We should be thankful and feel blessed their is a great man an his organization
fighting against the forces of evil, in order to preserve in Utah law what is
pure, good and righteous. The FamilyA Proclamation to the World...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the
family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His
children.All human beings—male and female—are created in
the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents,
and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential
characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and
purpose.The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and
woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within
the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor
marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to
be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.
That any organization, let alone a self-styled think tank, could release product
without basic fact-checking of their claims is irresponsible. Who was in charge
of the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) at Sutherland?It
strikes me as a case of "better to ask forgiveness than permission." I
suspect they knew the spot was inaccurate but thought they could scare (and
influence) more people with it than the truth, and that nobody would call them
on it. Once caught, they play the contrition card. But the damage is already
Oh brother.2011: McAdams runs non-discrimination bill with
exemptions for religious universities2012: McAdams runs non-discrimination
bill with exemptions for religious universities2013: Urquhart runs
non-discrimination bill with exemptions for religious universities2014:
Urquhart runs non-discrimination bill with exemptions for religious
universitiesHe didn't know that the claims about BYU were
wrong? And regardless if you think the bill is a good idea or not,
shouldn't Sutherland at the very least state correct facts about the bill
and then explain why they are opposed to it based on those facts? Lying about
what a bill may or may not do is not cool and doesn't win brownie points.
@DN SubscriberMr. Mero used to be boasting on Twitter that he
don't care if the ad is accurate or not, as long as it is effective against
SB 100, now he must have come to his senses that spreading lies can only hurt
their credibility to against this bill.
He made a mistake and he owned up to it. We all make mistakes. Move on.
Outside of the right wing fringe, the man and the organization have no relevance
or credibilty. Never did, never will.
I'm opposed to any reference to life choices being codified in any
government policies, regulations, rules or law. We are citizens only, the
Constitution doesn't allow for the identification in law of any person
other than a citizen, a voter, or person. Even sufferagettes recognized this
principle. The campaign to gain special recognition by any citizen of
activities or personal choices has no place on any governmental law books.
Just wait until this becomes a problem anyway, just watch for it.But
I applaud the Sutherland Institute's continued diligence in seeking to
promote what is accurate regarding the law and the matter. Now if we could fix
up the countless inflamatory misinformation-based advertisements and
demonstrations trying to change marriage...
The damage is done.
This is so disingenuous. Not long ago Mero boasted on Twitter that he
didn't care if the ad was inaccurate, as long as it was effective against
Urhquart's bill.This man deserves no congratulations for taking
a month of airtime to discover that his ad was full of lies. How many people saw
the ad? How many of those people will see the retraction? He should get no
"integrity points." If you're going to make claims against a bill,
you should read the bill before you run ads against it.Alas, this is
the kind of sleazy political play we've come to expect in our one-party
Bravo to Sutherland Institute for admitting their error and pulling their ad.Exactly the opposite of the way the folks work telling us "If you
like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period!"This is the
first time I can recall any political (candidate or issue) ad being pulled for
an error. Usually the people running political ads (especially on the left)
fill them with lies and deny the truth and keep the ads running anyway.
So, he thought the ad was correct until he read the bill - next time, maybe he
should read the bill first?Although I do give the man props for
admitting his mistake.