Rightwing religious fundamentalists are raising nary a peep about the way Congressional Publican leaders turned a blindeye to sex predators in their ranks to retain power. In fact, they excuse such behavior claiming that to do anything may appear either homophobic (Tony Perkins) or the whole episode was a just a prank (James Dobson).
However, after Condi Rice acknowledges Mark Dybul's gay partner's in-laws when she swore Dybul in as the nation's global AIDS coordinator, these same people go apeshit:
The ceremony involved Secretary of State Rice and the swearing in of Mark Dybul, an open homosexual, as the nation's new global AIDS coordinator -- a position that carries the rank of ambassador. An Associated Press photo of the ceremony also shows a smiling First Lady Laura Bush and Dybul's homosexual "partner," Jason Claire. During her comments, Rice referred to the presence of Claire's mother and called her Dybul's "mother-in-law," a term normally reserved for the heterosexuals who have been legally married.
1) These people think that Rice expressing anything affirming about this couple's relationship somehow breaks laws currently on the books:
The Washington Blade, a pro-homosexual publication in the nation's capital, was accurate on Friday when it predicted Rice's remarks would "rais[e] the eyebrows of conservative Christian leaders." Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, says the secretary's comments were "profoundly offensive" and fly in the face of the Bush administration's endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment, though that backing be less than enthusiastic...
He also notes that Rice's comments defy an existing law on the books protecting traditional marriage. "So, for her to treat his partner like a spouse and treat the partner's mother as a mother-in-law, which implies a marriage between the two partners, is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act," the FRC spokesman states.
2) These "Christians" make an absurd analogy about the danger of putting gays in charge of AIDS policy:
"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. "But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner's family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing"...
3) Finally, these "Christians" find it repugnant that homosexuals would even touch a Bible:
Dybul, who was confirmed by the Senate two months ago but was just sworn in due to scheduling conflicts with Secretary Rice and Mrs. Bush, is the nation's third openly homosexual ambassador. The other two no longer hold their positions. According to news reports, in all three cases the men's homosexual partners held the Bible on which the oath of office was sworn.
Mindblowing, no? And these are the leaders of the so-called "value-voters"? I will never understand their mindsets. Maybe that's why the chasm between Red and Blue America is so great.