Monday, October 16, 2006

Christians Now Hate Condi, But for All the Wrong Reasons

I wrote about Condi 'n' Laura's cutesy gay wedding ceremony last Tuesday, and since that time the Christian Crazies™ have built up an impressive head of righteous indignation. Thank goodness for Agape Press for rising to the bait and telling exactly why Dr. Ferragamo has now been blacklisted from all the holiest, jesusyest Christmas card lists:
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.
Poor Condi, she'll just have to settle with being loved by everybody else in the world.

UPDATE -- Bonus Condifun! Check out the bewitching visage of a Condi/John Bolton half-and-half sideshow freak. Yay!


John said...

And Sprigg forgot to mention that she didn't kick him or spit at him either!

Drew in SF said...

"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.

So s'Prigg is saying that um, AIDS policy is a tasty meal to a homosexual? And if so, shouldn't it be the "roosterhouse"? I mean, cockadoodle duh!

If a good Christian is supposed to imitate Christ, shouldn't he be able to at least formulate a decent parable? Bad similies are the playthings of the devil after all.

Anonymous said...

I say good for Condi!
Maybe she can find someone someday too.


Anonymous said...

The Bolton-moustache suits her.

DC1974 said...

I think he's saying that us gays eat AIDS like chicken. In fact we LOVE AIDS. Love it love it love it. Serve grilled in the summer with a white wine. Serve it braised in the winter with a red. It's just works everywhere, like a black suit. And so, if we are in charge of AIDS policy, we'll just eat all the AIDS and thus only BECOME BIGGER. And then take over the world. It's why they don't want the gays in Africa also. it would be like gremlins and water.