Homosexual Ambassador causing problems.

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

[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.

[Mark Turbo]

nmh:A red flag went up for us when Bush had a homo speak economics during primary. We couldn't believe that out of ALL the intelligent, NORMAL people in the U.S. Bush would bend over for a homo to speak for normal people.

sinkspur:To whom are you referring? I don't remember any openly gay person "speaking economics" (whatever the hell that is) during the primary.

You two are talking about Rep. Kolbe of Arizona, who gave a trade speech at the Republican National Convention.

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

""I don't know why Bush does this. Why doesn't he send a gay ambassador to an Islamic country? It's apparently okay to offend Christians but you have to kiss up to the countries that send us terrorists.""

Right on the money.

[sinkspur]

Sending openly gay men to positions in the government doesn't constitute approval to you?

Not anymore than sending a cigarette smoker to be an ambassador constitutes approval of smoking.

He wooed the christians into believing that he was going to hold the line for them and he hasn't.

No he didn't. You thought because Bush said that he read his Bible and prayed that he was going to do what YOU thought that meant.

I daresay that appointing a gay man to a government position is neutral, as long as the gay man doesn't turn this into a platform for gay advocacy.

I'm sorry Bush doesn't measure up to your lofty standards for President.

[sinkspur]

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

Should Bush ask every appointee whether they've lied on their income taxes? Telling the truth is a concrete moral truth.

What about drinking? Drunkenness is one of the seven deadly sins.

How about a man who's been divorced a couple of times? No government job for him?

Bush said, when he took office, that he would base his appointments on qualifications for the job. He never said he would pass them through the Family Research Council Moral Filter.

[JMJ333]

Not anymore than sending a cigarette smoker to be an ambassador constitutes approval of smoking.

My jaw has dropped to the floor! Sorry, but that analogy won't fly with me. The problem is that cigarette smoking isn't going to swing our culture farther away from Judeo-Christianity and into cultural paganism.

You thought because Bush said that he read his Bible and prayed that he was going to do what YOU thought that meant.

I thought he meant what he said about holding the line for the religious right. Appointing openly practicing homosexuals to ambassadorships isn't exactly upholding that promise. Its giving the nod of approval.

I'm sorry Bush doesn't measure up to your lofty standards for President

Lofty? All I ask for is that I got my money's worth. So far, I've been shafted on the stem cell issue and the homsexual issue. When the war winds down, and the crumb throwing to the pro-lifers hasn't been rectified, I'm not so sure the republicans will still have a base.

[JMJ333]

I'll be back in a few minutes to answer post 124--I have to make a wendy's run for my son...

[George W. Bush]

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."

I would think they would just come out and tell us we have insulted them and their sense of decency. They should make formal protest to the State Department and to Bush directly.

When is FR's raving Bushie squad finally going to wake up? If Clinton was holding pro-Islam blasphemous services and mindlessly repeating Islam Is Peace and appointed butt-bunnies to ambassadorships, I don't think that most FReepers would have had a stroke.

Now Bush does it and we hear a few mealymouthed comments.

Methodists! Why am I not surprised?

[Torie]

Actually I recall distinctly that Bush said in a debate that he would appoint folks based on qualifications, and not inquire about their sexuality. That was not relevant. I think you are impressing on Bush a bit too much of your own world view. While one may disagree with Bush on this or that, I really can't recall a candidate who in office hewed more closely to what he said he would do. Bush is not an intellectual genius. That may be why with Bush what he says, is what you get. He just isn't smart enough to get away with being disingenuous, which is a secondary reason perhaps beyond his good character why he is not. He is smart enought to know his own limitations. And that to me is wisdom.

[GreatOne]

Sodomites are this generation's version of communists (from the 40s and 50s) - infiltrate and spread their filthy ideology. Wonder if anyone in the Bush White House will have the guts to get rid of them.

[John W]

Would you care to addrss my post 82 or better yet,post 96 by varon?These reference the seeming double standard depending on whose ox is being gored by which government employee.

[Looking for Diogenes]

"The question is: why shouldn't Bush appoint a professional, career diplomat as ambassador? "

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

Should Bush make a clean sweep to remove all gays, lesbians, their friends, families, and supporters from the administration? Bush hasn't expressed any interest in doing so, in fact he hasn't even revoked the executive order banning discrimination on account of sexual orientation.

Then there is the issue of unmarried men. Do you really believe they are all chaste? Yes, unmarried men are almost all guilty of fornication. Shall we get rid of all unmarried ambassadors, or require them to forego sex during their service?

As long as gay ambassadors and unmarried ambassadors do not have sex in public or with foreign agents, it just doesn't matter.

[BenR2]

George W. is clearly wrong on this one!

Not only wrong: Sin is a reproach to any people. Too bad the Romanians seem better to understand this truth than do Americans.

[Aunt Polgara]

When I first encountered Ruggers, I thought he might be the reincarnation of pcl, but then decided that he probably wasn't. As I recall, he was only a member since about the middle of December, although I could be mistaken. I wonder what ever happened to pcl, anyway?

I just happened upon this thread, and was wondering what else he might be up to and got the "no current Freeper by that name" message. He must have ticked off someone recently, but it wasn't me. :-)

[Looking for Diogenes]

The problem is that cigarette smoking isn't going to swing our culture farther away from Judeo-Christianity and into cultural paganism.

Wow, so now the only ambassadors that Bush can appoint are Judeo-Christians. I'm not familiar with that denomination. Is there such a thing? Will there be a religion test as part of the confirmation process?

[sinkspur]

The problem is that cigarette smoking isn't going to swing our culture farther away from Judeo-Christianity and into cultural paganism.

You act as if gays are a new phenomenon.

I thought he meant what he said about holding the line for the religious right.

Bush never said anything about doing anything for the religious right. You thought he did, but he didn't.

Appointing openly practicing homosexuals to ambassadorships isn't exactly upholding that promise. Its giving the nod of approval.

Is appointing a twice-divorced man to a high-profile government job giving approval to divorce? I think not.

So far, I've been shafted on the stem cell issue and the homsexual issue. When the war winds down, and the crumb throwing to the pro-lifers hasn't been rectified, I'm not so sure the republicans will still have a base.

Well, you and I (and many others) disagree on the stem cell issue. And on the issue of homosexuals in government jobs.

Thankfully, most Bush supporters are much more patient than you are.

The fact that this supposed "flagrant behavior" by the amabassador to Romania hasn't appeared anywhere else in any other publication leads me to believe that the FRC is being just a slight bit disingenuous.

[BenR2]

Bush said, when he took office, that he would base his appointments on qualifications for the job. He never said he would pass them through the Family Research Council Moral Filter.

Okay. But what about the standards for good Government clearly set down by the likes of George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Rush, and Jay Adams? All of them indicated that religion (read: Christianity) was the basis for good Government. (Or, are you unaware of America's founders views on the relationship of Government and the Bible and Christianity?)

You don't have to agree with these Founders, but why not be honest enough to admit that YOU are advocating defining deviancy down from their standards.

[Looking for Diogenes]

...And that to me is wisdom.

Good point.

[sinkspur]

I would think they would just come out and tell us we have insulted them and their sense of decency.

I would think so too. I wonder why they haven't?

They should make formal protest to the State Department and to Bush directly.

Damn right. Wonder why they haven't?

[sinkspur]

You don't have to agree with these Founders, but why not be honest enough to admit that YOU are advocating defining deviancy down from their standards.

What did the Founders say about gays in government?

Specifically?