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.

[Spirited]

"W" in action. This is "sensitive"? Or smart? Or is this spitting on a culture older than the one he "rules".

[RnMomof7]

I seem to remember a big fuss on this forum about a man named Hormel that was appointed by Clinton.

yep That one was flamed all over the place. On the other hand all the openly gay appointments now get a shrug...says something to me about the difference between basing your politics on a moral belief system as opposed to political allegiances.

[JMJ333]

But of course you are, and that is your right, and duty as a citizen.

I never said that those items which he addressed were wrong. I tried to point out that the consequences of certain behaviors are more pressing than others.

I enjoyed the civil debate with you. See you around. =)

[arm958]

Again, as I noted in Post #34 above, if anyone at Embassy Bucharest has a problem with Mike's sexuality, it's a small group of holier-than-thou puritan prudes.

That's your take on it. Personally, I am disgusted that the United States has appointed a sodomite to represent us in Romania.

[arm958]

Thus it can be seen that Ambassador Guest was within department guidelines when he brought his partner to an embassy social event.

Your are missing the big picture here. Most Americans do not care if some internally drafted DOS guideline provides cover for the Ambassador to show off his plaything in public. We do care that the President has appointed a sodomite to represent us in Romania.

How far we have fallen. Thomas Jefferson's proposed penal statutes for the State of Virginia called for the death penalty for sodomites. That's right, death. Now we make them Ambassadors. Disgraceful.

[George W. Bush]

Well, perhaps we should just look for a moment at some of the best known examples of sodomites in high government positions.

Caligula and other Roman emperors engaged in the vice very openly.

Ludwig of Bavaria succumbed to these tendencies and was surrounded by a coterie of sodomites. He may have built some pretty castles but he was a thoroughly bankrupt leader of his people who visited tremendous hardship upon them. He died insane of course.

Kaiser Wilhelm was completely surrounded by sodomites as his top advisors. They isolated him and gave him a great deal of bad advice, working to exclude any sort of civilized and rational policy in WW I Germany.

Hitler was thrust into power largely as a result of the street battles that were carried on by the S.A., his paramilitary fighting group. They were criminals and homosexuals, led by Ernst Roehm. When Hitler finally disposed of them by murder, Roehm was dragged out of bed with a young boy. Germany had had a history of many decades of tolerance for sodomy. It seems to me that a great many people in Germany must have taken sinkspur's attitude of "as long as they do their job".

It's not hard to see what kind of job they actually do.

After WW II, the first head of the United Nations was Dag Hammerskjold, a Scandanavian sodomite.

The biggest scandals of the atomic scientists giving secrets to Russian involved a network of sodomites. So did the British security scandals with Philbin and other sodomites. There are no indications that these sodomites were blackmailed. They were sodomite ideologues.

As far as abortion goes, sodomites as a class have contributed to the modern adoption of anything-goes sexuality. One could say that oral and anal sex are their contribution to the cause of modern libertinism and have played a crucial role in undermining traditional moral authority in opposing unnatural practices and in ridding oneself of the attendant problems by the modern genocide of abortion.

sinkspur, you're just wrong. Is it because you are so committed to Bush? Is that all it really is? I suppose it's not really my place to comment on it but I don't really grasp how you can support your own church's policy toward sodomites given your opinions. It really escapes me. At least with other RC's like JMJ333 and proud2bRC, I find a consistency with the historical position of Rome. I'm not really calling you a bad Catholic here, just puzzled how you can hold such divergent views. Maybe I'm just narrow-minded and apply my own views across the board. I think JMJ333 and proud2bRC do as well.

[muir_redwoods]

Not to excuse this but look around, most of our State department people are causing problems of one sort or another. It is still a nest of vipers, hold-over lefties and recalcitrant stiffs who look at a presidential administration as transients. Clean out the whole mess.

[weegee]

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.

Adultry is not a perversion. It is a violation of the bond of trust between a husband and a wife. It is also a violation of the 10 Commandments for Christians and Jews.

Bill Clinton's perversions include rape and having sex with a woman young enough to be his daughter while he held a position of power over her.

If you consider adultry to be a perversion then you must certainly admit that homosexuality is a perversion.

[sinkspur]

After WW II, the first head of the United Nations was Dag Hammerskjold, a Scandanavian sodomite.

I haven't read the rest of your screed, but I'd like some evidence of this. I've done some reading on his life and, unless you assert that every person who chooses to remain single is a "sodomite," then you might want to provide some evidence here.

