Gay Ambassador Resigns Over State Department’s Discrimination Against Gay And Lesbian Employees
Gay Ambassador Resigns Over State Department’s Discrimination Against Gay And Lesbian Employees
Appointed by President Bush in 2001 to be Ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest was the first publicly gay man to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as a U.S. Ambassador. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell explicitly noted the presence of and positively recognized Guest’s same-sex partner, Alex Nevarez, during the swearing-in ceremony. The Human Rights Campaign called Powell’s acknowledgement of Nevarez a “small gesture that spoke volumes.”
But serving as an openly-gay ambassador under the Bush administration proved not to be as pleasant as his swearing-in. Guest retired recently, and at his retirement ceremony, “he did what few people do — displayed uncommon courage and threw a rhetorical hand-grenade into his own party.” The New York Times reports, “Guest took Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was not present) to task for failing to treat the partners of gay and lesbian foreign service officers the same as the spouses of heterosexual officers.” Guest said that was the reason for his departure:
“Most departing ambassadors use these events to talk about their successes . . . But I want to talk about my signal failure, the failure that in fact is causing me to leave the career that I love,” said Mr. Guest, 50, whose most recent assignment was dean of the leadership and management school at the Foreign Service Institute, the government’s school for diplomats.
“For the past three years, I’ve urged the Secretary and her senior management team to redress policies that discriminate against gay and lesbian employees. Absolutely nothing has resulted from this. And so I’ve felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner — who is my family — and service to my country. That anyone should have to make that choice is a stain on the Secretary’s leadership and a shame for this institution and our country,” he said.
“Unlike heterosexual spouses, gay partners are not entitled to State Department-provided security training, free medical care at overseas posts, guaranteed evacuation in case of a medical emergency, transportation to overseas posts, or special living allowances when foreign service officers are assigned to places like Iraq, where diplomatic families are not permitted.”
“This is not about gay rights. … It’s about equal treatment of all employees, all of whom have the same service requirements, the same contractual requirements,” said Guest.
While the Bush administration has previously indicated an unwillingness to outlaw employment discrimination, Guest courageously highlights the fact that the administration is also practicing it.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
63 Responses to “Gay Ambassador Resigns Over State Department’s Discrimination Against Gay And Lesbian Employees”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
a stain on the Secretary’s leadership
Uh, she has zero leadership skills. Period.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:08 amAnyone who thinks she does, this article is evidence to the contrary.
I heard he was just gay on Tuesdays. Just what i heard.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:08 amhttp://tshirtinsurgency.com/node/18
Seems like this administration has alot of ambassadors to the gay community already. They'll use Diplomacy at the tap of a toe.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:12 amAlso, isn't the queer movement kinda painted into a corner by the way in which the political establishment "accepts" them--by accepting gays as a mirror images of heterosexuals? The great thing about the queer community is its refusal to fall into solid sexual categories like that. The straight community is largely missing the point, and it even bleeds over into the queer community--emphasizing the whole marriage thing.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:13 amYet Larry Craig is representing our country at the Bali global warming event.
Ironic?
Double standard?
I find it interesting that Condi, as a lesbian, won't find enough backbone to stand up for gay equal rights. This shows she really has no moral fiber, but just 'twists in the wind', buying shoes, waiting on her marching orders from the Chimperor.
Mr. Guest appears to have been a good diplomat. We NEED Diplomats!
Let me guess, our next Romanian ambassador...John Bolton!!
December 4th, 2007 at 10:16 amNot even Bill Clinton allowed that crap. These folks aren't married. Does someone's girlfriend get these perks? I think not.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:20 am"Does someone’s girlfriend get these perks? I think not."
Comment by Roger_Roger —
A diplomat's "girlfriend" can always marry him. Not so with a gay partner.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:23 amWhat?? The Bush administration hates gays and lesbians...??
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Jebus. Just how stupid are gay Republicans, anyway...?
You'd think they would've figured out that the Bushies hate their guts by now.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:27 am?????
Why did it take this guy 6 years to figure out the Bush Administration is not "gay friendly"
I wonder if this dumbass still thinks Iraq attacked us on 9/11?
December 4th, 2007 at 10:30 amA diplomat’s “girlfriend†can always marry him. Not so with a gay partner.
