Sutherland Institute admits errors in ad opposing nondiscrimination bill

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 6:37 p.m.

    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 Family
    A 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.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    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 done.

  • oxymoron Cedar City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 11:18 a.m.

    Oh brother.

    2011: McAdams runs non-discrimination bill with exemptions for religious universities
    2012: McAdams runs non-discrimination bill with exemptions for religious universities
    2013: Urquhart runs non-discrimination bill with exemptions for religious universities
    2014: Urquhart runs non-discrimination bill with exemptions for religious universities

    He 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.

  • UTSU Logan, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    @DN Subscriber

    Mr. 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.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    He made a mistake and he owned up to it. We all make mistakes. Move on.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    Outside of the right wing fringe, the man and the organization have no relevance or credibilty. Never did, never will.

  • CynicJim Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    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.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Jan. 31, 2014 7:05 a.m.

    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...

  • rightascension Provo, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 1:24 a.m.

    The damage is done.

  • RedneckLefty St. George, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:12 p.m.

    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 state.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:56 p.m.

    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.

  • Melanna Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 30, 2014 8:18 p.m.

    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.