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?
1 comment:
See, that's exactly the thing. They can spew their empty rhetoric all they want, but what person can honestly, in the presence of a man and his family, insist that a family member of his is just some stranger (as their laws state she is)? I also can't imagine Condoleezza Rice or George W. Bush introducing dinner guests as "This is Jim, my coworker, and this is Bob, who sleeps with Jim and who I have no idea why he's here." They don't ACTUALLY view people like that.
Other than the maybe 1% or less of people who are total extremist gay-haters, human beings just don't actually outwardly disrespect one another like this. These people do have a conscience, and they need to have their laws catch up with it.
Post a Comment