People Who Need to Get a Life

A conservative activist group has written to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asking her why she used the “morally provocative” term “mother-in-law” to describe the mother of a homosexual man. [...]

“I am truly honored and delighted to have the opportunity to swear in Mark Dybul as our next Global AIDS Coordinator,” Rice said at the ceremony. “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 a wonderful family to support you, Mark, and I know that’s always important to us. Welcome,” Rice said. [...]

“The question arises, what guidelines do the State Department and 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, and ’mother in law’ is therefore both linguistically (and possibly legally) improper and morally provocative.

“Why did Secretary Rice deploy the term in the presence of the First Lady? We’ve written to ask her, and we’ll let you know what we hear,” said FRC (Family Research Council) President Tony Perkins. (source)

This is the agenda of the right wing Republican Party today. It is the agenda of the Family Research Council. The two agendas are the same, since the current Republican Party has been bought by these right wing lunatics. It only goes to show their true intentions -- when all is said in done, they want gay folks to have nothing; no public recognition, no public support of our relationships to cement our relationships, something they would call “stability”, nothing. They want us to have nothing. At some point, the party really has to ask themselves honestly, “what went wrong?” They used to be the party of “less intrusive government” and lower taxes. Now, it’s tax tax tax, and they have their noses in practically every aspect of our lives -- who can marry who; who is allowed to be recognized by the government as a “marriage” (or even a “family”, for that matter), so we don’t give away those wonderful marriage benefits to undesirables; what role the government has in the most intimate decisions a family could face (remember Terri Schaivo?).

They really have shown their cards. I first wrote about this on Oct. 12, 2006. I think the intent of Rice was to attempt to show some tolerance of our families -- something I felt was the act of lame and dishonest politics. I know, so what else is new? I know what these people really feel about us. The truth is, aside from the tax money that they suck from us, they really have no other need for our families. If it wasn’t for the money, talent, hard work, and diversity we pour into this American democracy, they would be very pleased if we were collectively taken to an island and quarantined. They won’t say that, but we all know it’s true. No one will say it, so I’ll say it.

So for Rice to acknowledge that there are indeed gay families out there and to make reference to this mans “mother-in-law”, acknowledged that family. Of course, this did not go unnoticed by the neocons such as the Family Research Council who were quick to point out that the term “mother-in-law” only exists because the state and federal governments has made it so through marriage. If no marriage exists, then the term is inaccurate. And, they are right.

But perhaps this has a silver lining to it. I want to tell myself, “baby steps....”. The Republican Party has a big problem on their hands. They’ve painted themselves into a corner on just about every issue there is; equality, immigration, the declining middle class, the pathetic minimum wage that they repeatedly refuse to raise, the lack of aggressive AIDS education to reach communities across the board because it will appear that they are promoting sex -- none of these issues are being addressed because we are “fighting the war on terror”. Well, if your own house collapses, what difference does it make?

A week ago today, and just six days before the religious right’s anti-gay hullabaloo, Liberty Sunday, Condi Rice swore in a new U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, Dr. Mark R. Dybul.

The ceremony also featured a very curious group of people for a high-level Republican affair; from the State Department’s website:

“I would like to extend a special welcome to the First Lady. Mrs. Bush... a number of Ambassador Dybul’s family members joining us on this auspicious occasion. They include: partner, Jason Claire; mother, Claire Dybul; father, Richard Dybul; and mother-in-law, Marilyn Claire. Please join me in extending a very warm welcome to all of our distinguished guests.”

Dr. Dybul is gay, and is, ostensibly, “married” to Jason Claire. (source)

I’ve largely withdrawn from politics. Perhaps you’ve noticed me writing about it less and less? Quite honestly, it’s not worthy of my time or trouble. People don’t care. People don’t vote. People don’t get politically involved. And I can understand that when 95% of all politicians will lie to you about what they really believe. They may believe in some sort of equality, but they aren’t going to say that. They will talk about tax reductions, but when they are elected that all changes because they are confronted with the fact that you can’t reduce taxes when we are spending money like there is no tomorrow.

Perhaps there will be no tomorrow. Hell, I’m just going along for the ride at this point. It’s hard for me to get involved in politics today given that the mind set of the American population is to go to the polls and vote people’s rights away with the flick of a lever, without even knowing (or caring) about the PEOPLE they just screwed over. It’s hard for me to get involved when they put that above what our troops are going through in Iraq, what is going on in Korea, what is going on in Darfur, and how we are ruining our planet. There are even Americans who can’t tell you the name of the current President of the United States. For me to say I don’t care is saying a lot since I’m a political activist. At least I used to be.

The American populace is uneducated about a lot of things. But what they do know about are gay people, even though many have never known a gay person. I’m a gay man. That means that I’m a ..... potential (probable) pedophile, probably gay because I was sexually abused early in life, sex addict, probably do drugs, probably have AIDS, am trying to “recruit” their children into the homosexual “lifestyle”, trying to make my lifestyle “legitimate” by daring to ask to marry my partner of 31 years, and last but certainly not least, a “faggot”. We do love labels, don’t we? What else is there to know?

What do I say to that when that is what we’ve been reduced to? Is it worth my time to dignify that with an answer? Honestly, I’m more worried about letting my health club know my new credit card number since my last one was stolen, and getting my Xanax prescription refilled.

Other than that, life is good!