Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Religious Fright pissed at Condi... she dared to be civil to gay men!
Last wk, USA Today reported: "At a State Dept swearing-in ceremony, Sec of State Condi Rice warmly acknowledged the family members of Mark Dybul, the nation's new global AIDS coordinator. As first lady Laura Bush looked on, Rice singled out Dybul's partner, Jason Claire, and Claire's mother, and referred to her as Dybul's "mother-in-law." 2 yrs after an election the GOP won in part by making gay marriage an issue and less than 2 wks after revelations about GOPer Foley's advances toward teenage boys, a politically awkward fact of life is being exposed: some GOP leaders practice a more tolerant brand of politics in their office hiring than some in the party have preached on the campaign trail." Oh my. The hypocrisy of it all. Well, never fear. The Culture Warriors at the Family Research Council will slap on their superhero gay-hating capes and save the day for us heteros! (seriously, ya can't believe how many frickin times they manage to toss the word "homosexual" into a paragraph): "Peter Sprigg, vice pres for policy at the Family Research Council, says he is disgusted w/ Sec of State Rice's swearing in of an openly homosexual man as global AIDS coordinator, and in particular w/ comments she made at the ceremony that provide a very pointed example of how the GOP seems to want the support of "values voters," but are willing to appease the homosexual activist agenda. *GASP!*... Oh no! not. the. deadly. gay. agenda! Oh yes... but it is: " The Washington Blade, a pro-homosexual publication in the nation's capital, was accurate on Friday when it predicted Rice's remarks would "raise the eyebrows of conservative Christian leaders." Peter Sprigg says the secretary's comments were "profoundly offensive" and fly in the face of the Bush admin's endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment, and added that Rice's comments defy an existing law on the books protecting traditional marriage. "For her to treat his homosexual partner like a spouse and treat the partner's mother as a mother-in-law, which implies a marriage between the 2 partners, is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act." So daring to speak-- to call a gay man's partner's mom his MIL-- is a violation of DOMA? And to think, I merely thought it was exercising Condi's rights to free speech. But wait... it gets even worse: "We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," says Sprigg. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the fox wanted to be in charge of the henhouse so he could EAT all of the hens. By Prig's... err... I mean Sprigg's logic, that must mean that Dybul wants to EAT all of the AIDS, no? OMG! Noooo! But wait just a minute. I can top even that one.. and this one involves THE BIBLE: "Dybul, who was confirmed by the Senate 2 months ago but was just sworn in due to scheduling conflicts w/ Sec Rice and Mrs. Bush, is the nation's 3rd openly homosexual ambassador. The other 2 no longer hold their positions. According to news reports, in all 3 cases the men's homosexual partners held the Bible on which the oath of office was sworn." O. M. F. G. They dared to hold the Bible? And it didn't burst into flames when their sinning hands touched it? Well... it just must have been one of those new fangled asbestos Bibles then b/c Leviticus knows, it would've spontaneously combusted otherwise, so sayeth the Lord!