Replies

Here is some of the latest guidance from the State Dept. on handling non-family 'Members of Household' (MOH):

g. COMs [Chiefs of Mission] and their staffs may include MOHs in all events officially sanctioned by post on the same basis as family members.
h. Recognizing that cultural differences may mean that an American employee's household may not necessarily mirror households in foreign countries, COMs shall work to ensure that the official American community environment is as welcoming as possible.

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

On this thread, the argument has been made that we have to judge only on the basis of whether a homosexual can do his job. I submit there is far more consequences to this argument than you'll admit. There is a positive obligation to acknowledge moral parity between the homosexual "lifestyle" and the marriage-based, two-parent family. Those who actually defend the view that these two very different visions of the nature and purpose of human sexuality differ as right from wrong are chastised for the stand we take.

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.

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.