When he was running for the Republican presidential nomination several years back, I received a long distance call from Hatch one afternoon as I was cleaning out the garage at my Arizona home. At the time, Hatch was on the stumpin the Midwest, and told me that he could use a cartoon from me supporting him in his run for the nomination. I politely sidestepped his request.

Later, when he came through Phoenix for a campaign debate and dropped by my newspaper for a visit, I provided him a copy of a cartoon I had previously done on him, which had criticized Hatch for anti-gay comments he had made in which, among other things, he had expressed public gratitude that he was not a Democrat and in which he noted that the Democratic Party was the party of the homosexuals. Hatch, in attacking gay supporters, also noted that Democrats tended to be more educated and financially well-off than Republicans. When I handed him a copy of my cartoon that took him to task for such antics, Hatch assured me that he had been misquoted and misunderstood.

For the record, Hatch's denials are patently false.

He told the Republican Party faithful that they should be proud because "we don’t have the gays and lesbians with us." When asked to explain why this comment was not prejudiced, Hatch insisted he was merely pointing out that "gays and lesbians, by and large, are very intelligent, highly-educated, high-earning people, who support mainly Democrats." (That must mean that Republicans prefer support from dumb, badly-educated, financially-strapped heterosexuals).

Details on Hatch's anti-gay record:

1. "Gays support Democrats, but no intolerance

"Hatch says when he told fellow Republicans at their state convention two months ago that they should be proud of their party because 'we don’t have the gays and lesbians with us,' he didn’t intend the comment to sound prejudicial. The Utah lawmaker was just pointing out that 'gays and lesbians, by and large, are very intelligent, highly educated, high-earning people, who support mainly Democrats.' Hatch said he resents any implication that he is intolerant."

(Source: "Associated Press," 13 August 1999)


2. "Homosexuality is contrary to the Bible, but no intolerance

“'You can sum it up in one sentence: Orrin Hatch is tolerant of all people and he doesn’t try to tell people how to live unless they ask him,' said Hatch. While Hatch said he is tolerant of all people, he does believe that homosexuality is contrary to the Bible. 'It’s a religious belief to me that homosexuality flies in the face of biblical teachings,' he said, noting he can’t determine 'whether it’s a genetic predisposition or whether it is a choice.'"

(Source: "Associated Press," 13 August 1999)


3. "Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

"Voting YES implies support for amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. This cloture motion to end debate requires a 3/5th majority. A constitutional amendment requires a 2/3rd majority. The proposed amendment is:

"'Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

"Proponents of the motion say:

"'If Members of the Senate vote as their States have voted on this amendment, the vote today will be 90 to 10 in favor of a constitutional amendment.

"'Marriage is a foundational institution. It is under attack by the courts. It needs to be defended by defining it as the union of a man and a woman as 45 of our 50 States have done.

"'The amendment is about how we are going to raise the next generation. It is not an issue that the courts should resolve. Those of us who support this amendment are doing so in an effort to let the people decide.'

"Opponents of the motion say:

"'This proposal pits Americans against one another. It appeals to people's worst instincts and prejudices.
Supporters rail against activist judges. But if this vaguely worded amendment ever passes, it will result in substantial litigation. What are the legal incidents of marriage? Is a civil union a marriage?

"'Married heterosexual couples are wondering, how, exactly, the prospect of gay marriages threatens the health of their marriages.

"'This amendment would make a minority of Americans permanent second-class citizens of this country. It would prevent States, many of which are grappling with the definition of marriage, from deciding that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. And it would write discrimination into a document that has served as a historic guarantee of individual freedom.'"

(Reference: Marriage Protection Amendment; Bill S. J. Res. 1 ; vote number 2006-163 on 7 June 2006)


4. "Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.

"Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 625; Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001. The bill would expand the definition of hate crimes to incorporate acts committed because of a victim's sex, sexual orientation or disability and permit the federal government to help states prosecute hate crimes even if no federally protected action was implicated. If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. Hence a Yes vote supports the expansion of the definition of hate crimes, and a No vote keeps the existing definition. Three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members, is required to invoke cloture."

