Express your thoughts to President Bush:
1) Regarding his appointment of an open homosexual to head the US effort against AIDS, and
2) Regarding his Secretary of State’s blatant validation of relationships that are not consistent with federal law.
E-mail the President:
Click here to email the White House (A bcc of your email will be sent to FPN)
Click here to email the White House (NO bcc of your email will be sent to FPN)
State Dept., White House Ignoring ‘Spirit’ of DOMA;
Rice’s ‘Mother-in-Law’ Comment Reflected ‘Due Deference,’ says Tony Snow
By Jim Brown and Jody Brown – October 23, 2006
(AgapePress) – Inquiring conservative minds may have wanted to know what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meant by a recent comment she made — but few details are forthcoming from the White House.
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.
The issue surfaced, albeit briefly, during Friday’s press conference with White House press secretary Tony Snow, when WorldNetDaily’s Les Kinsolving asked: “How does this adhere to the President’s belief in policy that marriage is between one man and one woman?” White House press secretary Tony Snow replied: “The Secretary said what she said, and she was showing due deference to the people involved [in the ceremony].”
Tom McCluskey, vice president for government affairs at FRC, admits he was taken aback by the White House’s stance “because if they’re not violating the letter of the law — the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton — they’re certainly ignoring the spirit of the law,” he says.
McCluskey explains that neither District of Columbia law, where the comments were made, nor federal law recognizes such unions. “Yet here you have both the State Department and the White House basically turning their backs on the law,” he notes.
The FRC spokesman expresses concern that Rice’s comments — and the White House’s defense of them — may very well alienate the president’s conservative base. For that reason, FRC is seeking an explanation from the State Department.
“We’ve already talked to [Secretary Rice’s] office, and we’re asking them what exactly is the protocol for such situations,” says McCluskey, expressing doubt that it was a verbal gaffe. “We’re talking about the Secretary of State here; every word she says, I’m sure, is carefully scrutinized. If she mispronounces a word, there could be a war,” he points out. “So we want to know how this happened — and if it did happen from some speechwriter trying to push his own agenda on the rest of the federal government, then that certainly needs to be addressed.”
McCluskey adds that he “would hope that the White House would be supportive of federal law and reflect that in their employees.”
A call to Secretary Rice’s chief of staff, Brian Gunderson, seeking clarification went unreturned.
By Jim Brown and Jody Brown, AgapePress – Copyright, 2006. All Rights Reserved.
Conservatives Voicing Concern Over Sec’y Rice’s PC Comment
By Allie Martin and Jody Brown – October 17, 2006
(AgapePress) – An official with the nation’s largest evangelical denomination contends the Republican Party is out of touch with “values voters” when it comes to the homosexual agenda.
Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, with First Lady Laura Bush in attendance, presided over the swearing-in ceremony of Dr. Mark Dybul as the new coordinator of the U.S. global AIDS office. Dybul’s homosexual partner, Jason Claire, witnessed the ceremony, during which Secretary Rice referred to Claire’s mother as Dybul’s “mother-in-law.” While that comment brought reaction from at least one pro-family spokesman in the nation’s capital, Pastor Wiley Drake — second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention and a long-time Republican political activist in southern California — says it makes no sense to appoint a homosexual as global AIDS coordinator.
“I think it’s a tragedy to have a sodomite living with another man and being the AIDS coordinator,” says Drake, “because we all know that if we do away with sodomy we’d almost eradicate AIDS.”
While that might be true in Drake’s neck of the woods — where, in Los Angeles County, roughly three-fourths of HIV cases are the result of men having sex with other men — data from other parts of the country indicate the infection is spreading rapidly among women and intravenous drug users. And in other parts of the world — Africa and China, for example — the virus is being spread mostly through heterosexual sex.
Regardless, Drake is convinced that the GOP is alienating evangelical Christians, the party’s core support group, by making overtures intended to attract homosexual voters.
“Even as second vice president, I can’t speak for the [Southern Baptist] Convention,” the long-time Baptist concedes. “But I certainly … believe most Baptists would be like me; they would be appalled at what Condoleezza Rice has done, and in general [with] what the Republican Party is doing with things like Log Cabin Republicans and other sodomites [in] trying to get their vote.”
A Calculated Comment?
One Capitol Hill observer is suggesting that Secretary Rice’s comment can be assumed to be intentional because, as he puts it, “the U.S. State Department is in the business of diplomacy and avoiding faux pas.” And in the “world of protocol,” says Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, “verbal miscues are anathema.”
“The question arises,” states Perkins, “what guidelines to the State Department and the White House follow? Neither federal law (the Defense of Marriage Act) nor District of Columbia law recognizes a marriage between Dr. Dybul and his partner.” That said, notes Perkins, Secretary Rice’s comment is not only “morally provocative” but also “linguistically improper.”
Perkins’ group wants to know why Rice uttered the term in the presence of the First Lady — and it has written to the Secretary of State asking for an explanation.
By Allie Martin and Jody Brown, AgapePress – Copyright, 2006. All Rights Reserved.
Rice’s ‘Mother-in-Law’ Comment Raises Conservative Hackles
Remark Comes During Swearing In of Open Homosexual to Ambassador-Level Post
By Fred Jackson and Jim Brown – October 16, 2006
(AgapePress) – A spokesman for a family-advocacy group in Washington, DC, is expressing disgust with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s swearing in of an openly homosexual man as global AIDS coordinator — and in particular, with comments she made at the ceremony.
Late last week, USA Today stated that the Republican Party is facing what it calls an “identity crisis” when it comes to efforts to try to please both homosexuals and conservative Christians. The report used a ceremony at the State Department to 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.
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.
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.
“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.”
Sprigg says in light of the Foley scandal, “it’s inexplicable that a conservative administration would do such things.” 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.
As the USA Today report notes, the Rice statement comes in the midst of news stories dealing with the Mark Foley scandal, many of which have talked about the number of homosexual staffers on the Republican payroll. Some pro-family people are starting to wonder if this homosexual influence within the GOP may account for the party’s lack of action on social conservative issues. FRC’s Tony Perkins says that among the questions that need to be asked are: “Has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members or staffers?”
Indeed, the USA Today account of the swearing-in ceremony concedes that the Foley investigation may be exposing what it calls a “politically awkward” fact of life in the world of national politics. That is, some leaders in the Republican Party “practice a more tolerant brand of politics” in office hiring than others in the party have conveyed on the campaign trail.
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.
By Fred Jackson and Jim Brown, AgapePress – Copyright, 2006. All Rights Reserved.