What are the correct terms for homosexual couples and their family members? Somebody tell us. I, and perhaps you, have struggled with this one for a long time. I am so behind the times that I still struggle with how to refer to unmarried heterosexual couples, much less gay ones. (See side bar) In an example of “political hyperactivity” bordering on a publicity stunt designed to whip their supporters into a check-writing frenzy for the 2006 elections, the Family Research Council, a stalwart of the the Conservative movement with whom I agree on most, but certainly not all, issues is bashing Condi for her part in a swearing-in ceremony for Ambassador Mark R. Dybul, the United States Global AIDS Coordinator. He’s an openly homosexual physician with impeccable credentials. The FRC objects to Secretary Rice publicly referring to Dybul’s “life partner” and his life partner’s mother as his “mother-in-law.” FRC Vice President Peter Sprigg has called this “profoundly offensive. (I didn’t want to quote Sprigg “out of context” and looked for the quotation on the FRC website and could not find it there — strange. It is taken from an Agape Press article, a source I believe to be reliable.) More incredibly, he continues with the following tirade:
| What you call someone can be a difficult question even for family members. I have trouble trying to introduce my younger sister and her male “significant other” to someone with my parents present. My father, behind their backs, refers to him that “bastard responsible for seducing my daughter into a life of cohabitation and fornication,” or just “bastard” for short. But when my mother objects saying, “They’re not ready for marriage yet, give them time.” He relents, somewhat, and adds, “OK, for a bastard, that’s ‘test driving our daughter for marriage like he’s shopping for a used car,’ he’s all right.”Although it sounds “too PC,” I’ll stick to “significant other.”Apologies to my sister, the secret is out! |
“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.” (Does Sprigg think that Dr. Dybul is going to use his position to arrange sexual rendezvous with other homosexuals? He’s not a congressman!) “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.” (”Deferential treatment?” Is this guy joking? What was Secretary Rice supposed to do? Was she supposed to say, with the First Lady present, “Today we’re happy to see Dr. Dybul’s live-in sodomy partner here, and seated next to him is the mother who permitted her son to take up a life of sexual perversion.” Nothing short of stoning the gay couple after the hors d’oeuvres would have satisfied Sprigg.)
If that’s not enough, the FRC’s Tony Perkins is quoted rhetorically asking, “Has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members or staffers?” Oh yes, there’s this entire network of gay Republicans and their staffers torpedoing the GOP agenda — that’s a “vast right wing conspiracy” that even Hillary couldn’t imagine. Switch to decaf, guys.
For the record, post author opposes gay marriage. For Condi’s last comment on the gay marriage issue, made at the 2006 Southern Baptist Convention, click here.
Ann Althouse, USA Today
