« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
10/17/2006
On foxes, henhouses, and mother-in-laws
In a piece decrying Condoleeza Rice for recognizing the mother of new Global AIDS Coordinator Mark Dybul's partner as Dybul's "mother-in-law" at his recent swearing-in ceremony, Agape Press quotes the Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg as saying:
"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," .... "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."
Dual condemnations to which we reply:
Putting a gay man "in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse?!?!" Uhm, except unlike the fox, who would be likely to eat or attack the hens, gay men are the ones among us who want to cure, vaccinate, and eradicate this pandemic more than anyone else! The fox/henhouse idiomatic saying would be more applicable if a member of the "pro-family" community, such as Mr. Sprigg, were put in charge of AIDS policy. In that scenario, the name of the disease would likely be changed back to GRIDS, and chastity belts and quarantining are possibilities we can imagine with frightening ease.
So while the topic Mr. Sprigg is wanting to harp on in this Agape piece is the fact that Ms. Rice referred to the mother of Mr. Dybul's partner as his 'mother-in-law' rather than as 'the woman who birthed his honey but who isn't yet his legal relative,' we'd much rather talk about the sort of thought process that could possibly lead someone to imply that a gay man may somehow exploit his position DEALING WITH A GLOBAL PANDEMIC!!!! Mr. Sprigg's words are just another in a long line of attempts by his community to demonize gays, as they work to exploit public misinformation for their own biased, discriminatory gain. They stigmatize us as wild and crazy perverts, then they turn around and criticize us when our family bonds strong. They blame us for the AIDS crisis, then question our motives us when we steer the cure-seeking ship. Their one and only true goal in terms of our lives is a society where we are shunned, condemned, or non-existent, and to achieve this brass ring of bias, they'll lash out against anyone or anything who so much as farts in a queer-friendly manner.
They are cunning foxes, and they are hungry. Fortunately, we're not chicken.
Be sure to look out for future comments from Mr. Sprigg, wherein we predict he'll criticize us for both "having a chip on our shoulder" and calling our partner's father "Dad."
Rice's 'Mother-in-Law' Comment Raises Conservative Hackles [Agape]
comments powered by Disqus
