyone to get on with their life.

  • The Great Zarquon
    July 12, 2009 4:03 p.m.

    Remember Mary Magdelene? She was a prostitute, but Jesus didn't care, he just saw that she was a human being and therefore deserving of the same kind of respect that he showed to everyone. Gays are just like Mary Magdelene: human, and deserving of the same kind of respect you would give one of your fellow church members.

    Remember the golden rule, as well: treat others as you would have them treat you.

  • love is love
    July 12, 2009 3:48 p.m.

    While I understand that it's private property, I highly doubt they would have asked a straight couple to leave for kissing on the cheek.

    Intolerance is not what God would want, so I always find it laughable when any religious group uses their beliefs to hate.

  • hlkneedler
    July 12, 2009 3:47 p.m.

    You Utah bigots are hideous.

  • America the sad
    July 12, 2009 3:36 p.m.

    In Canada, private property rights, in relation to private / public spaces, cannot trump our charter of rights and freedomes.

    America's consititution is as useful as toilet paper.

    America, land of the bigots.

  • casting stones
    July 12, 2009 3:15 p.m.

    It is assumed that some posters on here are LDS..one poster actually mentioned the child molesters in the Catholic church...care full there as child molesters are not just there. They are LDS, Christian, Babtist and etc. I know this to be factual...perverts hide behind all kinds of masks..seems to me that if you cannot be tolerant and show compassion in a public venue then you should close it off so you can screen those visitors to suit your rules.

  • What?
    July 12, 2009 3:11 p.m.

    Since there is not way to really know that this particular area is in fact private property as there is no fence..seems to me that the security officer drew way more attention to the whole thing by telling them to leave..it is better to ignore something that you find uncomfortable. By drawing so much attention just gives it more of a push. Lesson learned if you want the sanctity of your precious private property fence it off..post the rules for guests...problem solved.

  • Pam
    July 12, 2009 2:41 p.m.

    This particular location is open to guests...and I have in fact been there and have seen public displays of affection..no security person intervened..the point is that if public displays of affection are allowed for some people and not others then there is intolerance..equal treatment is what the point is. LDS persons need to remember that this was public property first...if you cannot show tolerance then close the dame place off to the public. That way you will have the control that you so desire..if you keep it open then learn tolerance and equal treatment..stop targeting people who do not believe the same as you this is the real world.

  • The Other 49 States
    July 12, 2009 2:35 p.m.

    Dear Utah,

    Thanks for being such a laugh riot. You give the rest of us something to point to whenever someone says one of us is the most backward state in the country.

  • Your hypocrisy is laughable
    July 12, 2009 1:33 p.m.

    It is so amusing to listen to people completely undermine themselves and their opinions. The effort expended on repeatedly condemning homosexual behavior is wasteful and downright spiteful. And it does nothing but make a mockery of the very people and their religion who cannot get their fill of making it known that they don't support homosexuality.

    And the ludicrous lengths used to support their passive aggressive intolerance are even more amusing. Private property, please. Nobody is fooled by this use of semantics and nobody believes that this is about anything other than discrimination for people that, in this case Mormons, feel superior to.

    It's a comfort to know that these sorts of incidents are simply the frantic struggling efforts of the hypothetical playground bully who won't allow anyone to play a game he doesn't want to play and won't simply allow everyone to share the playground equally. Private property, maybe. But we all play on the playground earth and nobody likes a bully.

    And as for the insinuation that homosexuals are "shoving this in people's faces" well that's just another poor excuse for a lack of tolerance.

    God bless EVERYONE. Every. One.

  • spamlds
    July 12, 2009 1:25 p.m.

    To David, who wrote: " I'm going to now require that nobody can be Mormon on my property. Let's see how fast those bicycling evangelists can get off my property!"

    Having been a Mormon missionary myself, I know that all you have to do is tell our elders you're not interested and they will go away. You won't see them again unless they randomly knock on your door again after a couple of years goes by.

    The trespassing legally occurred when the two men refused to leave after being asked and then resorted to profanity and hostile language. No LDS missionary is going to cuss you out when you ask them to leave your doorstep.

    On the other hand, as a LDS missionary, I was the recipient of verbal abuse and even assaulted on a number of occasions. I was hit in the head with a brick and had a bag of glass bottles dropped down from a high balcony window that narrowly missed me. I've had a Baptist deacon take a swing at me with a shovel!

    The actions of the two men was intentionally provocative. Mormons are not at fault here.

  • Jack
    July 12, 2009 12:45 p.m.

    A question was asked about what would Jesus do in considering the act on the plaza owned by the LDS Church. If I recall 2 situations in the Bible, this same Jesus cast out the money changers from the temple because of inappropriate behavior. Jesus showed a great deal of love, but please give me chapter and verse where he condoned sin.
    When we are on public property in front of sacred buildings throughout the world, I hope we would show respect. When you enter those buildings I hope you would follow the appropriate actions of reverance, profound respect, for the edifice and the sacred, historical, or national significance of the place you are visiting. If you don't, you will be asked to leave by the care takers of the property, and if you make a scene you will be hauled off to jail in any country and in any state of this nation.
    I am afraid we are loosing our well founded teachings of respect for the property rights of others and the correct manner in which we should honor sacred or hallowed buildings of this or any other county.

