Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Homosexual Ambassador causing problems.
http://www.frc.org/get/n02a004.cfm ^ | January 7, 2002 | By Fred Jackson and Rusty Pugh

Posted on 01/12/2002 2:14:54 PM PST by GrandMoM

News headline Retrieved

Gay Ambassador Troubles Embassy Staff

Story: Little attention was drawn to Michael Guest's homosexual relationship with his "partner" during his confirmation process as President Bush's ambassador to Romania. However, those working under Guest in Bucharest now find it difficult to avoid his flaunting of the relationship, according to an American embassy worker who recently spoke with FRC.

Although Guest had been active in a gay and lesbian group within the State Department, he was not publicly identified as being homosexual until his swearing-in on September 18, when Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged Guest's "partner," Alex Nevarez, during the ceremony.

Nevarez, a former teacher, relocated to Romania with Guest and now lives with him there in the residence provided to the ambassador by the U.S. government.

According to our source, several families in the embassy community have expressed concern about the ambassador's living arrangement, and at least one will no longer bring their children to embassy social events because they do not want them exposed to the example set by Guest and his "partner."

For example, Guest and Nevarez escorted one another as a couple at the embassy's annual Marine Corps Ball, a highly formal event. "It's causing me to have to compromise the values I raise my family by," the source said.

The appointment of Guest to serve in Romania showed a particular cultural insensitivity, given that the country is a stronghold of the conservative Eastern Orthodox Church.

Our source indicated that the Orthodox Church is represented at virtually all government ceremonies in Romania. One Romanian professor, in a letter to a Bucharest daily newspaper, said that "Romanians . . . cannot comprehend homosexual acts in any other way but as a deviation from the natural order and the world created by the Lord," and he noted that the Guest appointment "generates bewilderment, indignation, and disgust among the Romanians."

Romanian laws relating to homosexuality were recently liberalized, but only under coercion from the European Union, to which Romania hopes to gain entrance. Although Guest has denied he will promote a "gay agenda" as ambassador, his mere presence in Bucharest is already having that effect.

Another person serving at the embassy held a meeting in November to encourage leaders of Romania's fledgling "gay movement." And some embassy employees fear that Bucharest will gain a reputation as a "gay-friendly" post, so that more homosexuals will request assignment there. Ambassador Guest's treatment of same-sex "partners" (including his own) as the equivalent of married spouses is a mere half step away from government endorsement of "same-sex marriage." Not only does this violate the spirit of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman), but it is also a distraction from the important work of our embassy in Romania.


TOPICS: Announcements; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: braad; homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 381-393 next last
To: JMJ333
As I said, hard wiring. You have a right to you attutudes. But in the end, you are fighting a losing battle. The die is cast.
101 posted on 01/12/2002 5:44:25 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Torie
I guess today is my day to be confused. =)

What do you mean by "the die is cast?"

If you are referring to changing opinions of ardent idealogues on the internet, I'll agree. However, you never know about them lurkers!

102 posted on 01/12/2002 5:50:06 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Ruggers
Bye, Ruggers, it seems you have just been banned. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving fellow. You sure didn't last long, did you? Let us know when you come back with a new persona.
103 posted on 01/12/2002 5:50:23 PM PST by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
The Romanians [and those of us who believe in concrete moral truths] have a right to be upset about the ambassador.

There's no evidence from this article that the Romanians ARE upset.

One professor writes a letter, one couple won't bring their kids to embassy events, and a "source" says "several families" are upset.

That's hardly representative of the Romanian people.

The article is misleading. But the FRC knew that its target audience would react as this thread has to purely anecdotal (and unnamed) evidence.

Mission accomplished.

104 posted on 01/12/2002 5:51:27 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Tolerance of various sexual preferences is growing. That trend will not be reversed. Homosexual marriage will be a fact in this country in 20 years in all probablility. It might be a fact for all practical purposes in California this year. If you check out the polls on the topic, you will find a very sizable generational difference.
105 posted on 01/12/2002 5:53:51 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Will we see Bush sending gay couples to be ambassadors to countries like Saudi Arabia or one of the other Muslim countries?

Good question. Why Romania? and not Saudi Arabia? I guess it's okay to be culturally insentive to Christian nations, but it's not ok to be insentive to Moslem nations.