Comment by barfly — December 4, 2007 @ 10:23 am
They should've thought of that before they decided to get the gay.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:31 amRoger, that remark was just plain idiotic. This man can't legalize his union with his partner - no matter how badly he wants to.
And yet, here YOU are, dismissing his partner as nothing more than a mistress and implying that he wants special treatment. (Got Catch-22?)
No, you stupid berk, he wants to be treated like the rest of us: he wants to be able to have a committed, LEGAL relationship with someone he loves - JUST LIKE YOU DO, YA MORON.
Good grief.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:34 amNo, you stupid berk, he wants to be treated like the rest of us: he wants to be able to have a committed, LEGAL relationship with someone he loves - JUST LIKE YOU DO, YA MORON.
Comment by Leftside Annie — December 4, 2007 @ 10:34 am
You're assuming that Roger_Roger is capable of love. Given his posting history I think this may be a bit of a reach.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:39 amI applaud Mr Guest for speaking up the way he did. More people in positions of power and authority should speak up.
I wonder why it took so long?
December 4th, 2007 at 10:39 amCount down until Gaydar Daryll shows up...3...2..1...
December 4th, 2007 at 10:40 am6 - C_H_L - Making progress? Yes. We are making progress.
--- But no thanks to the stupid, god-smacked Chimp squatting in the White House OR his Republican colleagues stinking up the House and the Senate with their ugly bigotry.
No, I'd say any progress that has been made has been made IN SPITE of them. And you.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:43 amWhy did it take this guy 6 years to figure out the Bush Administration is not “gay friendlyâ€
As Bartcop (channeling Sinclair Lewis) says, as long as a person makes a living from not seeing something, they will continue to not see it. He's been in Romania for six years; my guess is he's burnt out, and the quickest way to retirement is to criticize Bush, so...
December 4th, 2007 at 10:44 amThese folks aren’t married. Does someone’s girlfriend get these perks? I think not.
Comment by Roger_Roger — December 4, 2007 @ 10:20 am
I am a firm supporter of gays being permitted to marry, make the same lifelong commitments that straight people do, and endure the same positives AND negatives regarding marriage that straights do.
This way, if a gay person wants the same perks for his partner as he would get for his wife if he was straight, he would -- only if he was committed enough to his partner to marry him.
That should settle the argument about gay partners getting perks that unmarried "girlfriends" don't get.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:44 amBarfly,
This isn't as much about Bush as it is about Condi, eh?
If she could ever finish a complete sentence, perhaps we'd hear her view.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:46 amRoger-Roger, you should ask that question about perks to Rudy Giuliani. His mistress got state funded doggie shit pick-up carried out by law enforcement officers.
-GSD
December 4th, 2007 at 10:47 amMaybe Karry Craig is available for this position.
Wide stance and all.
-GSD
December 4th, 2007 at 10:48 amvery good
December 4th, 2007 at 10:48 amtoo bad he's a Republican
Seems like the GOP has truly become the "don't ask, don't tell" party, huh?
December 4th, 2007 at 10:49 amThere must be a helluva a lot of closets in DC.
Wow Annie. I appear to agree with you on something and you still go on the attack?
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Force of habit I imagine. fwiw I was surprised by your post & give a thumbs up.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:51 amDoes someone’s girlfriend get these perks? I think not.
Comment by Roger_Roger — December 4, 2007 @ 10:20 am
Two words:
Rudolph. Giuliani.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:52 amMr. Guest did the right thing in resigning.
Attempts to change this administration from the "inside" are a futile as trying to vote them out of office. The only way to change this administration is through legal means, impeachment and criminal prosecution for their crimes against America.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:56 amI always assumed Rice was a good ole carpet cleaner herself. It would be different if she had a partner.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:03 amOh my god. Here it is....
December 4th, 2007 at 11:04 amDaryll's lucky because they don't deny benifits if your spouse is your cousin.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:14 amC_H_L - I don't like you or anything you stand for -- and one post from you expressing a sentiment with which I agree changes nothing.
That's like an armed robber dropping a dollar in a Salvation Army kettle - it changes nothing.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:18 amEspecially after his nice little pat-myself-on-the-back/I-am-an-important-person spiel above. Pleeease...
