Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assists newly sworn-in Ambassador Mark Dybul as he signs appointment documents Oct. 10 at the State Department (White House photo
Posted on 10/17/2006 2:12:04 PM PDT by Coleus
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assists newly sworn-in Ambassador Mark Dybul as he signs appointment documents Oct. 10 at the State Department (White House photo |
According to the State Department transcript, Rice said:
Thank you. Thank you very much. I am truly honored and delighted to have the opportunity to swear in Mark Dybul as our next Global AIDS Coordinator. I am pleased to do that in the presence of Mark's parents, Claire and Richard; his partner, Jason; and his mother-in-law, Marilyn. You have wonderful family to support you, Mark, and I know that's always important to us. Welcome.
The use of a term normally reserved for legally married heterosexual families rankled Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, who called Rice's comments "profoundly offensive," according to Agape Press.
 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swears in Ambassador Mark Dybul (White House photo) |
The secretary's remarks, he said, fly in the face of the Bush administration's endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment. "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," said 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." Sprigg said, according to Agape Press, in light of the Mark Foley scandal, "it's inexplicable that a conservative administration would do such things."
Rice's comments, he added, conflict with a law 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," Spriggs said. The Foley scandal has highlighted the number of homosexual staffers working for Republican lawmakers, USA Today noted, causing some family advocates to wonder if this influence has anything to do with the party's lack of action on conservative social issues.
The Family Research Council's Tony Perkins framed the question this way: "Has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members or staffers?" Dybul is the nation's third openly homosexual ambassador, Agape Press noted, pointing out that in all three cases the homosexual partners held the Bible on which the oath of office was taken. As WND reported, a new book also has raised the eyebrows of some evangelicals. White House political advisers embraced evangelical supporters publicly to get their votes while mocking them privately as "nuts" and "goofy," according to David Kuo, the former No. 2 man in President Bush's so-called "faith-based" initiatives program.
Good. All the Evangelicals can vote Democrat or stay home so they can then have even more liberals on the courts, gay marriage and a whole bunch of other leftist policies thrown at them.
That's fine, but we'll remember this when she runs in 2008, along with her evasiveness on abortion.
So he's gay. I care because ......?
Time for a NEW party.
Its no surprise, really, and its another reason why Rice would probably be a complete disaster as a Presidential candidate.
The big money corporate elements of the GOP have already sided with the homosexual agenda in large part, so we should probably expect eventual betrayal from the party elite, just as they have done on immigration and racial preferences.
At this point, the most that the Evangelical community can really hope for is to attain an environment where the judiciary is not hostile towards traditional values, and is willing to stay out of social policy. Then at least, there is a chance to win on big issues like marriage in most states.
If the whole base is outraged and fuming, these journalists should find some other offendees to quote.
It is shameful that Republicans think gay people should not be treated with respect. Shameful.
What's WorldNetDaily pushing this divisive stuff too? It's as bad as the NY Times/Wash Post/ABC/NBS/SeeBS.
There's already a thread that's over 400 posts; how many do we need to have on this "topic"?
Same gender sex is sin. Having said that, homosexuals live, move and breathe in this world. I'm not going to say none should ever be given jobs in the government.
She's not running in 2008. Have you not been listening to her? She's not running. She doesn't want to be President.
She's doing what Bush wants her to do. That's her job. Bush appointed this guy, not Condi. She was there at the swearing-in ceremony. So was Laura Bush.
Don't you get it? President Bush is in charge, not Condi. He appointed this gay man. He approves this message.
For pete's sake, President Bush doesn't care if this guy's gay. He wants someone with experience in AIDS, and this guy has it. He's a physician, and has been working in this field for a long time. He's perfectly well-qualified.
President Bush doesn't care that he's gay. There are other gays working in this administration. You didn't know that? Did you think that President Bush hates gays just because they're gay? He said, several times, that sexual orientation wasn't a factor that would eliminate someone for consideration for a post.
Give it a break. You don't like gays? That's your privilege. If you vote based on whether someone will hire a gay man, then you are voting the wrong way. It doesn't matter.
Careful with that broad brush.
As many as it takes to split the party and allow the Dems to take over would be my guess. ;-)
Well, carry on then, if that's the goal....
Yeah, exactly my reaction: One can agree that AIDS is a serious disease meriting serious international attention/ concern, without descending into "group-rights" politics. Perhaps this guy was the best qualified candidate INDEPENDENT of his orientation, but that's not the way this makes it sound. More like, HE'S OPENLY GAY and by the way he's also (... or "therefore"?) qualified?
Such conduct fails to treat either medical science or, frankly, homosexuals with much respect. JMO.
Bye.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.