Anti-GLBT bias is driving good people from public service

forester814 · 03-17-2008, 09:06 PM

A note from Joe Solomnese over at HRC.org. I normally don't pass these on, but this one really got to me.

If you feel as I do, I hope you will use the link to write to your Senators.

==============================================

Michael Guest, a well-respected and committed public servant, had risen to a top position in the Foreign Service. The first openly gay American to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate as an overseas Ambassador, Guest left his prestigious post – and the career he loved – because of the State Department's second-class treatment of his partner.

Our nation has lost countless talented public servants like Michael because it doesn't give their same-sex partners equal benefits and protections.

But there's a bill in Congress that would help our government catch up to the private sector – and make sure GLBT Americans can serve their country proudly, at home and abroad.

Click here to tell Congress to pass the bill that would give equal benefits to its employees' domestic partners.
Take Action: Partnership benefits NOW for GLBT public servants!

For Michael Guest, it wasn't just the basic indignities, like the government's insistence that he and his partner pack for Romania in separate suitcases. The discrimination he experienced extended to graver matters: even in the immediate wake of 9/11, Guest's partner was unable to receive security training (to know how to recognize a terrorist threat or intelligence trap). Nor was he entitled to evacuation in the event of hostilities.

Upon his retirement from the Foreign Service in December, Michael lamented being forced to choose between his family and service to his country. "That anyone should have to make that choice," he said, "is a stain on...[our] leadership and a shame for this institution and our country."

Erasing that stain would be both the right thing and the smart thing to do. Nearly 10,000 private companies, including more than half of the Fortune 500, offer benefits to their employees' domestic partners. Because they know that it helps them compete for the most talented and qualified employees.

The business community gets it; why doesn't our government?

Tell your elected leaders that patriotic GLBT Americans demand no more for their families than the basic benefits and protections afforded to different-sex spouses.

Send a strong message to your lawmakers to support and co-sponsor the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. Your Members of Congress are federal employees too. Ask them if it would be fair if their families couldn't get basic benefits and protections.

Congress will respond once there is a groundswell of support. So spread the word. Tell your friends about this critically important bill, and ask them to join you in the fight for domestic partnership rights.

Warmly,
Joe Solmonese

garysher · 03-17-2008, 09:18 PM

Sounds like yet another attempt to force the rest of us to accept homosexual partnerships as "normal".

It may work to some extent within American workplaces, however, overseas assignments with the State Dept require compliance with the customs and standards of those countries. And the vast majority of countries don't see two homosexuals as family, let alone as spouses.

Guest's choice is not "between his family and service to his country", but between forcing his sexual dysfunction and moral indiscretions on others, or leaving the representation of America to those better suited to that honour.

forester814 · 03-17-2008, 09:31 PM

Wow. That's quite a stretch, gary, even for you.

He was "forcing" homosexuality on the people or Romania no more than I am forcing homosexuality on my coworkers, or you are forcing "Britishness" on your coworkers and community.

As for representing America, who is better suited to represent America than an American?

You really should try to think these things through, rather than rushing to your keyboard every time you see a post from me.

OnTheLeft · 03-17-2008, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forester814

Wow. That's quite a stretch, gary, even for you.

He was "forcing" homosexuality on the people or Romania no more than I am forcing homosexuality on my coworkers, or you are forcing "Britishness" on your coworkers and community.

As for representing America, who is better suited to represent America than an American?

You really should try to think these things through, rather than rushing to your keyboard every time you see a post from me.

Recognizing that gay couples actually exist and deserve to be treated equally isn't "forcing" our homosexuality on anyone. Garysher would love a world where we all stayed hidden in our closets.

Unfortunately for him, those days are gone forever.

Public servants should all have benefits for their families - including gay people in which their partner is considered a family member. Hopefully if we can get a Democrat into the White House, this will finally happen.

garysher · 03-18-2008, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forester814

Wow. That's quite a stretch, gary, even for you.

He was "forcing" homosexuality on the people or Romania no more than I am forcing homosexuality on my coworkers, or you are forcing "Britishness" on your coworkers and community.

Not true.

He was compelling everyone who has to deal with him on a professional level to accept his homosexual lifestyle.

As for representing America, who is better suited to represent America than an American?

His Americanism is not in doubt. But not all Americans are best suited to represent their country abroad.

I think even you would agree that Charles Manson and Fred Phelps would not make very good ambassadors for their country - but they are both Americans.

Try to think through these points as you know I won't be slow to annihalate them.

garysher · 03-18-2008, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheLeft

Recognizing that gay couples actually exist and deserve to be treated equally isn't "forcing" our homosexuality on anyone. Garysher would love a world where we all stayed hidden in our closets.

