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.
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?
If you read his bio, he sounds very well qualified. Numerous positions with the US Global AIDS Coordinator's office, with the Dept of HHS, with the National Institutes of Health, Captain in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, and still active in clinical and basic AIDS research.
If the media wants to focus on who he has at his swearing in, it doesn't surprise me. It also doesn't surprise me that a gay physician might be very motivated to do research to prevent, treat, and cure AIDS. Kind of like an African American doctor might be more motivated to research sickle cell disease, or a Jewish researcher to look into Tay-Sachs disease.
You may be right. I may have been over the top in this discussion. If so, I apologize for my tone. However, I won't apologize for my opinon, which has not changed.
I encourage you to click on your own name in a message you've sent, then click [in forum] on the resulting page. If you do, you'll see that most of your posts and pings have to do with gays.
In this particular thread, the outrage expressed by many Freeper was aimed at the fact that Condoleeza Rice had called this appointee's partner's mother his "mother-in-law." The general tone has been that she was encouraging the gay agenda by doing so.
That's just ridiculous. This man was appointed by President Bush to an ambassador-level position, serving under the State Department's jurisdiction. Rice administered the oath, and Laura Bush was standing right there.
This is not about the gay agenda. It's about AIDS as a worldwide problem. Both straight people and gay people are affected, with straight people more affected than gays in many countries.
Yes, the man is a gay man. Yes, he has a partner, and his partner has a mother. Condi mispoke? Well, maybe she did. Maybe she did not. I do not know what Condaleeza Rice's opinion is regarding gay marriage. It's not an issue that affect her position as Secretary of State, so it's irrelevant.
My point in all of this is that her calling that woman a "mother-in-law" is meaningless in the larger scheme of things. It's not supporting any agenda. It's just a way of referring to the woman.
Yet, an attempt was made to blow this silliness all out of proportion by the Family Research Council, which issued a press release. Agape Press, as it always does, published the press release, unaltered. It was then picked up by the Whirled Nutz Daily, which also publishes every press release by the FRC as news.
Then, someone posted it here, resulting in a long thread, full of nonsense about the administration. Thus, a single word in remarks congratulating a man on his new job became a "big" news story. It's nonsense, and it harms the GOP. It's not news that President Bush has appointed a gay man to a job. He's done it before, and will do it again. It's not news that he was sworn-in by Condi Rice. None of this is news, except that a man was sworn-in to a new job.
Trying to make this one word in Condi's remarks some sort of big deal is just silly. You can see what the thread was like. Who cares if this man is gay? Who cares if Condi called his partner's mother a "mother-in-law." It's irrelevant to anything.
What is relevant is that such nonsense is just one more attack on the Bush administration, and by conservatives. We've had lots of that this year. I don't agree with Bush's positions on lots of things, but I'm not attacking him on a conservative discussion forum. The GOP needs all the help it can get, and from all Republicans and conservatives. Lacking that support, it's easy to conceive of a House and Senate controlled by the Democrats.
Hence my anger, disappointment, and messages. The attacks against the Bush administration need to stop until after the election. Just a short break. Then everyone can resume their attacks, once the election is over.
Shooting off one's nose to spite one's face has always been a bad idea. Why are we doing it here?
One problem about having a homosexual in charge of figuring out how to stop AIDS is that it is precisely homosexual behavior that causes the spread of AIDS. What's this man's viewpoint about, say, bath houses?
I hate to break it to you, but it's also heterosexual behavior that causes the spread of AIDS.
The lastest statistics I could find with a quick search are for 2004 from the CDC, and show that in the U.S., approximately 42% of cases are homosexual male transmission, and about 31 % are heterosexual transmission. Or perhaps you'd be happier with a female homosexual as AIDS coordinator, since they don't spread AIDS sexually?
In the rest of the world, the statistics are more skewed to heterosexual transmission; according to the World Health Organization about half of the world's cases are in women or children. In Africa, heterosexual sex and childbirth are the main transmission routes.
Would this have made more sense?
