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.
If four anonymous individuals in Maryland said that you were a nuisance to the entire state for some reason or another and wanted you to move, would you take that as sufficient evidence of soma malfeasance on your part and start packing your bags?
Or would you want further evidence?
I'm sorry, but the mainstream press would LOVE to make a big deal out of the narrowness of a bunch of people in a supposedly Christian country like Romania.
The FRC has its antenna up for things like this, and would have published this story if all it could find was ONE individual who objected to Guest's behavior.
If the groundswell grows, I suspect Guest will be gone.
My guess is that 98% of Romania doesn't even know who the American Ambassador to Romania is.
You're right that we've been a little slow to take up the standard and start reminding people that homosexual attraction is a disorder. We've allowed the other side to shout it's position so long without challenge because, deep down we're compassionate.
But better late than never.
Shalom.
I know the tactics the enemies of Christ use. My point is that we Christians shouldn't match those tactice.
Adultery, pre-marital sex, pornography (including Playboy and "skin flicks") no-fault divorce, are just as dangerous sins as homosexual attraction. Why is the church so focused on homosexual attraction? Is it because so few homosexuals are contributors, as opposed to the others?
I'm not talking about the official positions of the churches. I'm talking about what receives focus from the pulpits and in the newsletters.
To be fair, there was a great amount of noise regarding X42's adultery, ditto Newt's and Condit's. But for the most part adultery doesn't get nearly the same negative press as homosexual attraction. And when was the last time you heard a pastor talking about men who go home to watch skin flicks on HBO?
Shalom.
I agree about the abortion, but most pulpits that I've heard speak out against homosexual attraction don't say nearly as much about - say - adultery or fornication.
Your mileage may vary.
Shalom.
I'm not talking about the official positions of the churches. I'm talking about what receives focus from the pulpits and in the newsletters.
Because homosexuality is not something that "we" do; it's something that "they" do.
Are you comparing adulterous ATTRACTION with homosexual ATTRACTIONS? Or adulterous ACTS with homesexual ACTS?
Anyway, I could agree, that adultery might be similarly harmful. But pre-marital sex is a much smaller sin and quite often ends up in a normal marriage.
Why is the church so focused on homosexual attraction? Is it because so few homosexuals are contributors, as opposed to the others?
Maybe because we do not have media campaign or school promotion of adultery or the attempts to criminalise the disaproval of it as a "hate crime".
LOL! Bad, bad example!
Here's why: I am a pro-life, pro-second amendment, right-to-work, school-choice supporting conservative Christian. Attend the next convention of the Democrat Party of the People's Republic of Maryland and you should be able to find several thousand people who'd like to see me, and all who dare to think as I do, to be rounded up and deported (after several years in a re-education camp, of course).
The kicker is that I agree with them! The problem is that moving to Virginia is a costly experience. Housing prices are nearly double on that side of the Potomac than on this side. Very odd. You'd think that people preferred to live in a conservative area and were voting with their feet or something. ;-)
I visited a friend down in Charlottlesville recently. Not only do the businesses, but the schools down there still have CHRISTMAS parties. I figure we'll be making that move in a couple of years. Then I'll start my second career of sending letters to the Gov., Senators, and my former representative from the People's Republic of Maryland just to remind them of how damn happy I am to be free of their liberal nit-witted Bravo Sierra. Woo-hoo!
It's because of the homosexual agenda. It's virulence demands a response. Has Hefner been trying to get Playboy handed out to preschoolers? Bad example.
Is it because so few homosexuals are contributors, as opposed to the others?
I think it has more to do with God and that 'abomination' thing. ;-)
And when was the last time you heard a pastor talking about men who go home to watch skin flicks on HBO?
I haven't heard anything that specific, but just before Christmas our priest did include admonitions against sexually explicit entertainment as being "spiritually unhealthy" for Christians.
First off...I'm not a yellow dog repub so your insinuation is insulting...if that was your intent.
Second...I'm not from Massachusettes so those names don't mean anything to me. I *am*, however, from California and we have our own political problems. ;o/ The next gov race I'm voting Simon.
That's sort of my claim. Whenever I teach Sunday School I say, "Let's not talk about 'them' sinners. Let's talk about 'us' sinners. Once we're perfect, we can worry about 'them.'"
Shalom.
I respectfully disagree. I believe all extra-marital sex is destructive of the individuals involved and our social structure as a whole.
Shalom.
It sounds like your pulpit is well focused and did not deserve my comments.
Good for them (you?).
Shalom.
I don't always believe what FRC says as gospel, but I wouldn't go out on a limb for your guess either.
Shalom.
If he finds out an appointee is a liar, that should be taken into consideration. After all, he's going to depend on reports from the man. By the way, I don't lie on my income taxes. Do you?
What about drinking? Drunkenness is one of the seven deadly sins.
If the ambassador is given to drunkenness, he should not be appointed. Intemperence is very dangerous. Drinking of itself is not universally recognized as a sin.
How about a man who's been divorced a couple of times? No government job for him?
It depends on why he was divorced. The reason can point to a character flaw that indicates the man may be unfit.
Shalom.
You must be kidding! Most ambassadors have always been assigned according to their politics and how much they have given to their respective parties. You must have your head in the sand..
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.