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.
There are four individuals mentioned in the story who object to Guest as ambassador.
That's hardly representative of "Romanians."
That's hardly representative of "Romanians."
You may have a point. But, I suspect that there are more.
AGREED ! With enemies like this, who needs friends ?
Specifically?
Well, probably, nothing, as such conduct would have been unthinkable. (Homosexuality openly flaunted, in particular.)
Most restaurants don't place signs saying, "Please don't spit on our floor," but that doesn't mean they think it is okay.
Washington did say, however:
"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency...We ought to be no less persuaded that the smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained."
--George Washington Inaugural Speech to Congress April 30, 1789
Anyone who (like Washington) believes the Bible, knows that "the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained" includes prohibitions against homosexuality.
I don't believe the Founders were perfect -- nor did they expect perfection in others. However, a blatant FLOUTING of biblical standards would have been frowned upon, for it is to say that the Bible is wrong, God is wrong, and that homosexuality is normal. It is not, and I believe the laws of the colonies at the time of our country's founding likely reflected such a view.
Maybe so, but there were plenty of qualified people to appoint without having to shove an openly practicing gay man who takes his lover to work with him down the throats of the religious conservative community who elected him. He takes us for granted.
The appointment has ramifications, one of which is legitmizatio of a lifestyle that is morally wrong. I can't sit by a say nothing because I have a moral obligation to stand up and fight against our culture sliding further down into the abyss.
It seems that the religious right is just stuck. We aren't going to be given the time of day. Bush and the republicans want our money and our vote, but could care less about our issues. Do you really find nothing objecionable to appointing openly practicing gay men to represent our nation? Do you have any core beliefs?
Then there is the issue of unmarried men. Do you really believe they are all chaste? Yes, unmarried men are almost all guilty of fornication. Shall we get rid of all unmarried ambassadors, or require them to forego sex during their service?
I'd settle for simple decency standards in regard to who represents us. I understand I'm not going to get even a tenth of what I want, but someone has to stand up and bang the pots and pans for concrete truths, otherwise the lines will be blurred that much quicker.
As long as gay ambassadors and unmarried ambassadors do not have sex in public or with foreign agents, it just doesn't matter.
"If it doesn't hurt anyone...." I'm sorry. I don't live by moral laissaz fairre relativism. Truth exists.
That would have pleased a majority of the major names. Adams might be an exception, although he was also a rather catholic Christian. Try again.
Somehow trying to compare income taxes with normalizing anal sex just doesn't work.
What about drinking? Drunkenness is one of the seven deadly sins.
Again, drinking isn't going to drive our society into cultural paganism. Not comparable.
How about a man who's been divorced a couple of times? No government job for him?
Not if he's decides to shack up with a man, no. You don't seem to understand what I am concerned about. I am not asking for perfection. I am trying to stop the legitimizing of a behavior that will destroy our culture.
Bush said, when he took office, that he would base his appointments on qualifications for the job. He never said he would pass them through the Family Research Council Moral Filter.
He is free to make the decisions as he pleases. I am also free to with-hold my money and my vote.
There are plenty of sheep. You can have sex whenever ewe want.
Homosexuality is tolerated and condoned by a number of Christian denominations (Episcopalians and Church of Christ for example) and by Reform Jews. George Washington and other Founding Fathers worshipped as Anglicans (Episcopalians). If the church of the Father of the Country approves, why all the arguement?
If he shacks up with a woman, that's OK?
You don't seem to understand what I am concerned about. I am not asking for perfection. I am trying to stop the legitimizing of a behavior that will destroy our culture.
Again, you act as if homosexuality is something new. And Bush is not "legitimizing" homosexuality. He's appointing people to positions based on their qualifications for the job.
Should he fire all gays from government jobs? What about private employers? Should they fire all gays, no matter how well they DO THE JOB THEY WERE HIRED TO DO?
No jobs for gays, in your world, right?
Somebody might see a gay doing a job for, say IBM, and think IBM management condones gay behavior.
It's got nothing to do with condoning or not condoning. Being gay has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone can be a representative of the United States.
Guest is an ambassador, not a bishop.
I'd settle for simple decency standards in regard to who represents us. I understand I'm not going to get even a tenth of what I want, but someone has to stand up and bang the pots and pans for concrete truths, otherwise the lines will be blurred that much quicker.
Bang away, but it doesn't sound like your truths are all that concrete.
Sounds more like "laissez fairy" to me.
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.