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 that's the only post of mine you read, perhaps you should read the others.
I'm arguing from the same side you are.
Why don't you go read the article (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."), instead of wasting your time pushing your sodomite agenda and taking your own quotes out of context regarding the Founding Fathers and Christianity. All they're saying is that there is nothing wrong with Christianity itself, but there is when it is bastardized and used as a form of government itself, and used to control and oppress people. No duh!
(And don't say "The Romanian in the article was specifically quoted", like a little 2 year old would.)
Excuse me.
Is it a mutually accepted relationship between consenting adults? Then it is moral. Period. End of line.
There are many who are trying to change the fabric of society. Some -- you among them, apparently -- are trying to change it into a theocracy.
No one has the right to force you to worship Vishnu, or fast during Rammadan, or have your heart torn out to nourish Huizilopoctli. Where then do you get the idea that you have the right to demand everyone else live according to your religious tenets?
An it harm none, do as you will.
Whatever you do, for good or ill, comes back to you three times over.
A bigot is someone who resolutely and without hesitation hates a certain class of people. I hate bigots and other people who are willfully stupid. So, I'm a bigot. You got a problem with that?
1791 is after 1776.
Interesting that many of the colonies whose legal codes you so admire also had laws recognizing the buying and selling of living human beings as a legitimate economic enterprise.
Slavery was unknown to the common law.
You are making a generic case, I am discussing a specific one. To support the homosexual agenda is destructive, even when at home. That was my only point.
Shalom.
I see. So, trying to keep the homosexual lifestyle from being normalized as a legitimate and healthy behavior makes me one who is trying to chage the society into a theocracy. That has to be the silliest rebuttal I've read yet.
The founders of the constitution based this country on Judeo-Christianity. It is our foundation.
An it harm none, do as you will.
You are a moral relativist. Actions and behavior have consequences. You can either address it or continue to stick your head in the sand.
Whatever you do, for good or ill, comes back to you three times over.
I can go with that. =)
A bigot is someone who resolutely and without hesitation hates a certain class of people. I hate bigots and other people who are willfully stupid. So, I'm a bigot. You got a problem with that?
Are you calling me a bigot and saying you hate me? All because I don't want homosexuality on par with heterosexuality? No--I don't have a problem with it. I feel rather sorry for you.
If I may intrude on your conversation a little. Mr. Guest is clearly not "keeping it to himself" as this little blurb from Romania's homosexual activists show.
"His Excellency, Mr. Michael Guest, US Ambassador to Romania, sends his best wishes to the LGBT Community in Romania
His Excellency, Mr. Michael Guest, US Ambassador to Romania, sends his best wishes to the LGBT Community in Romania
He sent his message through Adrian Coman, Executive Director of ACCEPT, who had the honor to meet the US Ambassador and his partner - Alex Nevarez - at a reception offered by Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and President Ion Iliescu in Bucharest, November 14, 2001. " link
ACCEPT is the first Romanian non-governmental organisation working for the LGBT people
ps- You couldn't pay me to vote for President Bush
You make my point. If it matters - that is, if we know - he is clearly not keeping it to himself.
If someone doesn't make a stink about it (pun intended) how do you know if he suffers from homosexual attraction?
Shalom.
Which, of course, is a guarantee that I will get flamed for saying it.
Thanks.
Shalom.
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.