Gay ambassador takes Bush administration to task

As a rule, retirement ceremonies for largely unknown U.S. ambassadors are low-key, dull, and not even remotely newsworthy. There are, however, exceptions.

In 2001, Bush named Michael Guest to be the U.S. Ambassador to Romania. Because Guest is an openly-gay man, the nomination was noteworthy, particularly in this administration. The Senate confirmed Guest without incident, and though some religious right groups complained bitterly, Guest stood alongside his partner at the State Department’s signing-in ceremony.

Nearly seven years later, Guest has retired, wrapping up a 25-year career as an American diplomat. But before he goes, the mild-mannered Guest has a few parting words for the administration he’s served.

Before friends, colleagues and top officials in the State Department Treaty Room, Mr. Guest took Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was not present) to task for failing to treat the partners of gay and lesbian foreign service officers the same as the spouses of heterosexual officers. And he revealed — with eloquent sadness, not anger — that this was the reason for his departure.

“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.

This wasn’t just about gay rights in general; Guest was fairly specific about the undeniable discrimination he’s seen first-hand.

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. […]

“This is not about gay rights . . . It’s about equal treatment of all employees, all of whom have the same service requirements, the same contractual requirements,” Mr. Guest — who was the first openly gay diplomat to be confirmed as ambassador and take his partner on his overseas posting — said in his farewell speech.

And no, in case you’re curious, Rice has not responded to any of Guest’s concerns, neither before nor after his noteworthy speech.

The NYT editorial board concluded, “It’s also foolhardy since the two conflicts have put such strain on American resources that personnel shortages are commonplace. The government should be doing everything in its power to retain its best and brightest, beginning with treating them equally.”

Sounds like an inequity a Democratic president should be willing to fix in 2009.

Good for Michael Guest! Though it surely had to be a painful decision if he loved his work, maybe it was more painful to remain with his partner in a grossly-unfair situation and actually dangerous to his partner’s health and well-being.

Of COURSE Rice ignored his request. Couldn’t do anything to upset Republican standing with the religious right, who would have approved of Hitler’s moves against gays.

  • Anney wrote:

    Though it surely had to be a painful decision if he loved his work, maybe it was more painful to remain with his partner in a grossly-unfair situation and actually dangerous to his partner’s health and well-being.

    Maybe he felt like, by staying, he was tacitly endorsing a practice he knew was wrong and that was demeaning to him and his partner.

  • I think Swan is probably right at #3, above. While Europeans and most other progressive nations may harbour dislike of gays on a personal, individual level, they are smart enough to know the gay community represents some of their best talent in every field. I don’t think anyone is demanding that everyone like gay people and be friendly to them – that’d be unrealistic for any identifiable group, including Republicans. Being treated with everyday courtesy and recognized for the worth of your contributions doesn’t seem like too much to ask.

  • Was this the same ambassador who’s swearing-in ceremony Condi attended? And, introduced his partner? Or, was that someone else?

  • There would be no place for bigotry in the Ron Paul administration. Individual rights for all!

  • It sounds to me as if Guest resigned because of the directly-experienced discrimination against his partner and by extension, him (and other gays), not treating partners as family, and in some cases the refused benefits sound.not only demeaning, but dangerous, such as no security training, no free medical care, guaranteed evacuation in case of a medical emergency, etc

    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. […]

    “This is not about gay rights . . . It’s about equal treatment of all employees, all of whom have the same service requirements, the same contractual requirements,”

    Anyway, good for him!

  • This is one reason I’m a Democrat. My domestic partner recently had emergency heart surgery. I took two weeks leave from my job as a Federal employee to care for him. My boss granted me “Family Medical Leave Act” permission to use sick leave instead of annual leave.

    My fear is that in a Huckabee or Romney administration I’d lose that right, or could even be fired outright if I chose my partner’s health and well being over my job. After all, since they consider being gay a “choice” I’d have to chose between my partner and my career, just like Amb. Guest did.

  • Rice is yet another closeted rightwing hypocrite. Does her “house guest” get to go over overseas with her?

  • Gays in the diplomatic service are far from rare. A friend has been a diplomat for Belgium for over 30 years and he, and his partner, are treated as if they were a hetero couple. Of course we couldn’t expect such enlightenment in the macho USA because the knuckle draggers might actually stay home on election day, but they would never vote for Democrats anyway.

    Guest has had his fill, as have the rest of us, but to his credit he’s using his exit to make a statement, and for that I salute him. He is speaking for many in the diplomatic corps, and we need to appreciate how much they do for our image and standing in the world. The Bush world is clueless as ever, and I’m sorry he’s decided to end a career that might have had many more years of valuable service to our sorry country, but I understand why.

  • CB wrote: “Sounds like an inequity a Democratic president should be willing to fix in 2009”

    That should be –> Sounds like an inequity a Democratic presidential candidate should be willing to exploit during the campaign, by saying that as soon as he/she becomes president, he/she will immediately invite any fired / retired gay government employee (diplomatic and military) for an interview to be re-hired.

    Now, that is supporting the troops by making sure there are enough of them to defend our ‘national security’; be it in the military, diplomatic, or translation services.

  • Re: the last two comments

    Well, the rest of us don’t believe gayness is a qualification to be an ambassador. This guy was working for the Republicans; if he’s behind promoting our policy, then consider him, but if he’s not, the fact that his own people screwed him by itself doesn’t recommend him to us. Maybe they’d decide they like him again and decide to compensate him to a tune that would make the work palatable to him if they found him becoming one of our trusted advisors- that is, working for their interests in a concealed way while ostensibly working for ours (and getting paid by us too!).

  • Was this the same ambassador whose swearing-in ceremony Condi attended? And, introduced his partner? Or, was that someone else? — phoebes, @5

    Same ambassador, different Secretary of State; in ’01, it was still Powell.

  • Thinkprogress:

    Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell explicitly noted the presence of and positively recognized Guest’s same-sex partner, Alex Nevarez, during the swearing-in ceremony. The Human Rights Campaign called Powell’s acknowledgement of Nevarez a “small gesture that spoke volumes.”

  • Actually, the incident you’re all thinking of was Rice’s swearing-in of the Global AIDS Ambassador, Mark Dybul, on 10 Oct 2006. Dybul’s partner, Jason Claire, and Claire’s mother were in attendance (as was Laura Bush). Rice referred to Claire’s mother as Dybul’s mother-in-law during comments. Click here to see the article.

  • Comments are closed.