Former Sen. John Danforth (R-MO),
By on May 2nd, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Former Sen. John Danforth (R-MO),
on the conservative plan to amend the Constistution to ban gay marriage: “Some historian should really look at all of the proposals that have been 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.“
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Danforth was from my state of Missouri.
May 2nd, 2006 at 4:51 pmMissouri is “MO,” not “MI.”
May 2nd, 2006 at 4:53 pmHaha.
What Unholy Moses said.
May 2nd, 2006 at 4:54 pmGood for him.
May 2nd, 2006 at 4:55 pmFYI – John Danforth was a senator from MO (Missouri), not MI (Michigan).
May 2nd, 2006 at 4:56 pmThanks Moses/mattlaw.
– Nico
May 2nd, 2006 at 4:57 pmMust switch tactics…must must..continue game..lie.lie must lie..blame who blame attack kill power…I must have power.
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:01 pmswitch blame switch blame…
Gasket Failure Whoop Whoop!
At least this is one “conservative Republican” that realizes what a waste of legislation the “anti-gay amendment” truly is. It’s being used to try and get the religious right’s panties in a knot so they’ll vote this coming November.
If the Republicans cannot get their “base” charged up, then their turnout will be lower and they’ll definitely lose at least one of the chambers. If it’s the House that goes back to the Democrats, then you’ll see articles of impeachment against Pres. Bush for his anti-Constitutional illegal actions.
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:02 pmHe was giving a speech to the log cabin republicans. I can’t help but wonder if he was playing to the crowd.
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:03 pm[...] was one more sign of how religious conservatives hurt the GOP’s mission. [ Permanent Link | Links | '); | '); ] The Great Society © 2005-2006 | TGS was created using the Firefox webbrowser and may not be viewed as cleanly in others. Get a free website from Blogsome. Theme was originally designed by Lee Penney and customized thereafter. Navigation Home Login [...]
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:07 pm#9 – That sounds so cynical, Krazny! Even if he was, the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage is silly. I would use stronger words, though, like asinine or f*cked up.
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:09 pmIt’s become fashionable to talk about family values. In today’s culture war, the posturing by various groups to become the definitive voice on the subject is rampant. All too often the debate centers on issues outside of the family in what appears to be an attempt to vilify segments of the population that don’t meet with the approval of any given group. Most recently, homosexuals, through their efforts to legalize gay marriage, have become the focal point of many of these family values proponents.
From my perspective, children learn their values at home and the values they adopt are primarily discerned in proportion to the degree of sincerity and integrity they believe exists in their parents. In this construct, the degradation of family values originates within individual families as a result of a child’s perception that their parents are inauthentic and hypocritical. It’s also important to keep in mind that nearly every homosexual is the product of a heterosexual relationship and a heterosexual family. Consequently, the fact that the vast majority of children are raised in traditional heterosexual families makes the premise that homosexuals endanger the family not only flawed, but blatantly absurd.
Ultimately, the family succeeds one child at a time and that must start at home. The relationship of the Mexican couple down the street or the gay couple in the grocery store can only threaten one family…their own. Time spent obsessing about the actions of other families simply detracts from the precious time each family needs to succeed. The sooner families begin to act accordingly, the sooner the value of all families can be maximized. If and when this happens, the individual will flourish and society will endure.
read more here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:12 pmNico,
While you’re making corrections, the word “Constitution” is misspelled in the first sentence, and it looks like a word is missing from the quote.
“…that have been [missing word?] forth throughout the history…”
Otherwise, thanks for letting us know about the good Ambassador’s remarks. (He was our UN Ambassador briefly, wasn’t he? Or am I thinking of someone else?)
It;s good to know that he thinks this whole gay marriage ban is silly. I mean, really, what exactly is it about gay marriage that threatens heterosexual marriage? Do those who oppose it think people will be dropping their spouses left and right? Get real.
There is no sensible, justifiable reason to be opposed to gay marriage.
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:12 pm#9 – Good point. Politicians (of just about any stripe) will ‘play’ to their audience. I guess it’s my “liberal/progressive” side that makes me think Pres. Bush just has a natural tendancy towards ‘playing’ to the uber-rich and oil-based special-interests.
He’s gotta “dance with who brung him”, or he might find his “base” turning on him.
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:14 pmOkay … now that the typos are out of the way. :-)
Having actually met Danforth a few times (once in high school, the other at a non-profit fundraiser), the guy is one of the few religous Republicans who get it. From what I remember (and I could be wrong … it’s been a while) he’s a straight shooter who is actually saddened by the direction the GOP is headed.
It’s probably why Dumbya didn’t pick him as a running mate — Danforth would’ve called his bullshit.
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:23 pmDanforth? He’s a Clarence Thomas apologist! My head hurts…
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:40 pm#13 – Wayne, I must say you’ve absolutely been on fire the last couple of days. Good on ya, mate!
