More Fun From The Religious Right

Conservative groups complain about the dresses Jenna and Not-Jenna are wearing to the inaugural balls. Story here. PDF copy of letter here. Here’s the good parts:

We celebrate with you this week because Christ has allowed you to be His servant in this nation for another presidential term. But already there is a challenge to the biblical norms that you stand for, and it comes from within your very own family. This Thursday, your two daughters, Jenna and Barbara, will appear before the earthly world in attire that cannot be described in any sense as modest.

As you know, dress and appearance are an important reflection of our Christian values. "We are what we wear," as the saying goes, and according to this edict, your own daughters, bejeweled and bedecked in garments that plunge of neckline and cling of fabric, cannot be said to reflect the deeply-held believes of the tens of millions of "values voters" who sent you back to that highest office in the land.

…

You have four years -a brief time only - to leave an imprint for righteousness upon this nation that brings with it the blessings of Almighty God. Do not risk offending Him in these early days of your second term by presenting forth your own daughters as Oholah and Oholibah, who, like Jezebel, painted their eyes and decked themselves with ornaments to entice men to commit adultery with them (Ezek 23.)

Here’s Jenna’s dress. Here’s Not-Jenna’s dress. Nothing here that is particularly provocative nor trashy, at least by red carpet standards. And while I believe the girls have certainly done their share of things that are worthy of mocking, this certainly isn’t among them. It’s a glitzy night, and they want to look glitzy, and there is nothing wrong with that.

But. (You knew there was a but.) It is awfully nice to see some of the chickens coming home to roost from the religious right. They think they put W. back into office, and they want what they feel is their due, and they could end up plenty miffed if they don’t get it. Already some are starting to complain because Bush wasn’t properly supportive of amending the Constitution to protect marriage. (Story at the Washington Post here. Registration required.)

Prominent leaders such as Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and many rank-and-file Bush supporters inundated the White House with phone calls to protest Bush's comments in an interview published Sunday in The Washington Post. "Clearly there is concern" among conservatives, Perkins said. "I believe there is no more important issue for the president's second term than the preservation of marriage."

In the Post interview, Bush, for the first time, said senators have made it clear to him the amendment has no chance of passing unless courts strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which protects states from recognizing same-sex marriages conducted elsewhere. Challenges to the act are pending in state courts from California to Florida.

"It was not articulated that way in the campaign," Perkins complained.

I have a feeling Mr. Perkins is going to end up being upset about a lot of things that were not articulated that way in the campaign.

Original link via Tbogg (see link at the right).