The saga on the Natural Family Resolution of Kanab continues.
The headline in the Utah section (online) of today’s Salt Lake Tribune reads ‘Natural family’ resolution reworked–Clarification: Sutherland think tank adds 26 pages of information
The Sutherland Institutes revision includes 27 pages of FAQ’s along with bulleted points and charts.
“It’s not a moral crusade,” Sutherland President Paul Mero said Tuesday. “Our interest is to clarify our intent.”
And the conservative Salt Lake City think tank still intends for every city and county to pass the resolution – just as Kanab did in January. That’s why the briefing paper has been sent to every legislator, mayor, and city and county council member in the state.
And the angle this think tank is taking is that it is cost effective to taxpayers.
Mero maintains the social costs associated with the breakdown of the “natural family” make nontraditional households a public-policy issue.
“Ultimately, everything becomes monetary,” he said.
The resolution calls for marriage to be between a man and a woman. Here are some sample Q & A in the Tribune today:
Q: “Does the resolution call on women to stay home, have babies, serve their families and forgo a career?
A: “No. But it does say that . . . if babies are to be born, a man and a woman should first be married; and if children are to be reared properly, the task is best done by a mother who is home a significant amount of time.”
Q: “So the resolution would not consider a gay relationship to be a natural family?
A: “That is correct. . . . It is not a legal marriage nor is it a male-female relationship.”
While such resolutions are “non-binding”, they are unconstitutional, in my opinion. I know that in my campaign platform for Salt Lake County Council, I will take a firm stand to oppose such resolutions.
Deanna Dee-Dee Taylor 
I’m trying to see what the economic benefits are to a “quiver full of children” who must then be educated at taxpayer expense. I suppose the Sutherland Institute is one of the groups all for privatized education that these natural families with the mother staying home won’t be able to afford.
I can’t understand how gay couples are an economic liability either.
One benefit, at least with the current tax structure, is tax breaks! Yes, have a huge family so you can get a larger tax break! That’s an incentive. You will then have more money to stimulate the economy!