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

    Salt Lake City: never gonna visit. Ever.

  • Real Tolerance
    July 12, 2009 12:08 p.m.

    Hey, mormons: for years you were driven out of the rest of the country. You espouse that you want people to be tolerant of your belief in whatever it is you believe in. Fine, great! You have a whole state of your fellow believers.

    But guess what? Tolerance is a two way street. Also I absolutely DARE you to use the same arguments against bi-racial couples you are using against gays.

    To the other "Tolerance," you say "Call it a lack civility, call it a lack courtesy, or call it a total lack of tolerance from a special interest group that demands tolerance of others, but not themselves."

    Ha! Apply that to yourself, please.

  • sneej
    July 12, 2009 11:58 a.m.

    My previous post was removed, I'm not sure why. I said, "Eyewitnesses to the scene have said that it wasn't just a peck on the cheek, or even a brief kiss. They were standing in place, groping each other and essentially making out for several minutes before they were asked to leave. " That is a completely FALSE statement, one that is easily refuted with research and first-hand accounts. Please stop inflaming this already sensitive issue with mistruths and outlandish rumor attempts.

  • Way to Go!
    July 12, 2009 11:51 a.m.

    Excellent idea, this kiss-in! Once people see gay couples kissing, maybe they'll realize that the earth won't stall in its orbit when they do. It's just a happy couple, loving one another. Gay or straight, that kind of love is always a cause for celebration, as far as I'm concerned.

  • Stenar
    July 12, 2009 11:47 a.m.

    They didn't deliberately go where LDS families were to make a point. They were walking home from a concert at 11pm at night. There was NO ONE ELSE on the plaza. They didn't realize LDS security watches every movement on the plaza with security cameras. They were just walking home, as they live on the other side of the plaza. They stopped for a brief second, while they thought they were entirely alone and one gave a small peck on the cheek of the other one.

  • Zero Tolerance to Rudeness
    July 12, 2009 11:44 a.m.

    There is no common sense to find the church wrong on this issue. The Church was not the Rude Party. To have ignored it would have been to invite an immoral injustice for the sake of compromising. Something that the church should never give into. The guilty parties were given ample oppurtunity to leave peacefully...their choices were wrong and it's quite obvious they went there with a possible disruptive intent....They violated the owners privete rights to set standards that may be even higher than the local communities. Your dealing with private property not public. If you don't know the laws then like every other law...ignorance is no excuse. The Church has a right to say,deem or set as appropriate or inappropriate a higher standardard within the confines of their property within that community as pertaining to private property. Because of this right of the legal ownwer to set their own standards they were asked to leave....they chose not to, but chose rather to make a specticle.... they got their noses rubbed in the dirt.... they were wrong on all counts...The police did the right thing. If you don't like it tough.

  • Brian
    July 12, 2009 10:56 a.m.

    Good is called evil and evil good. Hate is called love and love is called hate. Welcome to the last days!

  • Yay for love
    July 12, 2009 10:28 a.m.

    And Yay for human rights!

  • hypocrisy at its best
    July 12, 2009 10:19 a.m.

    This is hypocrisy at its best. If you think I am talking about the LDS church you would be mistaking. So, people want to promote what they label as "love" What about LOVE for your neighbor regardless of their religous persuation...EVEN...gasp...LDS. Does it really show love to go on to private property and try to make a public disturbance? You be the judge. If you came onto my property and tried to offend me, I think I would have to call that anti-love or hate. The truth is the LDS church is hated by many people in Utah. Somehow the Mormons are supposed to just sit back and accept it. I with stand in TRUE LOVE with all my mormon friends and condemn the actions of these so called love activist. You want to show love--respect their property. Oh, and by the way, we already have to much public affection. I can barely walk anywhere without seeing something inappropriate. We as a society are just loosing our sense of decensy. Kudos to the Mormon church

  • AMAZING!!!!!!
    July 12, 2009 9:54 a.m.

    Is this really a news worthy report, incident, or even worth the public debate? Cure wounds by "LOVE" WOW... what a concept. Thought wounds were healed by medical means and emotional by communication, tolerance, and patience.
    Rules are rules despite the oppinions of other peoples beliefs, race, gender, or whatever it may be. Change is enevidable, how come we can't learn to go with the flow and accept it making the best of it. Even if most don't agree with how things were done with main street, I for one consider it still a pretty and worthwhile change.
    Breaking the rules and being belidgerant towards authorities requesting the obedience of rules gets twisted into this? SERIOUSLY.. Only in utah...
    Are all rules going to start being twisted into a personal attack against sexual orientation, race, religion?
    Lets step back and take a look at what battles are worth this sort of protest...

  • Dear Deeda,
    July 12, 2009 8:46 a.m.

    Don't you think you're planned "love in" is just a little immature? Perhaps a bit of an overreaction?

    Second, the two men mentioned weren't arrested because they kissed (though that action was certainly inappropriate). Police were necessary because they were profane and disruptive.

    The LDS Church is on pretty firm ground, here.

  • Anonymous
    July 12, 2009 7:03 a.m.

    The anti-Mormon hatred that seethes in comments on stories like this is truly amazing.

  • To: hope & Sneej
    July 12, 2009 5:36 a.m.