106 posted on 01/12/2002 5:56:19 PM PST by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Okay sink, I'll cede you the point. However, can you give me any explanation as to why the republican party and the Bush administration keep appointing homosexuals to ambassadorships, etc., thereby giving a boost to legitimizing their deviant sexual behavior?

As far as I'm concerned, this and the Celluci appointments should never have occured.

Can you give me any reason as to why I should continue to give my support to a party who doesn't give a whit about a major part of their core constituency, the religious right? Crumb throwing doesn't count.

107 posted on 01/12/2002 5:57:28 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara
He has been around for awhile. I really don't know what percipitated such an event. I wonder if I am next, well not really, but whatever. I have seniority and a diversified portfolio that protects me, I think. :)
108 posted on 01/12/2002 5:58:26 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Tolerance of various sexual preferences is growing. That trend will not be reversed. Homosexual marriage will be a fact in this country in 20 years in all probablility. It might be a fact for all practical purposes in California this year. If you check out the polls on the topic, you will find a very sizable generational difference.

Perhaps you're right, however, this doesn't negate the fact that homosexual marriage is morally and concretely wrong. I suppose that is what happens when you replace Judeo-Christianity with cultural paganism and moral laissaz fairre morality as the country's foundation. The slippery slope continues..

109 posted on 01/12/2002 6:03:12 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: ALL
I've said if before, and I'll say it agai8n: once you've accepted the "gay" monicker for pederasty, the "choice" monicker for abortion, the "racism" monicker for ethnocentrism, you've lost the battle, there is no discussion, your protests don't count. If he's merily "merry" there is nothing wrong with that! Who in his right mind could be against gaiety, who could be against choice. Wake up, read George Orwell, the battle is about the anguage, the concenpts, the mental association it carries! I vote for merriment, don't you?!
110 posted on 01/12/2002 6:03:20 PM PST by Revolting cat!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
Ai, my spellchecker be broke:

"the battle is about the language, the concepts" and so on...

111 posted on 01/12/2002 6:05:22 PM PST by Revolting cat!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara
Ruggers wasn't half as rabid as some on the Never ending Story thread...a pussy cat by comparison!
112 posted on 01/12/2002 6:06:56 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
However, can you give me any explanation as to why the republican party and the Bush administration keep appointing homosexuals to ambassadorships,

How many other homosexual ambassadors has Bush appointed? I'm not aware of any others. 'Course, I don't have my "gay antenna" up like some others seem to.

As far as I'm concerned, this and the Celluci appointments should never have occured.

Cellucci is a Bush friend and worked hard for Bush's election. He's not gay, either.

Can you give me any reason as to why I should continue to give my support to a party who doesn't give a whit about a major part of their core constituency, the religious right?

You want Bush to toe the "religious right" line. He's not going to do that. Ronald Reagan didn't do it either. He's president for all Americans. Gays are American, and I haven't heard anything from any other source that Guest is abusing his role as ambassador to Romania. The FRC wouldn't like him regardless of what he does or doesn't do.

I think you stamping your feet--and yes, I mean you in particular--after Bush has been in office for only a year is petulant. You've got your scorecard, and you're checking it off and you've already decided Bush is too liberal.

But, hey. You want the guy to be a moralist. He's not.

If you want a preacher for president, Keyes is your man.

113 posted on 01/12/2002 6:07:32 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
"I totally disagree with you because I don't think we should be instilling godless ideas on a country that holds their morals higher than our country does!

Romania? Holds their morals higher than our country does? Hahahahahahhahahaha, sorry, I can't stop laughing. Have you ever been to Romania? Ah, the memories ....


114 posted on 01/12/2002 6:12:48 PM PST by Republican Party Reptile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Will we see Bush sending gay couples to be ambassadors to countries like Saudi Arabia or one of the other Muslim countries?

No, just a man and his camel...

After all, in Saudi Arabia, we make our female military officers follow Saudi customs -- why not do the same with ambassadors?

115 posted on 01/12/2002 6:20:14 PM PST by womanvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
How many other homosexual ambassadors has Bush appointed? I'm not aware of any others. 'Course, I don't have my "gay antenna" up like some others seem to.

My gay antenna??? LOL. If trying to counter-act the normalization of the homosexual lifestyle gives me an "antenna" then so be it. I know Celluci isn't gay, but you know very well what he approved of in Massachucetts. Do I have to remind you of FISTGATE?