December 4th, 2007 at 11:21 amI someone a little sad that he didn't win the popularity contest? Ohh, I think I might cry....
December 4th, 2007 at 11:27 am34 - It's "proof" only in your pointy little head.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:29 amJustice denied to one is justice denied to all, and discriminating against gay partners is definitely neither just nor fair.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:34 am“If Mr. Guest wants his significant other to receive benefits from the State Department, please inform him to follow biblical principles and marry a woman.â€
Good thing the US Constitution doesn’t call for a theocracy and actually mandates the separation of church and state. If you want to live in a world that practices law following the “word of God,†maybe you should move to Iran. Homosexuality is illegal there, and they attack people who are different from them with stones. Too bad you are Christian – you would be stoned there too, even though you would fit their mentality perfectly.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:41 amGo live in a theocracy, Daryll. You have no business trying to subvert the American way of life and Constitution like this. Traitor
December 4th, 2007 at 11:45 amThe State Department is right to distinguish civil unions (homosexuals) from marital relationships. Those who have a civil union between another person of their gender should not receive benefits that are identical to married couples. Currently, they are not considered married couples (hopefully, this will never happen). I thank the State Department Brass for not compromising their standards. If Mr. Guest wants his significant other to receive benefits from the State Department, please inform him to follow biblical principles and marry a woman.
Comment by Daryll — December 4, 2007 @ 11:01 am
Daryll, you are mind-bogglingly bigoted. All gay couples want is the same CONTRACTUAL rights under the law as straight couples, and the right to have THEIR church (if they are religious) recognize THEIR union before the eyes of THEIR God. What you and your Church (provided you are a member of one), what people of your ideological persuasion desire doesn't matter whatsoever. A gay couple getting married does not interfere with YOUR rights in any way, shape or form. YOU preventing THEM from getting married, and having the same rights as another couple in the eyes of the LAW, is infringing upon THEIR rights.
The only rights being violated are those of the gay couples.
The same holds true for polygamy.
The same holds true for ANY marriage involving (and here is the key point you boneheads conflate with idiocy like bestiality and pedophilia...dum dum dummmmmmm...) CONSENTING ADULTS.
Stop forcing your RELIGIOUS views on the rest of the people of this country, or the world for that matter.
Fanatic.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:53 amDaryll-your boring. your biblical reference is stupid. you seem to have issues, did your cousin get with her sister before you?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:56 amDaryll and his ilk are just jealous as HELL because of the "play" the gay community gets.
The only "play" he gets is from Rosy Palm.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pmI've always thought the best argument FOR gay marriage and civil unions is this:
A man of whom you know is gay yet closeted asks your loving daughter to marry him.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:40 pmShe says YES.
Daryll,
What God has joined together, no man should attempt to divide. If God does not want people to fall in love with and commit to someone else of the same gender, then he wouldn't make those people homosexual. If God just wants those he made homosexual to just suffer, then he does not really love them and, therefore, is not really the God you think he is. No person of a particular faith has a right to force that faith on anyone else, as you support on a regular basis.
And our secular government has no business telling people who they can and cannot marry on the basis of one brand of religious belief, regardless of any perceived or claimed "majority" status.
And I ask again, when are you going to knock the TP dust off your sandals?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:46 pmI am a straight retired US Air Force Colonel and current academic who heartily congratulates Amb. Guest for his courageous, vigorous, scathing criticism of cowardly Rice.
I am most grateful also to the numerous US generals and admirals who criticized the cursed, vicious, insidious anti-homosexual policy of the Defense Department. They have made me once again proud to have worn the US military uniform and they demonstrate why I did so--to defend a still free country and the free expression it make possible.
Prof. Gould Bei
December 4th, 2007 at 1:13 pmGay, you say? How about Dubya? How about those after-hours White House visits by roving reporter James Guckert Gannon, the online erector set? How about all those GOP legislators on Capitol Hill, a virtual coven of thugs who have huge closets and stalls in which to practice their oral arts? Even Condi must keep her secret inside her shoe closet, for hypocrisy is the banner word for this bunch. Why change now? Mr. Guest and his partner should have seen it coming, eh?