Actually, when you take a careful look at the stats, most of the "heterosexual" AIDS is drug users, homosexual drug users, bisexual drug users, and people who have sex with such people.
In Africa, no one knows how much AIDS there is, since testing is very spotty, and much (or at least some) of what is called AIDS is actually other ailments.
Anal sex is particularly good at transmitting not only AIDS but a wide range of diseases.
Thanks - I know I can get sharp myself.
I think what bothered me and some others about this is not that it is a big deal; it isn't. But many conservatives are very tired of our values being demeaned, belittled, scorned, cast aside, and most of all, legislated against, either by the suits in DC or very often the black robed ones.
Creeping insidious acceptance and promotion of deviance and immorality to the point where a person who holds traditional moral values is now looked upon (by many) as a primitive knuckle dragger who wants to "turn back the clock". The whole "nanny state" crap - I'm really sick of being told that because I don't want live sex shows at the theater in town (or other stuff like that) that I am a nanny stater. The only reason pornography (for instance) is all over the internet is because of the ACLU and Larry Flynt teaming up and the liberal SCOTUS forcing it upon the entire country. Now that is nanny statism.
Regarding AIDS, note my comment above. Remove the homosexually spread AIDS which includes bisexuals and you're down to very low numbers.
Of course many of my comments are about the homosexual agenda. Is that suspect? It is a great danger involving freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the indoctrination of the young.
AIDS is not like the other diseases you mentioned. AIDS is 100% preventable by changing behavior. Sickle cell anemia is genetic as is Tays Sachs. You're not comparing apples and oranges, you're comparing apples and cotter pins.
**************
I don't see the comments regarding this issue as an attack on the Bush administration. Do you really believe that any criticism of Rice is unacceptable? Or that it will have an impact on the midterm elections?
We'll see very soon where we stand. Imho, of more concern is the war in Iraq, the border security issue and the supposed reluctance of some Christian evangelicals to vote.
And given the apostrophe where it doesn't belong, illiterate white bigots.
My original point still stands - heterosexual sex is also a major way of spreading AIDS. Basing appointments on whether or not one could be a transmitter of the disease is ridiculous, but if you did, both heterosexuals and homosexuals spread the disease.
Native Americans on reservations have high rates of alcoholism and tuberculosis - would you advocate excluding a prominent Native American researcher from a government post addressing those issues?
Of course. But there was a bit of broad brush appearance to the statement -just wanted to point that out.
AIDS is not like the other diseases you mentioned. AIDS is 100% preventable by changing behavior. Sickle cell anemia is genetic as is Tays Sachs. You're not comparing apples and oranges, you're comparing apples and cotter pins.
Actually, I was commenting on the natural phenomena of someone who is at risk for a particular disease wanting to research in that area to prevent, treat and cure the disease. I was not commenting on the moral aspects of the disease, and I don't see how that changes a researcher's desire to do work he finds personally relevant. If you prefer, you can translate it to those with alcoholism or obesity in the family wanting to research those areas.
And at least one more today:
(Remember Greg Packer?)
You're absolutely correct. Unfortunately FR houses many of the sort.
The "mother-in-law" remark was pandering. Rice is a federal official and any legal status of the gay couple -- marriage, civil union, etc. -- has no recognition under federal law. Rice might as well have spoken of a "mother out-law."
Hey, SoulMan, good to see you! Hope everything is well with you and yours.
Good points, well said.
Excellent point. Pandering is indeed the word that describes this.
No need to use the words "mother in law".
The homosexual agenda should not be treated with respect, and those who promote it should not have their view and actions treated with respect. In the sense of honoring or agreeing with. Debate can be held respectfully, but unfortunately those who promote the "gay" agenda seldom if never debate issues. They want to repress all disagreement forcefully, name call, do end runs around those who disagree, subvert and so on.
If the promoters of the homosexual agenda played fair, it would easier to be respectful to them. But if you're in a fight, for instance, and you're playing by the Queensbury rules, and the other guy has a butterfly knife, brass kunckles, steel toed boots he's planning to kick out your knees with, and five friends behind the corner, you're going to lose.
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.