    Eyewitnesses to the scene have said that it wasn't just a peck on the cheek, or even a brief kiss. They were standing in place, groping each other and essentially making out for several minutes before they were asked to leave. If a heterosexual couple had done that, there's no question that they'd be asked to stop, too. That kind of behavior in public is wildly inappropriate.

    Instead of doing what the security guard asked, they became verbally abusive and started yelling obscenities, which is also inappropriate public behavior.

    Would you behave that way in a public library? How about a classroom at school? In a pew at church? In line at the grocery store? No, you wouldn't.

    Because the plaza is private property, the LDS church can ask people to do anything they want them to, and those rules need to be obeyed. They could insist that unless you hop across the plaza on one foot, you'll need to leave, and they'd be perfectly within their rights to bar access to anybody choosing to walk instead. The only ones in the wrong here were these two men who refused to follow the rules.

  • Tell It Like It Is
    July 12, 2009 4:38 a.m.

    These perverts do stuff like this -- absolutely cram their deviancy in our faces through infantile and offensive publicity stunts like this, and then expect us to "tolerate" them? THis only drives a lot of reasonable people the other direction. When you can show a little dignity and tolerance yourselves, then contact us. Until then, go back in your closets.

  • JKutah
    July 12, 2009 2:21 a.m.

    What I forgot to say... if the Mormons don't like you being gay, or fondling each other on their property, then so be it... go somewhere else and stop trying to stir the pot. This is an attempt at trying to justify an unnatural lifestyle by making conservative religious beliefs seem wrong... by making them the discriminating "bigots".

    Those two guys knew what they were doing... and don't play dumb like you didn't know that already!

  • JKutah
    July 12, 2009 2:10 a.m.

    Just face it all homosexuals and “open-minded” people alike... You're wrong. The homosexual lifestyle is wrong. Just look at the human anatomy… intercourse between same-sexes doesn’t have any natural part in the circle of life.

    People have gay tendencies because we are a more twisted and deviant society... I can’t believe that it’s been completely justified and forced as being normal, or even right.

    I understand that the attraction is real, but it’s not normal, not natural, and not healthy. Why is that so hard to see? Are there any healthy minded people left in this world???? Thank goodness for the Mormons sticking to their values!

    Whatever though… just keep on justifying it so that you don’t have to fix it. Keeping your head in the sand is easier than seeing the truth.

  • Re: Jen
    July 12, 2009 1:51 a.m.

    Jen you are WAY off!

    You state that "it is not legal, nor is it acceptable to make rules governing your private property that violate the rights and laws of the country..."

    Your example of "...beating your wife..." is just plain silly and wrong headed.

    As a point of fact when it comes to law, you CAN in fact make rules for private property that COMPLETELY violates laws of personal freedom and security.

    A private company can dictate that only black people can work there. Did you know that? Yes, it is true, and they are NOT breaking the rules. As long as this company is NOT publicly traded or has contracts with a publicly traded company or a government agency, it is totally legal.

    The church can make whatever rules they want for their PRIVATE PROPERTY. They are not publicly traded, nor do they have contracts with publicly traded companies or government agencies. See how easy that is!

    Issues of safety are different matter, such as the "beating your wife" comment. That you simply cannot do, anywhere. No one has the right to harm another for any reason, except for the defense of others or self.


  • Jen
    July 12, 2009 12:09 a.m.

    This is not a disagreement about private property. It is true that people have a right to make rules to govern the actions of people on their private property, and it is true that the couple in question here should NOT have made a scene when asked to leave.

    HOWEVER! It is not legal, nor is it acceptable to make rules governing your private property that violate the rights and laws of the country- you can't, for instance, make beating your wife an "allowed" behavior just because it takes place on your private property.

    The issue here is that it is ok in Utah and far to many other places for gays expressing affection to be treated differently from straight people expressing affection. If the LDS church had a problem with ANY PDA on the square, and asked all kissing couples to leave, there would be no issue here. However, I'm in a heterosexual relationship and have kissed (quite passionately) in the square with no adverse reaction.

    The issue here is that the government has not provided the same anti-discrimination protection to gays that it has provided to women, blacks- even Mormons!

  • Ron
    July 12, 2009 12:08 a.m.

    It is curious that Deeda Seed does not list her private property address in the phone book. It seems as though she wants her private property respected, but could care less about the LDS church's private property rights.

  • An example
    July 12, 2009 12:07 a.m.

    This situation is a perfect example of why hate crimes legislation is wrong. Look at all the different posts of people saying "They did it to make a point", others saying, "No, they were just showing affection." Everyone has an opinion, but how can it possibly be proven what their intentions, thoughts, or motivations were?? There is no way to enter someone's mind & determine that sort of thing.

  • Intolerance
    July 11, 2009 11:45 p.m.

    Those who decry the supposed "intolerance" of the LDS Church are now going to stage an extended scene of anti-religious intolerance against the LDS Church, its teachings, and its people. They know their conduct will offend people, which is why they are doing it, in the shadow of one of the LDS church's most sacred sights, the temple. It is akin to parading around a Jewish synagogue with a Nazi flag.

    Here is the truth, for any with courage to hear it:

    “The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. 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 Hope @ 9:51
    July 11, 2009 11:44 p.m.

