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.
I argue my position because I consider it an assault on the family by agents of the homosexual agenda. It is not simply the attempt to raise one particular sin to parity with one particular form of virtue. The dispute over the homosexual agenda -- the fight about a redefinition of our understanding of human sexuality -- is also, more fundamentally, about whether we are going to continue to be a people capable of making principled moral judgments at all. If it is "intolerant" to refuse to re-order our common life on the licentious principle of doing whatever we want in sexual matters, it will soon be considered equally "intolerant" to order our common life on the basis of any moral principles whatsoever.
We should look very carefully at what public figures say and do on the issue of sexual responsibility and sexual conduct. We should apply such scrutiny particularly to those who offer themselves as leaders of the moral conservative cause, or with whom that cause is tempted to align itself. If we don't, we'll find ourselves committed to political alliances and strategies that -- whether in the name of "tolerance" we'll represent the abandonment of our core beliefs that there is no compromise of principle possible on the question of the family.
I took the words that diogenes used in his reply to me because I don't feel I am getting my point across to him. Perhaps I did a better job in post 181. I am not trying to pick and choose morality. I recognize what he says to be true, but somethings have priority over others because of the severity of the consequences. One of the major problems facing our culture is the blanket acceptance of homosexual behavior as normal. This foremost has to be fought if we are to survive.
Now then, do you support the idea of placing homosexuals in such positions, or support the idea just so that you can slam Republicans?
PS, will you be returning to any of the threads on Lee P. Brown now that it has come out that he was one of the last recipients of Enron money ($250,000) within a month of the financial news breaking? Will you be returning to the Enron threads now that the Dems are getting their hands dirty with ink that just won't wash away?
I happen to agree with the romanians. i'm so sick of the "politically correct" stance in the U.S. BARF
What?!?
That is either the most lame attempt to flame someone I've ever seen or apparently Felching does cause brain damage.
Move on...
But it fits in very Nicely with this one --- Abortion Funding
Sin is always a willful choice.
In all likelihood, the USA would ahve told the people of Luxemborg, tuff s**t; how dare you tell us what you want or don't want, like or don't like. The US didn't give a damn about their religious concerns--hell, we're trying to eliminate religion from the marketplace here.
Alas....another story...off topic.....back to discussing butt boys.
But of course you are, and that is your right, and duty as a citizen. I respect that. The fact that I disagree with you, is a matter to be joined in the public square in civil debate. And on that ground, I will be comfortable with the outcome. I have great confidence that the best and most moral nation that has ever graced this Earth will work it all out reasonably well, at least for our corporeal term. And that should delimit the scope of the debate, and the ultimate resolution.
Sure, he cheated on his wife therefore he is a pervert. However, his cheating on his wife should have been a personal matter between he and Sen. Clinton.
Now then, do you support the idea of placing homosexuals in such positions, or support the idea just so that you can slam Republicans?
Who someone sleeps with is a personal matter and the Right should lay off of Bush on this one as they should have when Clinton appointed gays.
PS, will you be returning to any of the threads on Lee P. Brown now that it has come out that he was one of the last recipients of Enron money ($250,000) within a month of the financial news breaking? Will you be returning to the Enron threads now that the Dems are getting their hands dirty with ink that just won't wash away?
Enron paid many politicians protection money and none should be free of scrutiny for receiving the money. However, if White House staff or any political operatives sold their stock that would be called insider trading and they broke the law. I don't care if they are Republicans or Democrats, they should do time.
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.