December 4th, 2007 at 1:33 pmPresupposes a fact not in evidence….that God made people homosexual. God certainly didn’t design people to be homosexuals. So, what’s your authority for this statement?
God didn’t put two same-same gender people together in a sexual relationship and call it a marriage. He put a man and a woman together in a sexual relationship and called it a marriage.
Further, I suppose you know that Christ endorsed the marriage relationship in Matthew 19 ( I’ve posted it enough that surely you’ve seen it!) when he quotes Genesis by saying that a man and a woman are one flesh when they are married. This phrase “one flesh†has serious spiritual implications throughout the Bible.
Believe it would have been more genuine of you to say that evolution makes people homosexual. Believe you can also make a better case as to the cause of homosexuality by blaming evolution..
Our secular government can not grant the right for two same-same people to marry because God has never granted that right.
To be married other people have to recognize that a couple – a man and a woman – are married. Do you think you can force someone to recognize a same-same gender couple as married?
This is about much more that changing the laws.
Do really want Daryll to stop posting on TP? If he leaves there really won’t be much “contrast†on TP?
You know, like the joke about the Marines?
A: “Why are the Marines looking for a good men?†Q:â€Contrast!â€
Just for the record are you a Christian who believes in the divinity of Christ?
December 4th, 2007 at 2:53 pmHooray for Guest for bringing up the issue, but it's what most of us are already all too familiar with. I just had to wage a small fight at my place of employment over the use of sick leave to take care of my partner, who recently had a stroke. My company is actually very progressive in some ways, but I was surprised when they wanted to haggle over what constituted a "family" member.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:07 pmGod made me. I'm gay. Have been since birth.
God doesn't make trash.
Until you are able to take your Bible and throw it in the fireplace, you will never understand what is in it.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:26 pmOur founding fathers were mostly not Christians, they were deists. This country was not founded as a theocracy, and the bible is not the source of its authority. The Constitution is; a secular document, not holy writ.
Yeah, god didn't create homosexuals, anymore than he created heterosexuals. Nor did god create marriage, man did, and it's high time that we recognize the innate equality of all humans.
All gods are metaphors at best, lies at worst, and it's high time we quit giving air (let alone airtime) to the poisonous voices of the theocrats.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:27 pmoops, lost control of the boldtype. I was yelling, however!
December 4th, 2007 at 3:28 pmSo, Daryll, how does your little mindset account for religious groups that DO allow same-sex marriage within their denominations?
December 4th, 2007 at 3:29 pmAs for bitblt, SHOW ME the scripture that states UNEQUIVOCALLY that "God created marriage", especially one that is limited to "one-man, one-woman". I recall PLENTY of Biblical tales of men being "married" to multiple women (best story is probably Jacob and Rachel and Leah and their handmaidens--that's the one that invented the whole "Twelve Tribes" nonsense; if you feel that has some special rationale, try the one about Solomon and his 1000 or so wiveS and concubines--note the significant plural). Marriage is a man-made creation that, under modern American laws, is REGULATED BY THE STATE. You CANNOT get married in this country WITHOUT a STATE-ISSUED LICENSE, no matter who performs the ceremony. (And, incidentally, the law doesn't mandate ANY religious aspect to the ceremony. Virtually every marriage ceremony--even the religious ones--include a "by the power of the State of _________" clause.)
Proving once again that so-called “progressives†are haters to the core.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:23 am
Proving once again, that the hateful "conservatives" are projecting haters to the core.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:33 pmThe State Department is right to distinguish civil unions (homosexuals) from marital relationships. Those who have a civil union between another person of their gender should not receive benefits that are identical to married couples. Currently, they are not considered married couples (hopefully, this will never happen). I thank the State Department Brass for not compromising their standards. If Mr. Guest wants his significant other to receive benefits from the State Department, please inform him to follow biblical principles and marry a woman.
Comment by Daryll — December 4, 2007 @ 11:01 am
That's the same argument that was used to discriminate against interracial marriages. It's sad that someone that claims to be black, is such a natural born bigot and hater. You've clearly learned nothing about those biblical principles of love and tolerance. You have the sexism and ignorance values down perfectly though!
December 4th, 2007 at 3:34 pm"Proving once again that so-called “progressives†are haters to the core."
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:23 am
This is the right's new big "talking point" about progressives. It's a projection of their own hatred (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, anyone?) and also last-ditch weak defense against ideological argument, now that their economic agenda is being revealed to many in the center as 30 years of supply-side GREED for the big corporate rich and privileged (and their Bible literaist wing is laughed out of any serious intellectual debate).
December 4th, 2007 at 3:46 pmI'm sure most of you know I meant "literaList" in post no. 55 above.
One more point: It's obvious prima facie that progressives are 1000 times more loving than the right - they care about other people and planet, unlike the right.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:53 pmThis is Christ quoting Genesis 3 which for me is rather unequivocal, but if you don’t believe Christ is the Son of God, this quote probably won’t matter at all to you.
It is true that there are several accounts in the Old Testament of men having more that one wife. Two of the most notable cases you have mentioned. There are not many of these cases. In no case does the Bible ever say that more than one wife is a good, permissible situation. The Bible doesn’t give instructions on how to treat more than one wife.
In fact in the cases you mentioned the Bible points out the negatives of the practice, especially with King Solomon. The Bible says his many wives drew him away from the God of Israel.
Many Conservative Christians(CCs), I would be one of them, believe that marriage is older than religion or government. CCs often describe it as the first institution created by God.
Just as the constitution does not mention marriage the government simply accepts the practice of a man and a woman living together in a marriage.
There’s not a government on the earth powerful enough to change that, and why would they want to change it? Marriage has a huge stabilizing effect on a populace. Civilization is dependent on the institution of marriage.
One can be married without a license or without a ceremony. This is because the most important part of the marriage ceremony is the, “I pronounce you man and wife.†This is the declaration of intent to live together as husband and wife. This is what people respect and recognize. When couples live together as if they’re man and wife, people take the act to be the declaration of intent.
The state issued license is not permission to be married; it’s the state’s record of the marriage.
They don’t ask you to see your marriage license when you introduce yourself as Mr. and Mrs. They don’t ask to see your marriage license when you enroll your kids in school. They don’t ask you to see your marriage license when you apply for a mortgage – at least they didn’t use to. Until there is a problem with the division of property or of responsibility for the children the license is a minor issue. Without the ceremony and the license the first time the couple allows themselves to be addressed as Mr. and Mrs. they have represented themselves as married – recognition of intent to be married. It’s never a big deal unless there’s a problem with the property or the kids. Then, an unlicensed couple will be declared common-law wife and treated as if they were married.
If a couple living together doesn’t want to be married they have to keep representing themselves as not married.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:14 pmFor anyone interested in the truth, Guest isn't a Republican, but a career Foreign Service Officer who happened to be nominated in this Adminstration. "Give up easy"? Read the New York Times article: three years of effort to get these policies to change isn't "giving up easy," it's making the right effort before concluding that Rice isn't going to change anything unless embarrassed into doing so.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:18 pmCivilization is dependent on the institution of marriage.
Comment by bitblt — December 4, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
How so? Are you suggesting that civilizations can not exist without marriage?
December 4th, 2007 at 4:25 pmCivilization is dependent on people cooperating with one another, and learning to live together. Civilization is dependent upon people combining their KNOWLEDGE, making the WHOLE greater than the sum of its parts. Civilizations clash when they are unable to do this. Individuals clash when THEY are unable to do this. The foundation of civilization is knowledge, not marriage.
Familial ties have existed for as long as humanity has, but how can one possibly assert that the ancient foundation is one man, one woman? On the contrary, in many cultures, and throughout history (and prehistory) the dominant males spread their seed far and wide, take multiple mates/wives, discard mates/wives who are barren or unable to conceive the desired (usually male) offspring, etc. In fact, this behavior has strengthened humanity in the long run, allowing stronger, smarter, faster humans to survive, while those unable or poorly equipped to survive to die out. MODERN man has circumvented this process WITH civilization, allowing far more men to successfully breed with women.