    Jesus would tell them to get the Hades off the private property.

  • I'm saddened
    July 11, 2009 11:39 p.m.

    I'm gay, yet I feel the community is doing what they always do when something doesn't go our way. They shout/protest and draw attention...I'm very disappointed by the gay community, they need to look at the big picture and realize these two men were on private property, owned by huge religious church, they were in the wrong, they should have left when asked. Im disappointed that they represented us in such an awful manner. I'm also disappointed in the church security guards, they should have represented the church in a better manner. I do hope the gays tomorrow have fun with their choice, I will not support the gay community. I just wish they'd really think about who they're dealing with before crying about it. This is a complete hypocrisy....ON BOTH PARTS.

  • Ernest T. Bass
    July 11, 2009 11:37 p.m.

    Ms. Seed says what they did was not wrong. Sorry, but it was. They refused to leave private property when asked. The only reason they went their in the first place was to stir up controversy. Sounds childish to me.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 11:34 p.m.

    @I stand in amazement:
    Well, if one of the other religions bought public property and put it inbetween areas that are traveled to and from frequently, I am sure they would have still kissed there. Not because of the religion, but because they were being affectionate in the moment. No signs say no homosexual kissing, at least not on those 10' gates.

    @Anonymous | 10:14 p.m. July 11, 2009
    Mormons believe they are the "one true church" and have, in the past, shown their distaste for other religions. Also, you ask how they are bigoted for standing up for their beliefs..
    Bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.
    They are bigoted because of what you just said.

  • David
    July 11, 2009 11:28 p.m.

    It is rather sad when the voice of one side of an issue insinuates their intolerance by changing the subject and calling others intolerant...

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 11:23 p.m.

    Some say that mormons don't go and try to "offend" gays. Well, when missionaries walk up and tell us we are sinners, they protest pride and many other things I dont think that you can say mormons don't.

    Also, if heterosexual couples can kiss at the plaza, there is no reason two guys shouldnt be able to. You try to claim that the only people that have rights are gays, but who spent millions trying to take rights from homosexuals? The LDS Church.

    "Call it a lack civility, call it a lack courtesy, or call it a total lack of tolerance..." --Who are the ones being intolerant?

    Sure, I disagree with many things gay activists do, but it doesnt excuse the church pushing its medieval beliefs on everyone. We aren't saying you have to be gay, just let us live in peace without meddling in our lives.

    I have been patient and have stood up for the LDSchurch for about 8 years on this subject, but after prop 8 and this, I have no respect for the church. I still respect other christian religions that oppose us quietly, but not mormonism any longer.

  • Sneej
    July 11, 2009 11:08 p.m.

    I love the "they had an agenda", "they did it to provoke" comments. They didn't have an agenda, they had a relationship. How many times have straight couples walked through that same easement holding hands or shared a simple kiss on the cheek? How many times were they told to "move on"?

    The issue is not one of trespassing or private property rights being ignored. It's about these two adults who are in a relationship walking through a part of the city open to the public being singled out for doing the same thing that is allowed on the same property every day by straight couples - because they were two men instead of a man and a woman.

    If you can't understand the unfairness of this and the resulting outrage that people feel from this, then you are right where you belong. In Utah, following the rest of the flock.

  • Timotheus
    July 11, 2009 10:54 p.m.

    I don't go preach in gay bars so, perhaps you could spare us the kiss in.

  • The Deuce
    July 11, 2009 10:52 p.m.

    Do we have to jump on this merry-go-round again with the same old comments. I am not LDS but let's at least get on the same page so that we are arguing from solid ground. Whether you believe in the Bible or not, homosexuality is not accepted in the teachings. You can make all of the "Jesus" arguments you want. If you remember the story of the women caught in adultry, Jesus simply said "go they way and sin no more". Simple and straight forward. The Bible never shows Jesus tolerating what he terms sin. Are we on the same page yet? Second, since the LDS Church does own the property and PDA between same sex couples is not accepted, they too can ask the couple to leave. These are the facts whether we like them or not. Third, this issue has to do with the definition of marriage. If this is about rights, let's simply call a same-sex union a Domestic Partnership with all of the same legal rights and responsibilities. Let's call a union between a male and femal marriage. Both define things correctly and both have the same rights. Comments?

  • just be real
    July 11, 2009 10:42 p.m.

    Why do gays have to use deception, exaggerations, lies, trickery and grandstanding when they communicate? People are kicked off the plaza all the time for "inappropriate" behavior. But when they're gay, they have to call the paper, exaggerate the story and protest. Who are the tolerant ones, the church who allows the public to use its property as long as they are respectful, or the people who choose to protest a church's right to govern its own property?

  • Just wondering
    July 11, 2009 10:36 p.m.

    If my morals and value system said that murder is the only way to get to heaven, than would that make it okay for me to do it? Could I impose this belief in others??

  • The Bigger Picture
    July 11, 2009 10:25 p.m.

    These two homosexuals do not represent the LGBT community in Utah at ALL--we have bigger things to worry about. NO matter what the "Church" will continue on its own path of self-destruction without the need of these kissing fools.

    I say sleep in. There is nothing progressive about a kiss-in. And the people that think they are making a difference are confused and setting back national & local LGBT efforts that we have been fervently working towards.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 10:14 p.m.

