{"id":73016,"date":"2015-08-25T11:47:21","date_gmt":"2015-08-25T19:47:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=73016"},"modified":"2015-08-25T11:47:21","modified_gmt":"2015-08-25T19:47:21","slug":"gay-rights-the-state-department","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=73016","title":{"rendered":"Gay Rights & The State Department"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi writes<\/a>: But even as the dust begins to settle the New York Times<\/em> is reporting on a new existential crisis: same-sex marriages in the Foreign Service explored in an article<\/a> entitled \u201cState Department Fights for Rights of Gay Envoys.\u201d Not that the Gray Lady is opposed to same-sex marriages for diplomats, quite the contrary. Its concern is that many highly qualified diplomats are turning down assignments because some benighted countries do not recognize same-sex unions and therefore do not accept that a man plus man or woman plus woman relationship actually qualifies as a diplomatic family. Which means that some Foreign Ministries are denying visas or accreditation for same-sex spouses. Worse still, as many countries regard homosexual behavior as a criminal offense, it suggests the possibility that some categories of Embassy and Consular family members not covered by full diplomatic immunity might find themselves arrested<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Obama Administration is predictably outraged and is reported to be<\/a> frantically working on the problem with the State Department making \u201csecuring the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people around the world<\/em><\/strong> a priority\u201d (my emphasis). But to my mind the fundamental problem is not same-sex marriage per se<\/em>, which most Americans now no longer oppose, but the failure to comprehend what Embassies and Consular posts are supposed to do coupled with a characteristic inability to understand that American principles and rules, such as they are, do not have universal applicability. This is particularly true in the case of gay marriage, which impacts on sincerely held religious views and which is still a bone of contention even in the relatively tolerant United States and Western Europe.<\/p>\n

Government at the White House level frequently does not understand how the great federal bureaucracies actually work. Contrary to the Times<\/em> headline, being part of a diplomatic mission is a privilege, not a universal right, and both by law and convention the host country pretty much sets the rules on who may enter and under what conditions.<\/p>\n

The article quotes Michael Guest, a gay former ambassador to Romania, who said \u201cIt\u2019s increasingly a problem, as some countries have wanted to take a stand on the issue of marriage equality that isn\u2019t really theirs to take.\u201d He is wrong. The Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations stipulates<\/a> that any country can expel or refuse to accept the presence of a foreign diplomat without providing any reasons whatsoever. Article 9 includes “The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata<\/em> or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable.” This is an option that the United States has exercised frequently in espionage cases as well as more recently in refusing to issue a visa<\/a> to a proposed Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, for which the U.S. is the host nation.<\/p>\n

The United States has also somewhat more questionably taken steps to restrict the travels of accredited diplomats with whom it is uncomfortable. Soviet era dips from Eastern Europe and Russia were generally required to get approval for traveling more than 25 miles outside of New York City or Washington and there have been similar restrictions on the movement of both Palestinian and Iranian representatives. So the host country is not obligated to accept anyone else\u2019s standards and can in many respects set whatever rules it wishes within its sovereign territory…<\/p>\n

It is indeed acceptable for a national government to urge greater tolerance as President Obama did on his recent trip to Africa but creating a bureaucracy to assert the global primacy of American values to include what constitutes a marriage benefits no one, least of all those being \u201cprotected,\u201d as in many countries that would only serve to enable labeling the sexual dissidents as American agents. And the idea of punishing the families of diplomats from countries that see marriage differently is completely absurd as it will produce retaliation, damaging to genuine American interests and potentially threatening the security of U.S. diplomats overseas.<\/p>\n

The entire feel good process of instructing others how to live derives from a peculiar American sense that we somehow understand important things better than anyone else and everyone should follow our lead. It is a dangerous conceit as it breeds resentment and inevitably leads to tit-for-tat responses that serve no purpose. The United States is already viewed negatively by a large part of the world. Adding fuel to the fire by complaining about others\u2019 values while promoting marginal causes that inevitably will be controversial is not what most American citizens should expect from their government. Unfortunately it is all too often what we wind up getting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi writes: But even as the dust begins to settle the New York Times is reporting on a new existential crisis: same-sex marriages in the Foreign Service explored in an article entitled \u201cState Department Fights for Rights … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-73016","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-homophobia"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73016","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=73016"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73016\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":73017,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73016\/revisions\/73017"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=73016"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=73016"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=73016"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}