You want Bush to toe the "religious right" line. He's not going to do that. Ronald Reagan didn't do it either. He's president for all Americans. Gays are American, and I haven't heard anything from any other source that Guest is abusing his role as ambassador to Romania. The FRC wouldn't like him regardless of what he does or doesn't do.

Oh? Did RR appoint gay men who support fisting to ambassadorships? I understand that gays are Americans. What I object to is their agenda to change the fabric of society--meaning legitimizing and normalizing anal sex as normal and healthy. Sending openly gay men to positions in the government doesn't constitute approval to you?

I think you stamping your feet--and yes, I mean you in particular--after Bush has been in office for only a year is petulant. You've got your scorecard, and you're checking it off and you've already decided Bush is too liberal.

I live by concrete truths Sink--taught by our catechism. I have never slandered Bush as a person. I only take issue with certain decisions [i.e stem cells and homosexual appointments.]

But, hey. You want the guy to be a moralist. He's not.

Then he shouldn't have misrepresented himself as such. He wooed the christians into believing that he was going to hold the line for them and he hasn't. As far as the war is concerned he has done a fine job. On the moral front he has failed miserably, as have the republican party, which is barely distingushable for socially liberal democrats.

If you want a preacher for president, Keyes is your man.

Stick to the subject, sink. =)

116 posted on 01/12/2002 6:20:56 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
However, can you give me any explanation as to why the republican party and the Bush administration keep appointing homosexuals to ambassadorships, etc., thereby giving a boost to legitimizing their deviant sexual behavior?

The question is: why shouldn't Bush appoint a professional, career diplomat as ambassador? Is there a more qualified person? The alternative would probably have been some big contributor who knows nothing about diplomacy.

Of the Bush nominations that have sailed through the confirmation process, generous campaign contributors, former business partners, and family friends have figured prominently. To scenic Switzerland, for instance, Bush sent Mercer Reynolds, a wealthy investor who helped bail out Bush's struggling oil company in 1984 and who brought Bush in on the 1989 purchase of the Texas Rangers baseball team. Reynolds and his wife donated $456,173 to Bush and other Republican candidates in the 1999-2000 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Reynolds and his business partner raised more than $3 million for the Bush campaign. Reynolds also served as co-chairman of the Bush-Cheney inaugural committee, which took in $40 million.

The prestigious U.S. ambassadorship to France, meanwhile, went to Howard Leach, a reported billionaire who doesn't speak French but who, with his wife, gave $289,359 to GOP candidates and party committees in 1999-2000, $10,000 to the Bush-Cheney recount fund, and $100,000 to the Bush-Cheney inaugural committee.

Ambassador to Spain George Argyros, a real estate tycoon, is also fluent in fundraising, though not in Spanish. He chaired the GOP's Victory 2000 effort in California and, during the 1999-2000 election cycle, contributed $100,000 to the Bush-Cheney inaugural committee and $5,000 to the Bush-Cheney recount effort. He and his wife gave $29,000 to GOP candidates and party committees.

At a time when the Northern Ireland peace process is in danger of collapse, Bush chose Richard Egan, the chairman and CEO of EMC Corp., as ambassador to Ireland. Eagan and his wife gave $370,100 to Republican campaigns and parties in the 1999-2000 election cycle, in addition to $100,000 given to the Bush-Cheney inaugural fund and another $10,000 to the Bush-Cheney recount effort.GovExec.com

My guess is those countries are a lot more offended than Romania is.
117 posted on 01/12/2002 6:22:08 PM PST by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Sinkspur
Oh? Did RR appoint gay men who support fisting to ambassadorships?

That should've read..."Did RR appoint men who..."

118 posted on 01/12/2002 6:23:17 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: womanvet
It would be better to send a gay couple to Saudi ---the girlfriend one can dress up as a Saudi woman, just like our military must and they won't even know it's really a guy.
119 posted on 01/12/2002 6:24:28 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
The question is: why shouldn't Bush appoint a professional, career diplomat as ambassador? Is there a more qualified person? The alternative would probably have been some big contributor who knows nothing about diplomacy.

Concrete moral truths are why he shouldn't have done so.

120 posted on 01/12/2002 6:25:05 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 381-393 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson