Former Ambassador Quits Over Anti-Gay Discrimination

[livius drusus]

Michael Guest, a former ambassador to Romania, has resigned from the State Department citing Condoleeza Rice's failure to address department policies that discriminate against gay people.

Very ballsy

"Most departing ambassadors use these events to talk about their successes . . . But I want to talk about my signal failure, the failure that in fact is causing me to leave the career that I love," said Mr. Guest, 50, whose most recent assignment was dean of the leadership and management school at the Foreign Service Institute, the government’s school for diplomats.

"For the past three years, I’ve urged the Secretary and her senior management team to redress policies that discriminate against gay and lesbian employees. Absolutely nothing has resulted from this. And so I’ve felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner — who is my family — and service to my country. That anyone should have to make that choice is a stain on the Secretary’s leadership and a shame for this institution and our country," he said.

Among the inequities cited by Mr. Guest and other gay diplomats: unlike heterosexual spouses, gay partners are not entitled to State Department-provided security training, free medical care at overseas posts, guaranteed evacuation in case of a medical emergency, transportation to overseas posts, or special living allowances when foreign service officers are assigned to places like Iraq, where diplomatic families are not permitted.

Props to Mr. Guest for following his principles and for making a public statement about it instead of doing the usual "thanks and goodbye" thing.

[Caligulette]

Very well done.

Jesus hates us, so it's okay.

[Kyuss Apollo]

You should stop making Baby Jesus cry. Then he won't hate you so much.

[Seven of Nine]

It's a shame he had to resign.

[Dingfod]

Baby Jesus resigned?

[Stormlight]

[California Tanker]

I think some form of discrimination is likely to be required in the department. I'm not entirely sure how well the new male ambassador to Saudi and his male partner would be received.

NTM

[livius drusus]

That's not what Guest is talking about. A woman ambassador wouldn't be well-received in Saudi either so she might not get that particular gig, but her family would still get benefits.

[Angakuk]

Are there any federal agencies or departments that provide familial or dependant benefits to same sex partners?

[livius drusus]

I don't know, but that's what Guest was working for in his department.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Are there any federal agencies or departments that provide familial or dependant benefits to same sex partners?

Not to my knowledge.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I think some form of discrimination is likely to be required in the department. I'm not entirely sure how well the new male ambassador to Saudi and his male partner would be received.

NTM

Ah.

So we survey all the countries and cultures in the world where we might send an ambassador. From that effort, we design employment policies that reflect the least common denominator of discrimination.

As opposed to, oh, I don't know....setting up the employment rules so that our ambassadors reflect the values of our own country. As long as we have to put up with ambassadors that reflect the value of the tinpot countries they come from, why shouldn't it work both ways?

And of course, this isn't talking about how warmly (or not) the ambassador would be received in the foreign country anyhow, is it? It's talking about how our own federal govt treats the ambassador and his/her family.

Sometimes you really go out of your way to be an asshole, CT.

[California Tanker]

Surely you would admit that the art of diplomacy is not just going up and saying "This is the way we do it, we don't care if you find it offensive"? Doesn't sound very diplomatic to me. Indeed, is not such international unilateralism one of the gripes you have with the current administration?

NTM

[wei yau]

I wonder if that type of diplomatic consideration is used to vet potential ambassadors who happen to be Christian.

But, as liv, said, all this is besides the point. It's not how the ambassador would be received, but how our government treats them.

CT's original point is only tangentially related.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Surely you would admit that the art of diplomacy is not just going up and saying "This is the way we do it, we don't care if you find it offensive"? Doesn't sound very diplomatic to me.

Way to deliberately miss the point.

The argument here is about how the US govt treats its own employees. You were the one who tried to imply that the values of other cultures should influence the level of rights a US employee has, working for their own govt.

I wonder if you would be so accommodating if the employee were Jewish and being posted to the Middle East. Or Christian. Somehow I doubt it.

For the record: diplomacy is the art of getting along in spite of your differences. It is not the art of "setting up your govt to compromise its values, to satisfy the viewpoint of some other culture."

Indeed, is not such international unilateralism one of the gripes you have with the current administration?

Pretty slimy, CT. There is no intersection between (a) Bush's international unilateralism and (b) standing by the values of a society. International unilateralism isn't a cultural value; it's a political calculation being carried out by inept neocons.

But you knew that already.

N.B. Do we have a 'derail' smiley? Something like a train jumping its tracks?

[maddog]

#1507