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.Hmmm... I thought the word had gone out that opponents of same sex marriage were supposed to deny any hostility to gay people.
"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."
More here:
"In the world of protocol, verbal miscues are anathema," the Family Research Council said in a message to conservatives.Is this a "political identity crisis," that must be worked through? I think Condoleezza Rice and President Bush think they can be entirely warm and supportive to gay people and still take the position that marriage is a special man-and-woman tradition. But there are lots of people on both sides of the question who view that position as impossibly contradictory.
"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 President Tony Perkins.
In reporting on the swearing in ceremony last week, USA Today said the "celebratory moment for a gay couple was emblematic of the political identity crisis facing the Republican Party."
Posts
48 comments:
Let's be real. "in-law" is fully understood today to be a term that relates to marriage. You of all people, Ann, know that it has legal ramifications (visitation, inheritance, tax, et al).
If a state's political process desires to grant certain rights to couples that are contained in marriage and yet stop short of granting or legislating "marriage", the term "in-law" will still not come into literal play.
It is not a sign of disrespect towards someone who is gay to refrain from applying politically correct misnomers to them.
Brent: I disagree. Those who oppose state-sanctioned same-sex marriage often say that gay people can still get married, that churches are free to marry them and so forth. The term "in-law" does seem to refer to the legal recognition of a marriage, which is odd and actually a little offensive. What is the religious term for the relationship you have with your spouse's parents?
I wonder what Peter Sprigg would have had Condi call the partner's Mom. It reads like their Traditional Values are to denigrate gays whenever possible.
The question becomes for Republicans: On which side do you stand: with Condi's respectful one (You have to think she asked how to refer to the partner's Mom) or elsewhere? The link notes that the Far Right's honesty here is very refreshing. It would be even more refreshing to hear a Republican with national office ambitions to rebuke them.
Condoleezza Rice and President Bush think they can be entirely warm and supportive to gay people and still take the position that marriage is a special man-and-woman tradition. But there are lots of people on both sides of the question who view that position as impossibly contradictory.
And I suppose politely recognising all of a Saudi prince's numerous wives as a "wife," and their mothers as "mother-in-law" would conflict with our criminal penalties for polygamy. Well sure. But politeness is one thing, and the law is another.
The point about "in-law" is kind of interesting, though. I wonder how the term came about (e.g. is the law there necessarily secular? Not, say, ecclesiastic or canon law?). Other languages even have special terms for "mother-in-law," like Japanese, which calls them shuutome (姑). And I kind of wonder how those came about too.
That also reminds me of the so-called "mother-in-law languages" .
Ann: I seem to miss your point.
My point has nothing to do with state-sanctioned vs. church-sanctioned.
If the gay relationship is sanctioned by the state as marriage, then the term "in-law" would be widely understood to apply to those relationships as well as in current marriage relationships. That does not mean everyone would like it, only that it would be widely understood and make its way into regular usage.
My first post referred to the term "in-law". It did not mean that "in-law" type relationships cannot be covered under same-sex couple rights legislation. The mother coming into the hospital to see her son's partner may be granted visitation rights because of her relationship. but it will be a very long time, if ever - because of its confusing change of centuries long usage - before the term "in-law" gains regular usage in those cases.
In current states with partnership laws, the term husband, wife, and spouse are not mandated or even commonly used. The New York Times carries stories on gay "weddings". But even there one does not find the term "in-law" used (unless it's Massachusetts) to describe the relationships.
It's not discriminatory, Ann - it's about confusion, and wishing it different under the guise of "compassion" won't make it so until
it is legally recognized as marriage.
It's not my choice - it's simply recognizing the culture. Short of legal recognition of marriage, "in-law" ain't happenin'.
Re: "they can be entirely warm and supportive to gay people and still take the position that marriage is a special man-and-woman tradition"
This is a no-brainer to those who agree with SSM, but not to opponents. The underlying issue remains accepting SSM precepts, and "marriage" includes all of the terminology associated with it. I fully understand how the term "mother-in-law" when applied to anything but a traditional marriage comes to devalue the term and then blur the lines.
Of course, that is the precise intent of co-opting the terminology.
What do you call your partner's mother? "This is Stephen's mom" might work.
What is the religious term for the relationship you have with your spouse's parents?
