Micheal Guest is the former US Ambassador to Romania, and was the first openly gay US Ambassador confirmed by the Senate. He resigned, after years of service to the country, in 2007, and on his departure delivered a scathing indictment of the State Department and specifically the then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice for their lack of leadership in providing support for LGBT employees. Full details on his Wikipedia entry.
This week he testified at the House Subcommittee looking at implementation of same-sex partner benefits for federal employees, and I’m going to take the liberty of reproducing his astonishingly dignified statement, which I found at today’s Pam’s House Blend entry on the hearings. I am, as I titled this post, full of admiration for this (apologies, I’m having trouble breaking up the paragraphs properly):
Oral Statement by Michael Guest
Hearing on Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act
House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and District of Columbia
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
July 8, 2009
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to offer my perspective on this bill.
For more than half of my life, I served the United States as a career Foreign Service officer. I was honored to represent our country and am proud of my accomplishments. But in December 2007 I ended my career after having sought, without success, to amend policies that discriminate against gay and lesbian Foreign Service personnel. No longer could I accept that, while sharing the same service obligations as my colleagues, my family had no benefits, simply because I’m gay. My partner had sacrificed his career to support me in serving the country that we both love, and in return was treated as a second-class citizen in our overseas postings. And I couldn’t reconcile how an Administration so consumed with the fight against terrorism would knowingly put my partner’s life at risk, and indeed jeopardize the security and effectiveness of our embassy communities, through policies that based protections needlessly on marriage - an option that of course is unavailable to us.
Mr. Chairman, the State Department-specific inequalities that I challenged frame my perspective on this issue and, as you will see, on our country. As examples, the Department would not train my partner to recognize a terrorist threat or counter-intelligence trap, thus putting his life and, indeed, U.S. interests at risk. He had no guarantee of being evacuated, whether for life-threatening medical reasons or to escape political violence that might close the embassy. The Department would not train him in the informal community leadership roles that he, in fact, was expected to fill. Unlike spouses, he had no diplomatic protections, nor could he compete for jobs the embassy needed to fill, regardless of qualifications. And while the Department paid to transport pets to and from post, it wouldn’t pay my partner’s airfare, as if the government for which he sacrificed so much considered him to be less important than a dog.
I trust you see the ironies. As a diplomat, I advanced American principles of equality, fair play, and respect for diversity in the countries to which I was posted. And yet the very agency that charged me to do so showed no respect for those principles in how it treated those of us who are gay or lesbian. Nor did that agency, which drills crisis management and diversity awareness and leadership skills into employees, show any concern for issues of health, safety, morale, and effectiveness that stemmed from these discriminatory policies.
Mr. Chairman, I still believe America is the greatest country on earth. But my experience in seeking redress of these inequalities made me realize that this is not the America I believed in when I came to Washington, some 30 years ago, to work as an intern here on Capitol Hill. You see, the issue we are here to address is not, as you’ve heard, personal belief, nor is it about the definition of marriage. Those are red herrings. This bill is about workplace fairness. And it’s about civil rights. Somehow we as a country have allowed the word “equality” - which is an absolute term - to be redefined to mean more rights for some citizens and fewer for others. LGBT Americans are not demanding so-called “special rights,” another red herring, through this or any other bill - in fact, you might say that current law gives heterosexuals special rights. How is it that we’re still debating, even here today, whether citizens who are gay should enjoy the same fundamental protections enjoyed by others with whom we live in our communities, work in offices and factories, and yes, share fellowship in our places of worship? And in that regard I might mention that when I studied at Furman University, many years ago, I attended First Baptist Church in Taylors, South Carolina, represented here by a panelist from the Southern Baptist Convention who sits next to me yet is figuratively on the opposite side of this table.
Mr. Chairman, I was reluctant to relive before this committee the most painful decision of my life, that of leaving the career I loved. But for me this is a matter of closure. When President Obama took action June 17 to end the State Department discrimination I’ve described, I took my partner’s hand and quietly apologized that the decision hadn’t come sooner, for his sake. Now the spotlight is on Congress. The bill before you addresses a range of benefits that remain out of reach for federal employees with same-sex partners. These benefits, which the first panel has already described, are as critical to our families as they are to yours. I respectfully ask that you close this gap.
You’ve heard many solid arguments for this bill based on what I call “mechanics” - things like worker retention, budgetary impact, and comparisons to corporate policies. But I ask you to support this legislation for other reasons.
First, principle is at stake. Equality, fair-mindedness and respect for diversity are at the heart of America’s identity. This bill would honor those principles and bring us closer to fulfilling those ideals.
But second, this bill is about people. Those of us who are gay have the same aspirations, the same hopes, and the same needs as any of you. We have families that we love, and that we need to take care of, just as you do. We are humans, like you. We love and support our country, like you do. We ask only to be treated fairly and equally, and that our families be provided with the same employer protections and benefits that are provided to yours.
Across almost three decades in Washington, I’ve heard that policy issues related to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans are just too hard to tackle, that other agendas must come first, that the time isn’t now. Well, the time is now. This issue is hard only because we make it so. I ask that this committee restore federal leadership on this issue and not allow our equal and fair treatment as fellow citizens to become a partisan matter. Surely we can come together as a country, and as a people, and do the right thing for families who have yet to realize the equality to which we, as citizens, should be entitled.
Thank you.
