By Steven Koecher

September 2006



In January of this year, one of the most typical of Utah towns was thrown into a national debate about gay rights. The city council of Kanab, a tourist town on the border of Arizona, passed a resolution created by the Sutherland Institute on the natural family.

The resolution pointed fingers at more than just a fraction of society. Single and working mothers, childless families, gays, and unmarried adults become targeted by the message of the draft. It idealized complete families with phrases such as "a full quiver of children" and "we look to a landscape of family homes, lawns and gardens." It created a cookie-cutter mold for being whole and complete. Though powerless to affect the law, it struck a nerve when the idea was added as a part of civil ideology. Even to some conservatives it came across as intolerant.

The Sutherland Institute sent it to every city in Utah. Only Kanab took it in, passing the resolution word for word.

But what is the Sutherland Institute? Is it a radical organization or just full of resolve? Is it oblivious to the complexities of society or idealistic?

Most don't want to put their fingerprints on the issue of the family resolution in Kanab, but many applaud the work the Institute has done otherwise. From seminars to newsletters, the Sutherland Institute has put out a lot of ideas over the years. It is best described as a conservative policy think tank that has addressed every major issue facing the state government.

The institute began in May 1994. They saw interest groups that funded self-serving research studies. They saw politicians too attached to big business. They saw debates not finding what they called "lasting solutions." They found a need for an influential group outside the realm of politics that could influence legislators and concerned citizens, study policies with research, and come up with ideas that reflected their values. Most importantly, they wanted to communicate their message with no strings attached.

The founder of the Sutherland Institute, Gaylord K. Swim, believed that the lay legislature was too busy to study the issues thoroughly. "Having neither time nor support staff to do their own research, they find themselves easy prey for those vying for their attention and vote," Swim says.

The Sutherland Institute believes politicians have little reason to do the right thing, at the right time, for the right reason. "All the incentives lean towards money, power and ego," says President Paul Mero.

Their commitments and attachments make politicians difficult to work with. "Normally these people are good people. They are a good husband or wife, good parent, good church member, active in their communities. For some reason when they walk through the doors (at the capitol) all of a sudden, some get defensive and cynical. There's no reason for that," says Mero.

Mero thinks that because they follow incentives and alliances, it drags out the process and halts compromise. He believes there are current examples of this behavior. "You see it manifest legislatively in things like the bank credit union fight or the school choice public school fight where solutions could be found -- but because both sides are so caught up in their special interest it's hard to find lasting solutions," says Mero.

The Sutherland Institute feels they have the ability to help solve issues. They think of ways that could solve a problem while using research to formulate their ideas. Then they study to see if these ideas could work and if they've been tried before. When their ideas are finalized, they bring it in front of legislators on the hill through face-to-face contacts, newsletters, and email.

Some say they have great influence on the conservative policy-makers in Utah. Others say they are just another lobby group. "I don't see the legislature following them, but certainly they have a voice in the mix," says Republican Sen. Greg Bell.

In addition to bringing their idea to the government, they bring government officials to them. They have a Transcend Series that invites politicians to learn about how to improve the political arena through self-improvement. The Transcend Series has included people across the political spectrum and has featured speakers of national prominence. "A lot of what they're focusing on is civility and avoiding severe partisanship, which is helpful" says District 64 Rep. Becky Lockhart.

Research wasn't enough to save the Sutherland Institute from national scorn over the resolution of the natural family. Kanab made national headlines for its exclusionary principles. Three months after the resolution was passed, Arthur Frommer, a travel writer, called Kanab "homophobic" in his nationally syndicated column. He also pushed for a boycott of the tourist city.

Mero feels that it's not appropriate to resort to name-calling. "The reality is the folks in Kanab that support the resolution are defending a way of life, and the folks who oppose the resolution too are defending a way of life,"says Mero. "So if both are defending a way of life, I'm not sure it's fair for one side to call the other side fearful of something unless the other side is ready to be labeled the same way."

He thinks that if conservative views are fearful, then the other side of the coin should be considered fearful too. "I don't know what the term is for fear of normalcy and tradition," says Mero. "The name callers need to look in the mirror to see who hates whom."

Mero doesn't think the real controversy is about the national attention, but the local tension. "The controversy there is deeper than our resolution. It's one of the old pioneer communities that's in the throes of change."

He is referring to an influx of more liberal-minded outsiders moving in to this very traditional town.

Mero predicts that in the end this issue will not swing to one side or the other. "I think we reach a middle ground naturally on this issue of gay rights,"says Mero. "If there are two men or two women who want to live together, as long as they are private I don't think that anybody cares."

The Sutherland Institute asserts that racial discrimination is more serious than discrimination of lifestyle choices. The Sutherland Web site reports: "Some now assert a claim that behavioral characteristics not mentioned in the U.S. or Utah constitutions should be treated as analogous to immutable characteristics such as race. This claim should not be accepted as a principle of Utah law. To do so would minimize the serious problems of discrimination based on race or other constitutionally enumerated categories by providing equivalent treatment to lifestyle choices."

"For most people, homosexuality is a behavior -- it's not an innate thing like your skin color, or being male or female. So when it's talked about, they're thinking why do you want to throw your sexual behavior all over publicly? We keep our lives private. Why don't you keep your lives private?" Mero asks.

Many argue, however, that heterosexual relationships aren't private at all. From gossip to books and movies, it is human nature to talk about relationships.

Mero says there is a reason the majority of the state doesn't speak out on this issue. "This is an issue first of all that is not an attractive issue. It's not dinner table conversation. You only address it when you're confronted with it," Mero admits.

He won't let the tough talk weaken the resolve of the Institute. The Sutherland Institute feels it's necessary to not let the Rocky Andersons of the world dictate the discussion. He is confident that the world still has plenty of people who agree with him.

Nevertheless, Mero thinks they are losing the fight nationally. "I think nationally and internationally culture is declining in general. In that sense, I think we're losing the culture war."

Lou Shurtliff, a member of the Utah House of Representatives, finds the opinions of the Sutherland Institute in general leave a lot of people out. "I think their policies often affect more people than they're trying to exclude," he says.

The Sutherland Institute is against giving illegal immigrants driver's licenses. Driver's licenses are the key to identification and mobility in America and would give illegal immigrants little chance to survive in the United States otherwise it contends. It begs the question can the state really give thousands of people such a crutch?

The institute believes that tax credits should be given for sending children to private schools. "A tax credit system recognizes that parents who are self-reliant in providing for their children's education lift a burden on public schools. Their efforts are deserving of assistance," according to the Sutherland Web site.

The institute also believes that because college campuses are state property, public universities such as University of Utah and Utah State cannot ban guns on campus.

Like most conservative groups, the Institute believes that the government gets involved in business too often. Its policies even claim that community fitness centers are unnecessary. "Many examples abound as testaments to government out of boundsÖ local governments build massive, publicly subsidized recreation centers that compete with the private fitness industry. Why?"

Even though the resolution of the natural family brought so much heat, the Sutherland Institute will keep on doing what it wants and saying what it means. To Mero, they aren't trying to make friends. He leaves that to the politicians. He knows that wielding influence is about trust. "It's how we build personal relationships. Not so much as whether we're liked," says Mero, "but whether we're trusted and respected."