(Reference: Bill S.625; vote number 2002-147 on 11 June 2002)


5. "Rated 0% by the HRC [Human Rights Campaign], indicating an anti-gay-rights stance.

"Hatch scores 0% by the HRC on gay rights

"OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 HRC scores as follows:

"0% - 20%: opposes gay rights (approx. 207 members)

"20% - 70%: mixed record on gay rights (approx. 84 members)

"70%-100%: supports gay rights (approx. 177 members)

"About the HRC (from their website, www.hrc.org):

"'The Human Rights Campaign represents a grassroots force of more than 700,000 members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, HRC envisions an America where GLBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.

"'Ever since its founding in 1980, HRC has led the way in promoting fairness for GLBT Americans. HRC is a bipartisan organization that works to advance equality based on sexual orientation and gender expression and identity.'"

(Source: HRC website 06n-HRC on 31 December 2006)
_____

by Steve Benson

sbenson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> told me that he could use
> a cartoon from me supporting him in his run for
> the nomination.

A little clueless, no? I could guess you wouldn't be on board for that and I'm not even American (i.e. not all that up on the intricacies of internal politicking).


> "Homosexuality is contrary to the Bible... [says Hatch]

It depends on how some verses are interpreted. Some people may have a bias in this regard.


> “'You can sum it up in one sentence: Orrin Hatch
> is tolerant of all people and he doesn’t try to
> tell people how to live unless they ask him."

Even if they ask, why does he do it? How does he know how others should live? He would have been better off just answering for himself.


> 'It’s a religious belief
> to me that homosexuality flies in the face of
> biblical teachings,'

Again - interpretation and precedent.


> noting he can’t
> determine 'whether it’s a genetic predisposition
> or whether it is a choice.'"

1. Why does *he* have to determine that?

2. So if it's genetic, does that mean it's OK? Because otherwise why would he differentiate as to cause/s? If it's proven to be genetic (difficult for a number of reasons) does that mean the Bible, which he hangs his hat on, is incorrect? Or the interpretations of the verses used to scorn and reject LGBTQ folks?

If they can be wrong about that, stands to reason that interpretations of other verses could also be questionable.


> "'Marriage in the United States shall consist only
> of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this
> Constitution, nor the constitution of any State,
> shall be construed to require that marriage or the
> legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any
> union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Twice the proposed constitutional amendment he supported states "a man and a woman". 'A'. Is that what Mormonism has taught from its foundation to the present day? Is that what its founders practiced?

The Bible states that JC is "the same yesterday, today, and forever". That seems to indicate that foundational doctrine should be somewhat accurate and then not need to change. Or at least that leaders supposedly anointed from on high shouldn't get things so wrong.

Mormons aren’t exactly sitting at the cool kids’ table in politics.

How they’re so quick to shut the door on other minority groups is almost like they’re trying to outdo the wretched evangelicals.

Good riddance Hatch. You now have confirmation that there is no Mormon god.

Of course he was.

He was also a crappy model of an LDS, at least by Christian standards, and I was surprised he had a temple recommend. But my wife was still thrilled when she'd see him in a session at the DC temple.

This is all very true. I would have to agree with Hatch that there certainly lots of gays in the democrat party. And yes they are very likely big donors. The trouble with conservatives is that they are too into their own peculiar religions, in utah its mormonism spending millions on temples on dead people, in Israel their peculiar tradition is supporting 1/8 of the population to be on welfare so that the men can study the Torah all day. It's not uncommon for wives to have 12 kids and multiple jobs to support their rabbi husbands. I watched a YouTube video about this yesterday.

My point is that the conservatives don't have enough left over cash to support politics, but secular people do.

Self-deleted due to being a bit on the smart-alecky side.

Nothing to see here at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2022 05:50PM by Nightingale.

> My point is that the conservatives don't have
> enough left over cash to support politics, but
> secular people do.

Not paying attention again, eh Maca? The GOP has now declared war on businesses, the lobby that has long been their primary source of political finance.

And all because those businesses don't want to be cancelled.

Hatch was a despicable human being. Good riddance to him. But his successor is even worse.

Steve, any familiarity with Mike Lee?


HH =)

Of course he was despicable. He was a career politician.

I would love to see that cartoon.