    Is it fair to call them bigoted? They actually stand by their morals and beliefs. Why is that bigoted? The LDS church doesn't hate other religions. They don't actively seek to bring down other religious institutions. The members of the LDS church just stand up for their collective belief system. That is every individuals right given in the First Amendment.

  • To "To @ David"
    July 11, 2009 10:07 p.m.

    So, by your logic, put up a sign. Say "No Mormons" or "No Proselyting" or something to that affect. Just the same as a "No Soliciting" sign. And Mormon's are not the only ones to send out missionaries. There are Baptists, Protestants, and Born Again Christians as well as a plethora of other religions that each send out missionaries. Strictly speaking, Catholic missionaries were some of the worst in history. I mean, come on, if a person didn't convert they were persecuted and killed. Whole towns were burned.

  • @ hope 9:51
    July 11, 2009 10:05 p.m.

    Security doesn't pounce on two people walking across the Plaza who just kiss each other on the cheek. They were asked to "move on," which suggests they were standing and making a scene. In essence, they were purposely provoking an incident.

    Now Ms. Seed is covering the anger that the provocateurs had with "love." Nonsense!

    This is nothing more than anti-Mormon sentiment. Leave the Latter-day Saints alone. It is private property. If you continue to instigate incidents, the LDS Church would be within it's rights to close the Main St. Plaza to public access.

  • Married in to it
    July 11, 2009 10:05 p.m.

    I honestly expect nothing less from the Mormon church, since they are known to be bigoted against many different types of people. I just wish that they could see that what they do hurts people and puts a bad image on themselves. I know for a fact that there are good mormons out there, and some in my husband's family that are very tolerant, and try to convince us to come to church with them, but this is just another example of why I will not go. Once again, I will be there tomorrow, with my family. If the LDS church doesn't want this kind of thing to happen, then give it up and be fair. Make sure you kick straight couples off the property too for sharing a kiss. Heck, Maybe they should ban marraiges as well, after all, don't you have to *kiss* the bride? Isn't that done on church property?

  • hope
    July 11, 2009 9:51 p.m.

    These young men were not doing anything outrageous. There was a kiss on the cheek and that is it. Get over it! This was motivated because they were 2 men. What would Jesus do?

  • To @ David
    July 11, 2009 9:50 p.m.

    When they open their mouth and say they are from the LDS church, that's a pretty good indication they are Mormon.
    So again, offending me.
    And you are right, I don't want people on my property pushing their religious views on me.
    You're right! Sound thinking it is!

  • @ David
    July 11, 2009 9:36 p.m.

    Good sound thinking man!!! How are you going to tell if the person on your property is Mormon???
    I do respect your right to not want a Mormon or any other person on your property but that's like saying you don't want the a Catholic or Baptist on your property---- how are you going to monitor that ridiculous statement??????

  • @I stand in amazement.....
    July 11, 2009 9:32 p.m.

    I'm going to assume that you've never, in fact, kissed someone, or else I'm sure you'd realize that you've never "chosen" a spot do so. You feel affection, you kiss someone. That's all.

    You point out that the Mormon church's policy on homosexuality should come into play- I have to ask, then- WHY WASN'T THAT PART OF THEIR STATEMENT? The official statement from the Mormons was that "the men were 'politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior _ just as any other couple would have been.'

    If this had ANYTHING to do with the church's views on gays, don't you think an official spokeswoman would've mentioned that?

  • to Tolerence
    July 11, 2009 9:20 p.m.

    Mormons do however come knocking on my doors. So yes, you do offend the public.

  • Jim
    July 11, 2009 9:03 p.m.

    Sounds like something else set up by the ACLU. They are probably trying to make the church pay for the plaza a fifth time.

  • David
    July 11, 2009 9:02 p.m.

    I love it. Since someone can't choose to be gay, but they can choose to be Mormon, I'm going to now require that nobody can be Mormon on my property.

    Let's see how fast those bicycling evangelists can get off my property!

  • I stand in amazement.....
    July 11, 2009 8:51 p.m.

    It is not the kiss that is shocking, it is the locaton they chose. They did not choose to go out infront of the Cathedral of the Madeline on South Temple with tons of car trffic going by for the PDA. They did not go in front a mosque or a Jewish temple either. They deliberately went where they knew there were LDS families and monitored security so as to make a scene. It is widely known what the LDS Church policy is on homosexuality. The PRACTICE is frowned upon. Therefore, this was not a spontaneous moment where they were showing love and affection, but a deliberate and defiant action against the beliefs of ONE particualr religion.

  • Just
    July 11, 2009 8:27 p.m.

    another strike in popularity, againts the gay community. Boy, you are getting well liked around here.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 8:15 p.m.

    The church may have asked the gay men to leave but that doesn't all of a sudden make them the bad guy. If others had complained to the security guards etc about the behavior of the men it would be well within their right to ask them to leave. It would be within their right even if no one had complained. It doesn't matter if the plaza was bought by the LDS church or given to them the fact remains it is private property and the men did not leave when asked. As for it being a case of prejudice, I have the right to restrict what happens on my property for any reason. We weren't there so all we know is what we read. I'm a member of the LDS church and I don't believe the church would ask them to leave for simply kissing each other. I think there was probably more going on then the media is telling us. It's ridiculous to make judgments without knowing the whole situation.