Family
My partner and I had a wedding ceremony supported by our families and friends, but we are not legally married. I'm careful about the language I use to refer to our status and avoid using the term "married" unless I explain the situation (e.g., "married in the eyes of our families and friends"). I appreciate the respect that Rice displayed by normalizing the gay relationship of her colleague (subordinate?) and I'm sure it meant a lot to him, but in a way I also relate to the FRC guy's logic. I don't tell people I'm married because (1) it can be perceived as dishonest since if I say yes, most people will assume I am legally married and married to a partner of the opposite sex and (2) if the law doesn't grant us the benefits of marriage then I don't want people to assume that we are receiving those benefits. You can dismiss it as semantics and it partly is, but there is a principle underlying it that matters to me: if society doesn't want to treat my "marriage" as equal to straight friends' marriages then I don't want people to whitewash the different treatment and pretend we are the same when it is politically or socially convenient to do so.
I've actually thought about how to refer to my partner's parents and whether using "in-laws" implicates my concerns about language. The trouble is, I can't think of an alternative that sums up the idea of in-laws so concisely, so I use it.
Brent: Even if the term is inaccurate, the reaction to Rice's use of it is ugly.
Flash: Our political discourse is insane.
It seems likely that the Sec. State was merely being polite, perhaps, diplomatic. That's her job--diplomacy I mean.
Still, she might just as easily have said "(partner's name)'s mother," or perhaps, "so is the old battle axe still busting your chops?"
I have to agree with Althouse, while I think state sanctioned gay-marriage is probably a bad idea (although I support civil unions), the use of the term mother-in-law has little to do with it. It really sounds like an overreaction by over sensitized people on the gay marriage issue. It reminds me of Bush hatred - where people hate Bush so much they are willing to stick a knife in their gut rather than admit to agreeing with something that Bush does.
Equally on the otherside are accusations by the left that people who do not support gay marriage are biggots. That is even more offensive to me.
Bart,
You are correct about the symptom/cause issue and SSM.
Can you understand why some people might consider accepting SSM as simply giving marriage a final and fatal shove?
Me? I am opposed to SSM. Rice's comments are a minor issue at best. But I think SSM is inevitable, as is the eventual decline of marriage itself. We'll become much like Europe if so.
The news from there hasn't been very good lately.
Re: "No, it makes no sense at all. It is actually counterintuitive."
Coming from Freder, I'll take that as proof positive I am correct.
Ann Althouse: Even if the term is inaccurate, the reaction to Rice's use of it is ugly.
That's a bit unfair. I think Brent is right that the usage is jarringly inaccurate. The perception is probably that her usage of such a term was purposeful and political. And so the response was purposeful and political.
Perhaps she misspoke. But that is unlikely. Don't you remember that story awhile back about her calibrating her outfits and timing her arrivals to make a big splash on her diplomatic tour?
Re: "I don’t know that you could “devalue” the term any more than it already has..."
If the term is indeed of so little value, why the interest in claiming it for use in SSM? Ann said it was being "warm and supportive". You seem to think it a term for mockery or irony.
Which is it?
Bart Hall, I'm in agreement that SSM is a consequence of the redefinition of marriage that has already happened. When Rudy G. can marry his affair partner and not incur the wrath of the "defenders of traditional marriage," then it's clear that marriage is not what it used to be.
Hm. I think I'd refer to people's extended families (however they define that) however they'd prefer in personal and social situations.
I have gay friends in long-term relationships who do refer to each other's families as "in-laws," and I guess I've always taken it just to be a verbal shortcut to indicate a relationship that incorporates the idea of extended-family-via-a-choice. I say "I guess" because I never really gave it any thought (though obviously it turns out that I've noticed it).
I have straight friends in long-term "living together" relationships who do the same.
I also have divorced straight friends who maintain decent relationships with their ex's families and still refer to them as "in-laws." Again, I'm assuming it's a verbal shortcut to capture a situation without going into a detailed explanation?
This is an interesting discussion, about assumptions and other issues.
And now that I think about it, I refer to my various in-laws in in-law ways, but I've never actually thought about the "In Law" (legal) aspect of my relationship with them, per se.
With my husband, yes--primarily because at one point, early on, he suggested the possibility of living together and setting up a contract of obligations in lieu of formal civil marriage (his issue had to do with taxes, not me personally).
But I guess I don't feel anymore legally tied to his family given that we did marry than if we hadn't.
Now, emotionally, that's another thing. They're family--the in-law part of the extended web.
All that said, I'd defer to the preference of people who don't have the choice I did--though I'd hope they wouldn't overreact if the motivation is indeed manners.
And I'll certainly watch what I say, personally.
Hm.
What do you call the spouse of your sister-in-law anyway?
