Former Senator John Danforth Blasts Anti-Family Constitutional Amendment

Calls on Log Cabin Republicans to Help Regain Center in American Politics

May 1, 2006 Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Blogger Tumblr

(Washington, DC) – Former U.S. Senator and former UN Ambassador John Danforth (R-MO) made a strong case against the anti-family constitutional amendment during the Log Cabin Republicans National Dinner on Saturday April 29th. Danforth, an ordained Episcopalian Priest, spoke to hundreds of Log Cabin members, allies, and supporters in Washington, DC at the organization's largest national convention in its history. "It is said that this [amendment] is necessary to protect marriage. Whose marriage is this going to protect?" asked Danforth. "How conceivably could it protect any marriage in the United States?"

"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," Danforth said. "Maybe at some point in time there was one that was sillier than this one, but I don't know of one."

Republican leaders of the U.S. House and Senate vow to bring the anti-family constitutional amendment up for a vote this spring or summer, just in time to use it as a wedge issue in the November elections. "There's nothing conservative or Republican about playing politics with the American Constitution," said Log Cabin President Patrick Guerriero. "If a principled conservative like John Danforth can oppose this amendment, GOP members of Congress should do the same thing."

Log Cabin presented Danforth with its Spirit of Lincoln Award during the National Dinner. Over the last year, the conservative former senator has been increasingly critical of those in our nation who are using religion to divide the Republican Party and the nation. Danforth blasted those who are pushing the unnecessary and divisive constitutional amendment. "It is a concept which is contrary to basic Republican principles...the basic concept of the Republican Party is to interpret the Constitution narrowly, not expansively, so that legislatures, and especially state legislatures, can work out... the social issues in our country and not to have these evolving issues fixed and concrete in the Constitution of the United States," Danforth said.