  • Wow
    July 11, 2009 8:11 p.m.

    I will be astonished if intelligent people actually show up for this kiss-in. It's laughable.

  • re: "Serious"
    July 11, 2009 7:41 p.m.

    Dear Serious,

    I'm an "out-of state observer" too, but must in this case I side with the church on grounds of equality. Nobody's sexual orientation is a free pass to ignore property rights.

    The two men were not, as you put it, "on the street." They were on private property whose owners make their own rules, just as you and I do about our own private property.

    How can you support the two men without undermining the principle of private property? The logical extension of their claim is that any guest can, in principle, refuse to leave his host's property.

    I'm not the least interested in the mens' sexuality. My concern is that everybody in the country--you and me and them--all have the freedom to make our own decisions about our own private property.

    I'm sorry they chose to do what they did, because it was (a) rude to their hosts, and I hate rudeness, and (b)against the law, and I hate lawlessness.

    I don't expect anyone to tolerate rudeness or lawlessness from me because of my sexuality, or any other consideration. So: equal treatment for the two guilty men.

  • HEY @uncanny gunman
    July 11, 2009 7:30 p.m.

    First of all, the City, via Rocky Anderson, deeded that portion of Main Street over to your church. It has never been closed to the public. In fact, your church uses it as a way to greet people and proselyte to them. If you want it closed, then fence it, close it, and post signs as to what is appropriate (I notice many couples kissing on the plaza). As far as being on your church's property, just tell us the rules and mark the boundaries. You can't have it both ways.

  • Re. Seriously
    July 11, 2009 7:27 p.m.

    Read the story. They were not on a street. They were on private property owned by the LDS Church. They were there, and their actions, were meant to make a statement. They were asked to leave private property and refused. Like has been said before. Let me come to your property and demand its use. Bet you would not like that.

    And to Anon, I bet if the missionaries went to the Vatican and began teaching and handing out church information they would be asked to leave. As an LDS missionary I was kicked out of other churches and throw off people’s property. Don’t begin to tell me that any other church would let you do anything you want. This Catholic Church you are talking about, is not this, the same church who kicks our priests who have sex with young boys and women. Guess they are not too understanding and do not accept any type of behavior.
    The LDS church welcomes any who will respect the churches beliefs and will treat the property with respect. We will not accept behavior that is against our doctrine that is meant to degrade.

  • Strictly Speaking
    July 11, 2009 7:18 p.m.

    This began as an issue of private property rights. In response to a request to leave private property, the couple in question chose to make a fuss. And now have taken a simple issue and turned it into a public cry for tolerance. I'm sorry, but does any one else see the logical fallacies present in this?

    In response to "Seriously"- when the LDS church purchased (legally, I might add) Main Street and turned it into the plaza, they dedicated it in the same fashion the LDS church dedicates their other properties--including meeting houses/chapels. In that sense, it is a place of worship for believers fo the LDS faith. It is the same as going into a Mosque without taking off your shoes. Or eating pork in a synagogue. It shows a distinct disrespect of beliefs and private properties.

  • It is laughable
    July 11, 2009 7:15 p.m.

    How ignorant so many people are who continue to make comments here. No one gave the Church the street, they bought it. They paid more than the valued price. It is private property.

  • uncannygunman
    July 11, 2009 7:14 p.m.

    Ultra Dem--I don't see eminent domain wouldn't work--unless you mean politically. Surely ensuring non-discriminatory pedestrian passage between SLC's giant blocks counts as a "public purpose." (I won't go so far as to describe the area as "blighted.")

    The only question would be determining the fair market value of being able to discriminate against gays. If I was on the jury, I'd give'em a dollar.

  • Inappropriate Behavior
    July 11, 2009 6:50 p.m.

    I don't want homosexuals exposing themselves in front of my children. The limp wrists, swishing, and lisping are inappropriate behavior.

  • Utah Dem
    July 11, 2009 6:41 p.m.

    To uncannygunman - the city could not afford to buy the plaza back and emenient domain wouldn't work, duh!

    To What? - yes they have every right to use cuffs and they did contact SLPD after the mos were removed from the plaza, the private property plaza.

    To Arthur - sorry, Rocky and the City Council probably wet their pants thinking of that $8 mil they got for that block

  • Ute
    July 11, 2009 6:38 p.m.

    I don't want to deny the church property rights. This whole thing went off the rails when we gave them the property in the first place.

  • Ok...
    July 11, 2009 6:38 p.m.

    then let those of us who believe in the rights of private property owners attend too, and we will respect private property laws and display our banners on city property. That should be fair.

  • People Who Live in Glass Temples
    July 11, 2009 6:32 p.m.

    It was the Mormons who threw the first stone in this scuffle with their bigotet Proposition H8. They should not act surprised when the gays start throwing back.

  • Seriously?
    July 11, 2009 6:32 p.m.

    Please, offended Mormons, enlighten an out-of-state observer-

    I have seen several of you post comments such as "place of worship" and make bizarre comparisons to Jewish temples. Can someone please clarify how a sidewalk is a place of worship? These men didn't enter a Mormon church and hold hands- they did so on the street.