Personally, I refer to the spouses of my sisters-in-law as "in-laws." Guess that makes me internally consistent in my lack of precision in the use of "in-law" generically to denote "his side of the family."
Oh, and Sprigg's manifestly a--jerk.
Seven, the Family Research Council is not a fringe group. Its leaders have come straight out of Republican administrations and have high public profiles. James Dobson is a founding board member. FRC is no more a fringe group than the gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign.
Re: "But the reason [X]% of people ...oppose same-sex marriage is because of the machinations and the end-of-civilization rhetoric of..."
That is, people who oppose SSM are just stupid, gullible, easily led, credulous, etc. They couldn't possibly hold a principled, considered opinion, the same one that the vast majority of of gays held until the past 10 years. Nope. It's them Birchers.
Freder, in contrast is enlightened.
That is, people who oppose SSM are just stupid, gullible, easily led, credulous, etc.
To be fair, Freder's comment could be interpreted to mean that only some of the 70% hold their opinion because to the FRC machinations. FRC work has been successful in boosting the percentage to 70%, in other words. It remains unclear what the percentage would have been had the FRC not lobbied.
I don't refer to my wife's mother as 'mother-in-law' myself; when her name gets mentioned, I just content myself with crossing one index finger over the other and making frantic warding-off motions. Especially after I found out that referring to her as 'Battleaxe Galactica' wasn't adding to our connubial bliss....
George--and/or perhaps FRC's statement was part of a calculated effort by FRC to start discrediting a potential GOP presidential candidate who it deems insufficiently socially conservative.
I'd love to hear a suggested alternative to "in-law" from those who have a problem with its use. Or are we not supposed to have words to describe our relationships with family members?
My Aunt's brother, I call him my Aunt's brother. Generally, I actually use his name, however. And most of my in-laws or extended in-laws are referred to by name as well. That simplifies things. If I talk to someone who can't keep track, I'll clarify the relationship, but generally, just knowing they are extended family is good enough for a casual conversation.
"The 70 percent of people who appear to oppose same-sex marriage has largely never heard of the Family Reserach Council."
In other words, they're very badly informed. Yes, I agree fully.
Short of legal recognition of marriage, "in-law" ain't happenin'.
That's ridiculous. Couples who are living together use the term "in law" to refer to their partner's parents all the time. The first time I heard it, several years ago, it sounded odd to me -- but then I realized it was just verbal shorthand.
It is possible to be warm and gracious to homosexuals while at the same time being against gay marriage. I think this reaction to Condi's use of the term is despicable, as is that whole "fox in the hen house" analogy.
"I think Condoleezza Rice and President Bush think they can be entirely warm and supportive to gay people and still take the position that marriage is a special man-and-woman tradition. But there are lots of people on both sides of the question who view that position as impossibly contradictory."
I think it's contradictory unless Rice and Bush want to push for a civil unions. If they won't at least do that, they're not being supportive. At best, they're being civil.
Re: "But I am used to him mischaracterizing my posts to make me appear more extreme and intolerant than I am."
Actually, Freder, you don't need my assistance to appear extreme and intolerant at all.
You wrote what you wrote. MadisonMan gave you a kind interpretation given the actual text. He deserves your thanks for being a generous editor.
Seven, dude, you're displaying quite the inferiority complex. The "unbelievable" liberals merely contradicted your unfounded and untrue suggestions that FRC is a "God Hates Fags" fringe group unrepresentative of opponents of same sex marriage and uninfluential on the social conservative movement. In fact, FRC and James Dobson are widely respected among social conservatives. The extent to which their rhetoric drives social conservatives' opinions is debatable, but that is certainly what they are trying to do, and they would probably not be so well financed and supported if they were not at least somewhat effective. The same can be said of liberal organs like the Humans Rights Campaign or ACLU, which both reflect and reinforce liberal opinions.
Hmmm... I thought the word had gone out that opponents of same sex marriage were supposed to deny any hostility to gay people.
Judging from opinion polls, around two-thirds of gay marriage opponents also dislike gay people. The remaining third or so are just reluctant to fiddle with social institutions.
Anyway, kudos to Condi for showing respect to a married couple.
Am I the only one who thinks that "Peter Sprigg" is a hilariously Dickensian name? Probably an apt description as well.
I think Condoleezza Rice and President Bush think they can be entirely warm and supportive to gay people and still take the position that marriage is a special man-and-woman tradition. - Ann
Since when has Bush been warm and supportive to gay people? Heck - Bush has not even uttered the word gay EVEN ONCE in a speech during his entire Presidency!!!
Perhaps when he supported imprisoning gay people in 1994????