Nope. I think homosexuals should be free to live their unfortunate lifestyles. But representing one's country abroad is a different question.

I'm sure you wouldn't be happy if the Saudi ambassador brought his four wives to Washington but forbade them from going out without his permission.

Unfortunately for him, those days are gone forever.

Public servants should all have benefits for their families - including gay people in which their partner is considered a family member. Hopefully if we can get a Democrat into the White House, this will finally happen.

I doubt it. Both Hillary and Obama oppose homosexual marriage.

BTW you're supposed to be ignoring me remember??

forester814 · 03-19-2008, 10:18 PM

Quote:

He was compelling everyone who has to deal with him on a professional level to accept his homosexual lifestyle.

Ridiculous. Do you "compel" everyone who has to deal with you on a professional level to accept (or even acknowledge) your heterosexual lifestyle?

I shouldn't have to remind you, but I will: sexual preference has no bearing on ability to do one's job. That's why it is illegal to discriminate on that basis, just as it is with other factors that have no bearing on job performance, such as race, gender, ethnicity, etc.

I'm beginning to understand why you keep failing your American citizenship test!

And this whole tack you are taking is entirely beside the point.
He wasn't fired for compelling acceptance of blah blah blah, or for any other reason. He was personally and professionally held in high regard throughout his tenure. Then he resigned his post, rather than stay on in violation of his personal principles, something I think most people would find admirable.

Stick to the topic or admit you can't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

I think even you would agree that Charles Manson and Fred Phelps would not make very good ambassadors for their country - but they are both Americans.

Of course I would agree, but again, this an utterly irrelevant attempted distraction from the case at hand.

Leave it to you to try to tarnish a qualified, well-respected career diplomat who happens to be gay by trying to feebly compare him to a killer and a religious nut.

This man was appointed, served with distinction, and chose to step down.
I really don't think Phelps or Manson would find themselves appointed in the first place.

If you can't debate the actual issue (and it appears you can't), don't try (and don't expect another reply). It only makes you look foolish. But if (and only if) you do come up with any relevant points on your next attempt, I will be happy to reply to you again.

But on another point, I do want to offer you my thanks. I appreciate you doing your part to keep my thread on the front page. That way, more people have a chance to see my request to take action with their legislators to support and co-sponsor the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act.

garysher · 03-20-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forester814

Ridiculous. Do you "compel" everyone who has to deal with you on a professional level to accept (or even acknowledge) your heterosexual lifestyle?

Hetrosexuality is the natural order and can be safely assumed, just like everyone can assume I breathe

You, and the guy in the story, are demanding that we accept a dysfunctional lifestyle. Trying to slip one past us.

I shouldn't have to remind you, but I will: sexual preference has no bearing on ability to do one's job. That's why it is illegal to discriminate on that basis, just as it is with other factors that have no bearing on job performance, such as race, gender, ethnicity, etc.

In most cases that is true. However, the State Department is rather different, especially when posting diplomats abroad, when local culture and customs are to be observed and respected.

I'm beginning to understand why you keep failing your American citizenship test!

I didn't take it yet!

And this whole tack you are taking is entirely beside the point.
He wasn't fired for compelling acceptance of blah blah blah, or for any other reason. He was personally and professionally held in high regard throughout his tenure. Then he resigned his post, rather than stay on in violation of his personal principles, something I think most people would find admirable.

Me included - I admire him for stepping down and avoiding embarrassing his country.

Of course I would agree, but again, this an utterly irrelevant attempted distraction from the case at hand.

Leave it to you to try to tarnish a qualified, well-respected career diplomat who happens to be gay by trying to feebly compare him to a killer and a religious nut.

This man was appointed, served with distinction, and chose to step down.
I really don't think Phelps or Manson would find themselves appointed in the first place.

If you can't debate the actual issue (and it appears you can't), don't try (and don't expect another reply). It only makes you look foolish. But if (and only if) you do come up with any relevant points on your next attempt, I will be happy to reply to you again.

I was responding to YOUR point that the only qualification he needed was to be an American:

" As for representing America, who is better suited to represent America than an American?" - Forester

But on another point, I do want to offer you my thanks. I appreciate you doing your part to keep my thread on the front page. That way, more people have a chance to see my request to take action with their legislators to support and co-sponsor the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act.

No problem. Although my eloquent responses have probably persuaded most people not to do so.

BTW anyone who wants to oppose the homosexual attack on traditional marriage in California please sign the petition at:

Protect Marriage
the official Web site for the California Marriage Protection Act

highway80west · 03-20-2008, 04:08 PM

I don't think I will sign the petition.