    I hope you can all appreciate how much the rest of the US sympathizes with these victims and breathes a sigh of relief that, for the most part, you've chosen to sequester yourselves to just Utah.

  • J
    July 11, 2009 6:29 p.m.

    This demonstration is calculated to disrupt and/or offend the sensibilities of those attending the broadcast of Music and the Spoken Word tomorrow morning, and those coming to seek communion with the heavens.

    Demonstrations like this will accomplish nothing good for GLTB.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 6:25 p.m.

    "Have all the homosexuals with overt hate agendas moved west?" In the wrapped convolutions of the LDS conservative mind a public display of affection becomes hate?

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 6:19 p.m.

    If, Utah was like the rest of the world, no church would own Main Street because of the negative message this sends to all who don't belong to this church.

    This couldn't happen in the rest of the Western World. I gay would have no problem in front of the Cathedral of Notre Dame of Westminster Abbey.

    Only n Utah, can a church buy Main Street, taking the rights of others away.

    I can drink a beer in any plaza fronting as Cathedral. Catholics don't sent kids claiming to be elder to my door.

    I've photographed many churches without being hit on by the police of god.

    Growing up Mormon in Utah has made me learn to like Catholicism. I love the architecture devoid of secretive port holes. I love seeing light cast through stained glass.

    Where temples look like fortresses from the Soviet Era, Cathedrals are inspirational.

    This make you ask, if god is light and light is truth than god hides nothing.

  • John Pack Lambert
    July 11, 2009 6:18 p.m.

    I hope security block everyone with a paper heart from entering the plaza. Demonstrations are clearly banned on the plaza and keeping the demonstrators off is the best action.
    This was not about love, but forcing PDA onto other people.

  • an Easterner
    July 11, 2009 6:11 p.m.

    Have all the homosexuals with overt hate agendas moved west?

  • @uncanny gunman
    July 11, 2009 6:11 p.m.

    Rather than an easement why don't we respect the property rights of others and obey the rules set forth by that property owner?????
    If I had the responsibility for security in that area Sunday, I'd close it for the day to all foot traffic.
    Who is this Seed chick anyway???????

  • Trust the gays
    July 11, 2009 6:07 p.m.

    To force the issue and then make a huge thing out of a little confromtation. It wasn't the church that was in the wrong here, it was the two gay trespassers that took the incident to the next level.
    Like almost all gays, they walk around with a chip on their shoulder and try to force their warped sense of morality on everyone around them.

  • Hetero
    July 11, 2009 6:07 p.m.

    The problem with a lot of homosexuals kissing in public is that it makes normal heterosexual people who happen to witness it want to vomit. Then, we have a problem with cleaning all of that stuff up.

  • To Deeda Seed
    July 11, 2009 6:02 p.m.

    Hey, my family is full of love and would like to use your back yard for our family reunion on August 29,2009.
    I know you won't care because you are full of love and respect and will accord us the hospitality of your yard and home without question.
    Please leave your approval online and publish your address so we can get our invitations out with the correct information.. We are all pet lovers so our dogs will be with us as well. I know you won't mind.
    Thank you Deeda.....
    And I am a lifelong Democrat Deeda-- I won't be voting for you in the future...

  • Arthur
    July 11, 2009 5:59 p.m.

    Very dumb, almost as dumb as selling a public street to a church in the first place.

  • Eastern Observer
    July 11, 2009 5:58 p.m.

    Bet she lives in a gated community.

  • mmm
    July 11, 2009 5:53 p.m.

    Question: Would the church arrest a father and son showing affection in the same area? My thought they wouldn't intervene, or if they did they would accept their answer. Bottom line, go protest at Gay people church's, probably won't find any because gay people are not ignorant blind sheep like the morale right. If God hates gay people let him judge them (as soon as he jumps out of the genie bottle) in the mean time keep baaa baaaa baaaa and pretend your white.

  • Hey
    July 11, 2009 5:53 p.m.

    Hey Ms. Seed, show your "love" for others by calling it off and respecting "Private Property" and others who feel and believe different than you do. To do what you are planning is doing nothing but planting "Seeds" of hate.

  • dumb da dumb dumb!
    July 11, 2009 5:51 p.m.

    This is so dumb!

  • What?!
    July 11, 2009 5:49 p.m.

    SInce when do rent-a-cops have the authority to handcuff anyone? Private property or not, they should have contacted legitimate law enforcement officers rather than escalate a situation...

  • Hmm
    July 11, 2009 5:39 p.m.

    Anybody have Ms. Seed's home address so that we can organize our own event? The former Councilwoman clearly does not respect the property rights of others, so she shouldn't have a problem with uninvited guests ignoring her requests to leave her property.

  • Bart
    July 11, 2009 5:38 p.m.

    Wish I were in-state to participate.

  • A Man's Perspective
    July 11, 2009 5:26 p.m.

    Yes. I am sure they are just trying to show love.


  • Seriously?
    July 11, 2009 5:21 p.m.

    Two gay men provoke an incident, get offended (and arrested) over the results of their provocation, a laughable news story is written, and now a planned "kiss-in." I can't get over the fact that this is even a reportable event. I guess only in Utah! Gay, straight, bi-sexual, whatever....Just follow the rules and laws that pertain to the places that you visit, and there will not be anything to report. Excuse me now while I go find a No Trespassing sign and challenge the landowner by trespassing. Next on my list is a No Hunting, and No Fishing challenge. How dare those landowners tell me what I can do on their land! Watch for my planned "fish-in" in the near future.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 5:08 p.m.