Condoleeza Rice has been silent on this issue until now, so we never really knew her position on gays. Now we do. And she's not a bigot. And there goes her chances of getting the Republican nomination in 2008 too. I'm sure she's been scolded by the White House for this statement.
Bush is a raving anti-gay bigot. He has blamed gays for anything that is wrong with society and his allies have said that gays will cause the destruction of civilization itself. And he regularly meets with the most disgusting homophobes, including the Family Research Council. We know which side he's on. The side of the bigots.
For a supposedly bright and innocuous person she does seem to bring a highlighter to her underlying stupidity.
Bush came out in support of the concept of Civil Unions in the aftermath of the collapse of the Gay Marriage Amendment. Rice has always been supportive of Civil Unions, at least, and has been on record in that regard.
Actually Chris - YOU are the one who should be doing research, because you are flat out wrong.
Bush has NEVER come out in favor of civil unions. Never. And please try and find a statement where he says that he does. Because you'll be looking for a while. He did say something to the effect that states are free to pass civil union laws if they so choose. But he never said he supported that choice. And he doesn't of course, which is why he favors state laws that ban them. And he's too freaking dumb to realize that the FMA would have outlawed even that possibility (states passing their own civil union laws)
Don't argue with the Downtown Lad. You will only get burned.
Palladian said..."Am I the only one who thinks that "Peter Sprigg" is a hilariously Dickensian name? Probably an apt description as well."
I sure did, and I had to hold myself back from making a wisecrack in the post.
I will say this does make me more likely to support Condi for President though. Maybe she should run as an independent, now that she has zero chance of running as a Republican.
Since when has Bush been warm and supportive to gay people? Heck - Bush has not even uttered the word gay EVEN ONCE in a speech during his entire Presidency!!!
He has also never once used the word "straight" in a speech, in its sexual-orientation sense. Does that mean he doesn't like straight people, or does it perhaps mean he doesn't publically discuss sexual orientation?
Bush has NEVER come out in favor of civil unions. Never. And please try and find a statement where he says that he does.
"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement" - George Bush on ABC News, October 26, 2004. In the same interview he replied to the statement "the Republican Party opposes civil unions" by saying "well, I don't". Obviously he doesn't advertise this fact, since (a) he's never going to get the gay vote anyway because he's a Republican and (b) he might lose some of the conservative Christian vote if he called attention to his position. But the record is clear; he has no problem with either homosexual relationships or with civil unions, although he believes that both marriage and adoption should by for hetero couples only.
If nothing else, the fact that he's appointed openly gay people to public office in spite of the fact that (a) most social conservatives hate the idea and (b) he's NEVER going to get the gay vote, suggests that he's got no problem at all with homosexuals as individuals.
And he's too freaking dumb to realize that the FMA would have outlawed even that possibility
The 2004 version of the amendment reads:
1) Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
2) Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
Nothing in that prevents civil unions from being enacted by law at the state or federal level. The 2002 version of the amendment would have, though.
Revenant - What do you call it when people deliberately take a quote out of context? Is it lie? I think so.
Not to say that you are lying - but I will let other people draw their own conclusions.
Revenant said that Bush said - "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement."
So what did Bush really say? He said the following: "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so."
Kind of a significant part of the statement to leave off, don't you think? Like I said - he has never come out in favor of civil unions.
You also say that "he's never going to get the gay vote anyway because he's a Republican." Well I voted for him 2000. But no way I was going to vote for him in 2004 after he declared war on gay people. So you're wrong if you think he hasn't lost votes over this.
And the FMA certainly does ban civil unions. You really think a Scalia wouldn't say that civil unions are substantially similar to marriage, and thus voided by the first part of the amendment? If not - you are delusional.
"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so."
DTL thinks the added phrase substantially changes the meaning of Bush's statement. Whether it does is open to reasonable disagreement. Disagreeing with DTL does not make Revenant a liar. DTL has adopted that special "lie" usage deployed in so many prior threads by Freder Frederson .
Actually tjl - anyone with a minimal understanding of the English language would realize that the later phrase changes the context of the statement.
If Bush truly supports civil unions, as you imply, then it should be very easy to find another supporting statement from him.
Alas - none exists. So instead - Revenant has to take a quote out of context to imply that he does. Does that make him a liar? As I said - I will let other people draw their own conclusions. At a minimum - it is dishonest. Revenant knew the real quote - and deliberately chopped the latter part off.
