It seems that since that lovely swearing in ceremony the "Religious" Right has been going crazy. The Agapepress has written about it almost every other day:
At the recent swearing-in ceremony of Dr. Mark Dybul -- an open homosexual -- as the nation's global AIDS coordinator, Secretary Rice referred to the mother of Dybul's homosexual partner as his "mother-in-law." Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council (FRC), among others, reacted to the secretary's remarks shortly thereafter, calling them "profoundly offensive" in light of the Bush administration's lukewarm endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment.World Nut Daily asked the President's Press Secretary about it last Friday:
While current reports show that over 600,000 Iraqis are dead from the war and October has been one of the bloodiest months ever for American troops, all these people are concerned with is the use of the term "mother-in-law"!
The White House on Friday offered no detailed explanation when asked by Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent, about "how does this adhere to the president's belief in policy that marriage is between one man and one woman?"
"The Secretary said what she said, and she was showing due deference to the people involved," was the response from Tony Snow, Bush's spokesman.
The use of the "mother-in-law" term normally reserved for legally married heterosexual families rankled Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council.Only in your small mind Peter. To me the term "Pro-family" usually refers to someone who actually cares about the family (not just certain select families) but that doesn't stop you or the other anti-gay organizations from using it.
Do you think the reason they keep using the term "pro-family" whenever they describe themselves is because no one believes them?