    I'l be there...

  • A solution
    July 11, 2009 5:06 p.m.

    Go have your kiss in at the Sorenson Unity Center.

    Good luck and have a nice day. It's private property, get used to it. If someone was smoking in your home, you asked them not to, and they refused, became verbally abusive and profane with you, would we all be accusing you of "overreacting" for calling the police? Would I, as your neighbor, call for a "smoke in" on your front lawn, and view myself as morally superior?

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 4:59 p.m.

    You go girl!

  • uncannygunman
    July 11, 2009 4:49 p.m.

    Maybe the city should seize a pedestrian easement across the plaza by eminent domain. That would solve the problem.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 4:39 p.m.

    I truly believe these guys did more then just a little kiss and hand hold. I am sure they were doing it for attention and to prove a point. I wouldn't show up to a Jewish synagogue and set up a pork hot dog stand and not expect them to have an issue with it. It's about showing some respect for peoples property and beliefs. I would be equally disappointed if people were putting "Marriage is between one man and one woman" signs on someone's lawn without permission. This "protest" is nothing more than an attention grab by some very insensitive people.

  • This is ridiculous
    July 11, 2009 4:30 p.m.

    Obvioiusly the homosexuals were protesting the Church's stand against homosexuality. Its not as if they weere there admiring the landscaping and just decided right then and there to get frisky. Hey, homosexuals, leave our Church alone!

  • How insensitive!
    July 11, 2009 4:30 p.m.

    I understand protests...but the location and the target audience speaks of how insensitive the "organizers" are for a belief system and a people. They would never go protest another religion by, for example, having a pork BBQ on a sidewalk in front of a church. Or having a Saturday picnic in front of another church that worships on that day. What a poor indication of character to protest in this way on this place. Let it go. Go do some service. Do you really think this protest will do anything except create more controversy? It will certainly not change policy. This planned event is simply hurtful. But knowing who is organizing it, it's typical.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 4:29 p.m.

    If they actually go through with this then all that will happen is repeat of Thursday. They will be asked to leave and if they don't then they'll be cited for trespassing. Because the police will have to be involved to remove the people from the property then it will be a waste of taxpayer money and police time. Go ahead, do it, and feel good about that fact that just because you don't like something you then feel you have the right to waste the tax money of every person in Utah.

  • to be or not to be
    July 11, 2009 4:28 p.m.

    What they were doing was not love, it was out of place may be with the intention of making the gay cause more appealing to their cause. They know this is private property, and they are like spoiled kids trying to punish us for their lost in california. If they want to kiss then pay a hotel.

  • Vote Yes on 8
    July 11, 2009 4:26 p.m.

    bring their loved ones – husbands, wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, kids and even pets – to the downtown plaza between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. and show their love with a smooch.

    Kool....I'm in so long as gays are not invited!

  • sij1
    July 11, 2009 4:17 p.m.

    Yes it is wrong. It is private property and as private property if they do not want two men kissing in public then they should leave. End of story. And since they didn't and they made a big deal about it they were escorted off the property. So now they have to whine about it and get other people involved! When will gays and homosexuals respects OUR rights to not have to witness their actions!

  • Mary
    July 11, 2009 4:16 p.m.

    No one has rights anymore unless they are gay or are willing to flaunt or celebrate "alternative" behaviors....LDS church...no rights to adhere to moral beliefs or practices, it is then an agenda; security guards, SLC Police, no right to enforce the law...they are over reacting....I had gay friends as a teen in the 60's and 70's, neither they nor I felt the need to flaunt or shove in each other's faces our beliefs or "agendas." I still have friends who are gay--thanks to each of you who can accept me and my opinions...and I will continue to accept you and yours. Together we will tolerate the narcissistic cry babies who think there is no room in the world for opinions or belief systems different than their own. Wear your hearts on your sleeves so you can waa waa waaa together.

  • JP
    July 11, 2009 4:14 p.m.

    Lame,lame, and lame!

  • Property
    July 11, 2009 4:14 p.m.

    If you don't like the rules, then stay off private property!!!! You are there as a guest and if you cannot conduct yourself with respect and by the rules of the property owner stay away. Go to your own place and kiss away. Hopefully you will be asked to leave and arrested if you do not!

  • Tolerence
    July 11, 2009 4:08 p.m.

    This is not a gay vs. Mormon struggle: this is a struggle for tolerance. Mormons disagree with gays, and gays disagree with Mormons.

    Mormons don't go to gay nightclubs and offend gays.

    Why do gays have to go to our places of worship to offend us?

    Call it a lack civility, call it a lack courtesy, or call it a total lack of tolerance from a special interest group that demands tolerance of others, but not themselves.

    I call it hypocrisy.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 4:02 p.m.

    Get a life

  • Dave
    July 11, 2009 3:56 p.m.

    I can't make it on Sunday morning but I will be there in spirit supporting those that can. May God bless us all and make us much more tolerant and less self-righteous.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 3:53 p.m.

    This will be cool. The LDS church can't seem to stop stepping all over itself these days.