"If Bush truly supports civil unions, as you imply ... '
I commented that it was possible to disagree about the effect of the additional phrase. Thanks to my minimal understanding of the English language, I don't see the implication that you do. In any case, I don't know whether Bush supports civil unions or detests the very idea. He's been remarkably opaque on the subject, which is why it's possible to disagree about the meaning of his statement.
He's actually had some very public statements that he opposes them.
Like, for example, the fact that he favored every constitutional amendment at the state level which explicityly banned civil unions.
Take for example the Missouri Amendment. John Kerry supported that FMA until he found out that it not only banned gay marriage, but it banned civil unions as well. John Kerry then came out against that amendment. Bush slammed Kerry for that stance. So That clearly implies that Bush is adamantly against civil unions.
You can call that opaque. But that's because you're straight, and it doesn't really affect you if gay couples in Missouri have just lost their health insurance.
He said the following: "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." Kind of a significant part of the statement to leave off, don't you think?
As I consider the belief that states should be allowed to enact civil unions to be "support for civil unions", no, I don't think it is a significant part of the statement.
You also say that "he's never going to get the gay vote anyway because he's a Republican." Well I voted for him 2000.
The phrase "get the gay vote" means "win the support of a large majority of gays". That you voted for him is irrelevant -- three-quarters of gay voters preferred Gore. The handful of gay votes he lost by speaking in favor of the gay marriage amendment was dwarfed by the Christian votes he'd have lost if he hadn't.
And the FMA certainly does ban civil unions. You really think a Scalia wouldn't say that civil unions are substantially similar to marriage, and thus voided by the first part of the amendment?
Equating "Scalia would misread the law as banning gay civil unions" with "the law bans gay civil unions" is, of course, silly. Particularly since at least seven of the other eight justices wouldn't read it that way.
"MadisonMan, my aunt's sister used to work in the same office with me so people were always asking how we were related. It's somewhat convoluted, when you try to tell them she's my "mother's brother's wife's sister"."
That's a good one.
I had a great time earlier in the year when I got to introduce one of my friends to my brother-in-law's brother-in-law's brother. (That means that his brother is the husband of my sister's husband's sister. Heh.) Needless to say, I call him by his name when talking with him as well.
Yet Bush has never bothered to meet, not even privately, with a gay group to discuss its views of the FMA.
What, exactly, would have been the point? "Thanks for coming by to reiterate the arguments I've already heard a thousand times. I still don't agree with any of them. What's that? You say you're against the amendment? Thanks for coming by to tell me that, I'd never have figured it out on my own..."
Neither Bush nor any other member of his administration has ever publicly criticized the worst statements of homophobia of his most extreme supporters.
That is flat-out wrong. For example, here is an example of Ari Fleischer expressing the President's strong condemnation of Jerry Thacker's description of AIDS as "a gay plague".
nothing shows a more callous disregard for a minority group than refusing even to discuss it directly in public
Nothing? So, for example, never talking about black people is worse than saying "man, I wish someone would shoot all these niggers"? Interesting. Has it crossed your mind that a Christian conservative might point to Bush's failure to ever directly say anything bad about gays as proof that he *isn't* anti-gay? This guy, for example?
Seriously, now -- gays are outnumbered by strong homophobes by a factor of around ten to one. Among conservatives it is probably more like fifty to one. Do you think for a minute that Bush would hesitate to speak openly against homosexuality if he really felt that way about it? *Why* would he be reluctant to do so? Especially now, when he's a lame duck who will never run for public office again, who is being abandoned by social conservatives due to his perceived fecklessness on morals issues?
The rational explanation is that Bush is not homophobic, but as a high-profile politician in a strongly homophobic political party is not about to advertise that fact. He can be faulted for his lack of a "Sister Souljah" moment on this point, but that's about it.
DTL inists,
"You can call that opaque. But that's because you're straight, and it doesn't really affect you if gay couples in Missouri have just lost their health insurance."
Actually, DTL, I love opera, go to the gym seven days a week, and have a little terrier named Blanche -- in other words, I'm gay gay gay, and I still disagree with you. Don't get me started on identity-politics groupthink. Nothing irritates me more than the PC concept that all gay people must think exactly alike on all issues.
Revenant's last post is most likely correct. Bush himself doesn't seem to be a homophobe, but he is unwilling to antagonize social conservatives who are.
Nothing would please me more than to see Rudy Giuliani as the next Republican presidential nominee. The famous photo of Rudy in drag, sure to reappear prominently during his campaign, would equally annoy the bigoted social conservatives and the lockstep PC types like DTL. Two oxen gored for the price of one!
Post a Comment