In cultures such as American culture, marriage is a legally binding contract. A church can marry people until they are blue in the face, but those marriages mean nothing, legally, unless the state has acknowledged that contract A couple unable to marry faces many challenges, including but not limited to social discrimination (such as being refused a right to rent property), medical discrimination (where a couple cannot see one another, because they are not married, even when one is undergoing life-threatening surgery), property discrimination (as a divorce court is SPECIFICALLY SET UP to divide assets in the case of a dissolved marriage, whereas a civil court's rules, which apply to unmarried couples, are poorly equipped to deal with such a splitting of assets), legal discrimination (there are many rules and laws that apply to married couples that allow them to severely shorten the time required to resolve legal issues, whereas an unmarried couple would essentially need to pay lawyers huge sums of $$$ for their time and effort to DUPLICATE those laws, writing them in to the contract that takes the place of the blanket protections that the simple status of "married" and the ~$100 for the marriage license covers...clearly discriminatory), and so on.
Gay or polygamous marriage does not in any way, shape or form threaten our society, or threaten civilization itself, or threaten straight couples. On the contrary, gay marriage gives individuals the many and well-established legal protections that straight marriage has had for many, many years.
The only people, literally the ONLY people hurt when you prevent gay or polygamous marriage, are those whom you prevent from getting married. Not only are you infringing upon their LEGAL rights, you are also likely infringing upon their RELIGIOUS rights as well. You are telling THEIR church, THEIR religion, THEIR friends and family that THEIR views and THEIR rights are not to be respected.
It is vile.
It is disgusting.
It is quite thoroughly bigoted.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:01 pmTo be married other people have to recognize that a couple – a man and a woman – are married. Do you think you can force someone to recognize a same-same gender couple as married?
Comment by bitblt — December 4, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
You want to make this assertion legitimate, you must also concede that you MUST apply the same criteria to ANY married couple. If one church doesn't like interracial marriage? Interfaith marriage? International marriage? You are essentially saying that it is up to each church, each faith, each IDEOLOGY, as to which marriages they are legally allowed to acknowledge, and which they are legally allowed to discriminate against.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:07 pmGuest deserves kudos for staying true to his principles even though it clearly has forced him to make some personal sacrifices which should not have been necessary. That's the true definition of ethics -- doing the right thing not just when it benefits you to do so, but also when it costs you to do so. A person's self-professed ethical principles are in actuality nothing of the kind if that person is capable of throwing them away simply for the sake of expediency -- the right thing to do does not cease to become right simply because it has become inconvenient. It's nice to see that at least one person in the Bush administration has his priorities in the right place -- it's a crying shame that most people in the administration apparently don't have the strength either of Guest's courage or of his convictions.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:22 amwhy am I not srprised? This administration will do all that it can to roll back the affirmative action policies just to appease a few knuckle-dragging simpletons.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:26 pm#47 - "Presupposes a fact not in evidence….that God made people homosexual. God certainly didn’t design people to be homosexuals. So, what’s your authority for this statement?" Comment by bitblt — December 4, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
What about all those homosexual animals? I guess God DID make people homosexual!
Bitbit- 0
December 6th, 2007 at 8:24 amGod -1
The Pink Embassy
In September 2001, Michael Guest, an openly gay man, was appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to Romania. Guest's presence made Bucharest a more attractive assignment for other gays in the Foreign Service, exporting not democracy or free markets but the sexual revolution.
Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), lists increasing opportunities for same-sex partners accompanying personnel on assignment overseas and securing taxpayer-funded health insurance and benefits for the partners and children of lesbian and gay employees in its mission statement. As the gay marriage debate raged at home, taxpayers began to foot the bill for defacto union[s] in Bucharest.
Advertisements for the annual Christmas parties invited not just spouses but partners. Suddenly it was like there was a club running thing, said one Foreign Service veteran who had been stationed there. If you weren’t part of the gay clique, you did not belong. After Guest began his mission, the persistent recognition and endorsement of same-sex partners prevented a devout Evenglical Christian and father of five, who had been accustomed to his post being a family-friendly environment, from participating in certain events to avoid having to explain homosexuality to his young children.
Others who have worked in Bucharest claim that the cultural shift at the embassy was not limited to the formal approval of same-sex relationships and make graver charges. These witnesses claim that promiscuity among some Americans stationed in Romania increased to levels that threatened to jeopardize the mission's reputation and subject U.S. government employees to blackmail. They stated that some diplomats were engaging in homosexual relations with Romanian citizens and other foreign nationals.