Every time this gay marriage thing comes up, I think about a friend of mine who has two gay sisters. One sister has been with her SO for over 50 years, and the other has been with her SO for over 25 years. My own mockery of marriage lasted 16 years, and has been over for a blessedly long time, but as long as I don’t remarry (and that won’t happen unless Jane dumps Wayne), I will be able to draw on the ex’s social security. It’s not much, but it’s a benefit of that marriage. None of the above women will be eligible to draw on the other’s social security or pension (not sure about that one), and unless they have all the right legal documents drawn up the correct way, they have no real protection after the death of the SO. These protections take nothing away from hetero marriage, in my opinion.
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:44 pmZookeeper,
don’t forget that because they are not legally considered there spouse, if on gets sick or dies the partner has zero rights to visit them in the hospital unless the parents approve, and no say in the disposition of the body and property of the deceased. Let’s not also forget that tax rates for married couples are different from tax rates for single individuals, that loans for home purchases, are easier for a married couple then a single person, etc etc…
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:51 pmWhatever happened to Republicans like Danforth?
Ones you didn’t necessarily agree with, but respected.
Not only did Bush take the White House to a new low, but he gave power to bigoted meatheads like Frist, who are ruining the Senate forever.
God.
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:56 pm#17,18 Zookeeper, Krazny,
Thanks for the compliments. I am at a loss to understand why anyone should have a problem with two people who love each other very much trying to make sure that neither the government nor unenlightened family members can interfere with their relationship. I still want to know how two homosexuals getting married “threatens” the ability of two heterosexual people to get married. It doesn’t concern them at all!
I’ve met a lot of conservatives who simply do not like homosexuals – unless they know one. We recently had a co-worker leave who was openly gay. He brought his partner to many company functions and they are both great guys. We even have a bisexual woman working here who “made the transition” to guys after she started working here. Both the man and the woman are really nice, and nobody seems to have any problem being in the same room with them, even the diehard homophobes. In fact, one of the biggest homophobes had no problem with the bisexual woman (who was dating another woman at the time) play with his daughter! Yet he is the type who might be in the vanguard to oppose gay marriage. Why?
It’s strange to me, because all of the homophobes that I’ve known will be the first to say that the gay guy they actually know is all right, but it’s those other ones out there that have to go. (Of course, besides being homophobic, they also tend to be racist, but it’s the same thing with the black people they know personally.) I wish all these people would be willing to admit one of two things: Either their hatred for gay people (and it can be called nothing but “hatred†if you are so opposed to gay marriage) is based on the simple fact that they don’t actually know a lot about gay people and have only heard things they didn’t like, or their views are formed by the Biblical references to homosexuality being “an abomination.†The first group should get out more and open their minds a bit. The second group should stay in more and open their Bibles more and read up on what else is considered “an abominationâ€. (Women wearing dresses made from two different cloths; working on the Sabbath; planting two different crops in the same field, etc.) How come we don’t hear them denouncing all the other people who commit acts of abomination? Why do we only hear them complain because gay people might be allowed to marry?
When people all over the world are educated with FACTS and not simple-minded ideology, I really do believe that a lot of the world’s social problems (including wars) will go away. People fear what they don’t understand, and because they don’t understand gay people, they fear them. They really shouldn’t, especially since there’s a good chance that one or more of their favorite actors or musicians is gay.
May 2nd, 2006 at 6:09 pm#18 – All that, too. Thanks, Krazny. I get upset thinking about those women and the idiocy of the wingnuts.
May 2nd, 2006 at 6:10 pm#20 Wayne A. S.
May 2nd, 2006 at 6:18 pmExcellent comment as usual.
There is no circumstance I can think of wherein gay couples hurt me or society as a whole. But banning marriage in the nation is hurtful to gays – it’s a mean idea and totally uncalled for.
Playing to the crowd. Remember, Danforth is the one who saw it as his religious duty to get Clarence Thomas confirmed. He’s a politician, like all Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans will push this thing as long as it will turn out their base, no matter if they believe in it or not.
May 2nd, 2006 at 6:22 pm#9 I absolutely believe he is not playing to his audience. For the last couple of years he has been warning that the religious right is taking over their party and he is not the least bit happy about it.
May 2nd, 2006 at 6:30 pmI am heartened to hear, that there may be republicans out there who are not batshit insane. Perhaps when bush leaves office, we can get a more moderate government, who will govern based on facts an principle rather then guts and god.
May 2nd, 2006 at 6:33 pmI mean, really, what exactly is it about gay marriage that threatens heterosexual marriage?
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
to steal a phraze from Bill Maher “why do republicans think gay marriage threatens their marriage? I don’tknow, maybe they think it looks more fun”
I have a few gay friends, they never threatened my hetro relationships at all. Its another prejudice like racism that is held by sick narowminded morons.
May 2nd, 2006 at 7:23 pm#26 Exactly. The only marriage a gay marriage is going to threaten is the one with the guy in the closet. Temptation sucks.
May 2nd, 2006 at 7:31 pmmaybe the republicans could also amend the constitution to mandate segregation. I mean sharing drinking fountains with non-whites threatens my ability to drink from ANY water fountain… it just makes sense :p
May 2nd, 2006 at 9:16 pmWe need more civil servants like Danforth. I blog about this here.
