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 the ambassador is really keeping it to himself, it doesn't matter.
When an ambassador uses the position as an opportunity to advocate a degenerate lifestyle, it does matter. It matters even if he or she does so only in the U.S. but respects his/her foreign hosts.
Shalom.
Well said. Actually, the problem goes even deeper than you wanted to suggest.
One of the hallmarks of humanity is the fact that we are moral agents. In Christianity we say humans are made 'in the image of G-d.' When we cease to be able to make moral judgements, whether about homosexuality or fornication or even stealing from the taxpayer to pay for unConstitutional programs, we deny our humanity. We become nothing more than intelligent beasts. C.S. Lewis argued this very cogently in his book, The Abolition of Man. He didn't make it based on Judeo-Christian morality, but on the common morality that all great religions shared before the abolition began.
When he found that Liberals and Publik Skool graduates couldn't follow The Abolition of Man due to lack of coherent thinking skills, he fictionalized the same concept in the book, That Hideous Strength. People on this thread might want to read one or the other.
Shalom.
Right! The scapegoat for any and all ills you see in society.
What the hell does that mean? Are you ignorant of history, or something? Back in the 40s and 50s, communist sympathizers (if not outright spies) were throughout the State Department, promoting their agenda, and attempting to re-shape foreign policy in a way that was at best sympathetic to the Soviet Union. Sodomites, it appears based upon the article, are doing the same thing in an attempt to promote their agenda. I don't see how saying that is scapegoating them, or anyone else, for societal ills.
Grow up.
So, as a family law guy, do you think you can help Khepera with his diabetic dog problem?
Shalom.
Shoving homosexual life styles down the throats of people
It's almost more than a man can swallow.
Ask and ye shall recieve!
In a letter to the daily Ziua, in which he addressed America, the group's head, Ion Coja wrote: "Through tradition and vocation, Romanians have created a society ... and mentality which puts duty and obligations above anything. The supreme duty of any living being is to procreate."
So the answer to your question is "Ion Coja." Now I'm sure you're going to tell us why this shouldn't matter, but you did make it the focus of your post.
Sure, churches change. In the 19th Century, many churches in the south found support for slavery in the Bible. Those passages are still there. How do you interpret them?
In the 10th Century, all the churches believed the Bishop of Rome was the head of the whole shurch, today many do not.
Even the definition of adultery is flexible. The 'Orthodox Church in America' (TM) has a liberal attitude towards divorce. They define career obsession as a form of adultery and legitimate grounds for divorce. Where does it say that in the Bible? And that is considered to be a 'conservative church.'
Many of todays Churches have in fact altered their doctrine to allow America's most affluent minority into the fold.
Yes, and that minority (or maybe majority) is made up of adulterers and fornicators.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that an ambassador cannot speak on a subject which has nothing to do with foreign relations or his assigned country, even when he is sitting at home in the US, in case that might offend some people in the country he is going to?
A large population of Israel is Arab. Should the American ambassador to Israel forego any condemnation of Arabs or Palestinians, even while in the US, for fear of offending that ethnic minority?
Certainly while serving, an ambassador should avoid an prsonal controversies whenever possible.
THE AMBIGUOUSLY GAY DIPLOMATS
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.