Danforth: Ban on gay marriage a silly idea

Houston Chronicle ^ | April 30, 2006 | Associated Press

[RichInOC]

Amazing to think this is the same guy who Sherpa'd Clarence Thomas during his confirmation process.

[DBeers]

LOL -it might make a nice greeting card to mail out to democrats?

[isrul]

I'm glad he's out of the Senate. And I certainly don't care what opinions he holds about anything.

[I got the rope]

Former U.S. Senator and UN Ambassador John Danforth (R-MO) made a strong case against the anti-family constitutional amendment during Log Cabin's National Dinner on Saturday April 29th. Danforth, an ordained Episcopalian Priest, spoke to hundreds of Log Cabin members in Washington, DC. Danforth said, "Some historian should really look at all of the proposals that have been put forth throughout the history of our country for possible Constitutional amendments. Maybe at some point in time there was one that was sillier than this one, but I don't know of one."

Log Cabin Republicans Website

[Reactionary]

Ah, yes, the Waco stooge evidently thinks that families are rather immaterial to the functioning of civilization.

I hated the bastard when he covered up Reno's little gestapo raid. I hate the bastard even more now.

[bwc]

It has nothing to do with feeling threatened in the sense you mean. Similarly the falsely created term "homophobic" has nothing to do with fear, but much more with disgust.

Remember it is the gay lobby and the gay sympathizers who have habitually spoken of their own fears and how they feel threatened by the moral boogie men.

In all my years I had never heard there was a right to gay marriage or of any necessary organized opposition to the onward march of gay marriage until morally liberal judges began to take on the costume of gay activism.

[WOSG]

"am sympathetic towards states' rights, but sometimes such rights have to be set aside for the needs of the greater good."

Gee, that sounds like something Hillary would say.

This is not about denying anyone's rights.

Rather better to simply say this: Marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman for 1500 years+ in western legal codes. Affirming that in our Federal Constitution impinges on nobody's rights, but simply affirms traditional marriage for what it is, an important building block of society.

[tallhappy]

He said history has shown that attempts to regulate human behavior with constitutional amendments are misguided.

"Once before, the Constitution was amended to try to deal with matters of human behavior;

This is disingenuous. Such an amendment is in no way meant to regulate behavior.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

will voters have a choice? do we have a choice about abortion?

for all of the country club republicans and liberterian types here: "conservatives" are made up several small groups which when working together will make a majority.
If you contry clubbers etc want to block the anti-homo vote, you will LOSE a significant element of your base and you will LOSE elections.

last November, did it not help having numerous anti-homo measures on the ballots in many states?

[OldFriend]

Splains why he's on Christie Whitman's PAC board.

[longtermmemmory]

Danforth is probably saying this because he thinks the homosexual lobby will give him money for some business venture or because he wants to run for office again.

This is why we need the volume of more republicans in office. This makes ALL rinos disposable.

With 60+ senators McCains blatherings become irrelevant.

[longtermmemmory]

Christi Whitless is a pathetic example of the go along to get along politics of political weakness.

It is very good those two are out of office.

[OldFriend]

Whitman is out there backstabbing the republicans at every turn. She wants her point of view vindicated in the midterms.

[kittymyrib]

Danforth was the author of the white-washed report of Clinton and Reno's extermination of the 20 Texas children in the massacre of the Branch Davidians. He is ungodly.

[Eastbound]

"Those who feel threatened need to get a life."

The real issue is not about gay marriage. It's about allowing the court to re-define a legal term which is etched in stone all around the world. If it goes unchallenged, precedence will have been established, allowing the court to re-define ANY legal term to suit its socialist agenda.

The court has usurped Congress on this one. Congress relies on legal definitions when they create laws. Why even create laws if the court can arbitrarily overturn the law with a stroke of the pen and a hammer of the gavel?

Imagine the fun a commie court would have with the word, 'arms,' as in the Second Amendment. Or the phrase, 'due process,' and that's just for starters.

You don't kow what you're asking for if you don't feel threatened by this.

[ElPatriota]

Danforth, a Missouri Republican and an Episcopal priest..

:) I mean, would you believe this a--?... boy, that is one less Rino to worry about. I Just wished these people retired gracefully and just disappeared from the public eye.

There is not question that if had not been for the religious right, the homos were planning to have the military dressed in skirts and high heels by now... :)... unfortunatedly, those plans hit a little bump.

[longtermmemmory]

Christine Whitless is knows her Rino views have no future in the absence of moral relativism.

She is probably one of the cabal who wants to help Trent "the weakling" Lott back in power.

Eventually Whitless and her Rinos will take over the democrat party to revive it after it is dead.

[longtermmemmory]

He was probably "paid off" somehow to ridiclule the Federal Marriage Amendment because it is part of the homosexual political playbook to ridicule opposition to homosexual normalizing of their deviancy.

[manwiththehands]

Why do they call themselves "Log" Cabin Republicans?

(ducking)

[dpa5923]

Whether we could get even votes or states is another matter altogether. Whether the federal government has the "right" to determine who it enters into contracts with is what is being discussed.

The proposed amendment would not interfere with the individual states recognition or lack of recognition of homosexual “marriage”. It would simply state, as far as the federal government was concerned, legal marriage would consist of one man and one woman, regardless of what an specific state recognizes.

I am not sure who you think should have the power to set federal law. If not the federal government, then who? Keep in mind, this amendment would not interfere with a states recognition of a homosexual “marriage” if the state so chooses to recognize it.