Such dalliances led some to ridicule the U.S. diplomatic presence in Romania as the pink embassy and the Bucharest bathhouse. A letter sent by a group of Romanian NGOs and individuals to President Bush and Secretary Powell in January named high-level appointees responsible for having "transformed the U.S. diplomatic addresses in to havens of debauchery", and further alleges that [b]ased on reports and pornographic photos circulating around newspapers they.. use their privileged positions to corrupt young Romanians, paying them for sexual relations, by both cash and visas to the U.S. The signatories of this letter include the Union of War Veterans, the National League of December 1989 Combatants, and three former Romanian parliament members.
An erstwhile gay lover of a former high-ranking official at the USAID mission in Bucharest has described such conduct in a sworn statement. He says that he lived with this official for four years in his government housing under the guise of serving as household help. There he claims to have witnessed U.S. government employees engaged in lewd acts and entering into other compromising positions.
According to his deposition, these acts included multiple sexual encounters with young Romanian men, some of whom may have been minors. The high-ranking USAID official's taxpayer-provided residence was said to be the site of wild sexually charged parties where participants allegedly used drugs and viewed pornography. He states that this official has made sexually explicit photographs of himself available on the Internet. He accuses other officials of paying for sexual favors as well as offering foreign nationals visas in exchange for money or sex. Asked for comment, the USAID press office said it was unaware of any such allegations. Calls to the Inspector General's office were not returned.
This goes beyond moral and cultural tensions over homosexuality. If true, these serious betrayals of diplomatic responsibility are incompatible with the professional climate required to represent this country abroad effectively. Contrary to a firm U.S. policy against illicit sexual liaisons and the corruption of minors, they would constitute illegal acts using taxpayers' property and money with the potential to harm national security.
In addition, our national reputation has suffered enough recent damage in Romania due to the case of Kurt Treptow, a prominent historian the U.S. embassy in Bucharest placed on the Fulbright Commission. Yet Treptow was a convicted sex offender. He videotaped himself engaging in sexual acts with children as young as seven, some of whom were allegedly orphans, and was sentenced to seven years in Romanian prison for pedophilia and child abuse.
In addition to the allegations about Guest’s role in Treptow appointment, newspaper articles accused Guest of poor leadership in presiding over an embassy that the paper says is plagued by mismanagement. Several of the articles accuse embassy officials, including Guest, of engaging in influence-peddling in the appointment of outsiders to embassy posts. One article accuses the embassy of assisting U.S. citizens in obtaining legal assistance in Romania to adopt children in what it calls a multi-million dollar adoption effort in which U.S.-owned adoption agencies allegedly charge $10,000 or more to facilitate adoptions for Americans.
In July 2004, Guest was recalled to the U.S. Department of State following a yearlong onslaught of articles in an English language newspaper in Bucharest accusing Guest of corruption and mismanagement. Whoever is posted as U.S. ambassador to Romania will be responsible for maintaining acceptable standards of conduct.
Embassy has been instrumental in initiating annual gay pride parades in Bucharest since 2004 and organizing them since. In 2005, there was such opposition from Romanian Orthodox Church and folks all across Europe that Romanian president had to step in to get the relectunt Bucharest mayor and police commissioner to issue the 2005 GayFest permit. Both 2006 and 2007 GayFest met with violent clashes from protestors.
When Bill Clinton selected the homosexual James Hormel to become ambassador to Luxembourg, some senators objected to Hormel not due to his sexual orientation as such but rather because he was considered likely to use his ambassadorship as a government-sanctioned platform for gay-rights advocacy. There were no similar concerns about Guest, who was a 20-year career diplomat, lifelong Republican, and former Reagan administration press aide.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:08 pmWhat about all those homosexual animals? I guess God DID make people homosexual!
Bitbit- 0
God -1
Comment by Democrat Soldier — December 6, 2007 @ 8:24 am
From the book of James in the New Testament…
James 1 starting at verse 12
December 11th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
#63 - Psalm 106:13-15 says, "They quickly forgot His works; They did not wait for His counsel, 14 But craved intensely in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert. 15 So He gave them their request, but sent a wasting disease among them,"
Bitbit - 0
God - 2
Want to go for the best three out of five??? ;-)
January 4th, 2008 at 11:20 am