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:23 pmI finally looked into the whole “Jeff Gannon” thing, and it does look like him in those old webste pics. He has a website now for his “news”. Oh yeah and wassup with conservatives being gay and then freaking out about it?
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:44 amIn a hundred years gays will have their rights and people will look back and say “can you beleive we did that” like we look back now and think the same thing about, say, women not being able to vote.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:47 amSimple question to everyone who claim that gay marriage destroys the institution of marriage.
Which is more dangerous to the institution of marriage …gays who want to get married, or hetro’s who want to get divorced?
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:21 amFor Truth; keep looking at those Gannon pics.,and you will be filling your pie-hole with dick.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:12 am#33 Hmm, that was one of the worst lines I have ever heard. I don’t think For Truth is going to take you up on your extremely generous offer.
May 3rd, 2006 at 7:55 amThree quick things…
#32 Clif, Good point. If marriage was meant to be legally for life, then divorce would be impermissible. Since divorce is permissible (as it should be because people change and people make mistakes), then the concept of “marriage” can’t be as important as opponents of gay marriage make it out to be.
Second, as has been observed before, gay people should be allowed to marry and be as miserable as the rest of us. :) (Love you, Jane.)
Finally, I do not like hearing opponents of gay marriage talk about the “sanctity” of marriage. Sanctity is a word used only for religious purposes. If a religion prohibits gay marriage, then gay people of that religious faith would not be allowed to marry and remain members in good standing of that religion. But just because some people describe the institution of marriage using words like “sanctity” does not mean it is a religious thing for everyone. It’s a civil thing as far as the law goes. And if you have absoutely no problem with gays being allowed to enter “civil unions”, even where all benefits, rights and privileges of “traditional marriage” are maintained, then you can’t have any objection to letting the “civil unions” be considered “marriages”.
Simply put, there is no rational argument against allowing gay people to marry and enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. None. So everyone opposed to it is being irrational.
May 3rd, 2006 at 7:56 amI recall an discussion I had with my brother over gay marriage. He kept saying that it will “destroy marriage as we know it!” When I responded with “Oh, you mean the divorce rate will go down and straight people will enter into ‘covenant marriage’ at a higher rate?” he was less than amused. I then said “Oh, you mean that if gays are allowed to marry, your 17 year old marriage won’t mean a thing so you’ll rush out to get divorced, right?” He walked away from the discussion.
The so-called “threat” to heterosexual marriage comes NOT from the possibility of extending the right to marry to gays, but from the ease of divorce as a solution to problems within a marriage, and the rush to get married when you’re “in love” but before you’ve had a chance to really get to know your partner.
It’s always the joke that women say “guys don’t have ’staying power’” and the guys respond with “it was only that one time, and I was drunk!” Joking aside, I believe the rush to get divorced when the marriage hits the first rough patch is matched by the rush to get married when your hormones are still rushing throughout your body from the love you feel, or the love you have.
If you really want to “save marriage”, why don’t you look at making it more difficult to get divorced and a mandatory one-year wait from application of marriage license and marriage? If you were “meant to be together”, won’t your love last for a one year wait?
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:46 amNot a big fan of evangelicals but Danforth
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:15 amseems a little different. Like maybe he actually
read the bible at some point in his life.
Jon Stewart put this one best. I’m paraphrasing here, but something along the lines of “In the history of our nation, there has only ever been one amendment designed to RESTRICT freedoms. By an amazing coincidence, there has also only ever been one amendment repealed!”
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:51 am#36, “I recall a discussion I had with my brother over gay marriage. He kept saying that it will ‘destroy marriage as we know it!’ When I responded with …”
Yes, there is no greater evidence that this useless “crusade” is content-free than the way it completely evaporates when presented with anything logical (and no, Trolls Who May Be Watching, “logic” is NOT the same thing as “gut feeling.” Sorry.). It is sad that 1) neo-con “arguments” are a) devoid of content and b) tissues of soundbytes but even sadder that 2) that is exactly the kind of crap, IF SHOUTED IN A LOUD ENOUGH O’REILLY-TYPE INCENSED VOICE, that a lot of people are completely satisfied with.
Oh, and definitely: what Clif wrote in #32. 100%.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:02 pmI knew my comments here would arouse suspicions that I must be gay, I am not, I actually was repulsed by the Gannon pics, I was curious as to see what all the fuss about him was, now I know. This issue is about discrimination.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:43 pmLeave it to the homophobes to interpret my posts the way they did. E-Coli is the closet gayboy.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:45 pmFor Truth, you haven’t seen anything yet. The TP poster boy for latent homosexuality has yet to show up on this thread. I’m speaking of course about IRI, and this is one of his favorite subects. I’m surprised he’s not here, but when he shows up I’m sure he’ll pop off with something that will make ‘e-coli’ blush.
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:04 pmYou’re right, Quadrajet, I fully expected to see a bunch of posts here from IRI, that homophobe.
Zookeeper, I’m surprised that IRI isn’t here to say “don’t marry Wayne! He’s a putz!”
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:23 pmi nominate the flag burning amendment as sillier.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:31 pmI’m not a homo or a homophobe;I live in the brown stuff.
May 4th, 2006 at 2:52 am