? I suppose it's not really my place to comment on it but I don't really grasp how you can support your own church's policy toward sodomites given your opinions.

THe Catholic Church does not preach job discrimination against anyone. The Church disapproves of homosexual PRACTICE, not homosexual ORIENTATION.

Unless you are going to assert that divorcees, men who are shacked up with women, atheists, and other assorted people you don't approve of or who may be sinners according to one religious denomination or another (I mean, some would disapprove of a man who DRINKS being appointed to a high office) should be barred from serving in highly-visible government positions, then you're being hypocritical.

I don't approve of the man's lifestyle, but I dont' approve of Christie Whitman's views on abortion either.

Should practicing gays just not be allowed to work, period?

[George W. Bush]

Should practicing gays just not be allowed to work, period?

No one has said that. But there is no need to let them hold positions which represent the U.S. officially. Especially in countries who reject those practices as immoral.

Would you object to Bush appointing Homel or Guest as ambassador to the Vatican? How about appointing an ex-Catholic to the Vatican post?

When the Lewinsky scandal was going on, we heard over and over the justification that it had nothing to do Clinton's job performance and was an act between consenting adults. I don't see any difference between the two in your position.

How exactly can you object to Clinton's little scandal when you take this position now? Wasn't it just about whether Clinton (or Guest or Hormel) could do their job?

[George W. Bush]

The Church disapproves of homosexual PRACTICE, not homosexual ORIENTATION.

I wanted to re-visit this. I'm sure you are aware that many with the RC consider a normal heterosexual outlook to be required in a good priest.

Would you object if a non-practicing homosexual was made your next pope? I thnk a lot of RC's would. Given your position, I don't see how you could object to it.

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

" . . . but neither do we put artificial restrictions on our diplomats to AVOID tweaking other countries."

Well, perhaps we should consider doing so. It is axiomatic in international business that you do not do anything to offend the foreigners with whom you are dealing. Numerous books and articles have been written about this. Otherwise you don't close the deal: it's THAT simple.

Being inoffensive requires "artificial restrictions" insofar as modes of conduct and deportment are called for that are not in one's native idiom. To "be yourself" and act as you would among members of your native cultural community is bad form and bespeaks arrogance and chauvinism. One would think that this is the LAST thing a professional dimplomat would want to do.

But then, WE'RE Americans. We are so much better than everyone else that they'll just have to get used to our superior culture and folkways.

And we wonder why people fly jets into our office buildings.

[FormerLib]

In fact my impression is that Orthodox countries are not particularly religious overall, but quite secular.

Gee, might that have something to do with the fact that the Orthodox Church was brutally suppressed in those same countries by their previous Communist governments? Or did you forget about them?

[sinkspur]

Would you object if a non-practicing homosexual was made your next pope? I thnk a lot of RC's would. Given your position, I don't see how you could object to it.

What's the difference between a NON-PRACTICING homosexual and a NON-PRACTICING heterosexual?

I have objection to neither as priests, bishops, or pope.

If they're NON-PRACTICING, how would you know?

[FormerLib]

The Church disapproves of homosexual PRACTICE, not homosexual ORIENTATION.

Well, since this 'guy' is sashaying into events such as the Marine Ball with his 'partner,' it only stands to reason that he is actively engaging in the practice of the perversion.

We are still permitted to disapprove of the practicing of perversion, aren't we? And, yes, it would be good if more people practiced the same disapproval of adultery, divorce, and other moral failings as well.

You'll have to excuse me, but I don't recall any stories about a US Ambassador escorting his mistress to the Marine Ball.

[sinkspur]

BTW, I'd sure like to see your evidence that Dag Hammerskjold was a "sodomite."

He was a devout Catholic and, as I said, I've read about his exemplary life.

Otherwise, I have to assume you're getting your information second or third-hand. If so, state that.

Slander is still slander even if the person is not around to defend themselves.

[sinkspur]

You'll have to excuse me, but I don't recall any stories about a US Ambassador escorting his mistress to the Marine Ball.

I haven't heard about a gay ambassador escorting his male partner to Marine Ball except via this Family Research Council press release, a press release which also tries to imply that "Romania" is incensed about this guy, when four, unnamed individuals are quoted in the story.

[GussiedUp]

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

I agree

[GussiedUp]

Well, since this 'guy' is sashaying into events such as the Marine Ball with his 'partner,' it only stands to reason that he is actively engaging in the practice of the perversion.

OMG what a depressing thought. :(