Connect with us

News

Obama’s 6 Gay U.S. Ambassadors Are Leading the Global Fight for LGBT Rights

Published

on

From Battling Bigotry in the Dominican Republic to Achieving Reality TV Stardom in Denmark, President’s Out Appointees Have Made Their Mark

President Barack Obama’s commitment to inclusion has been rendered concrete by his appointments, which have helped make the face of America’s government more representative of its people. In addition to a record number of racial and ethnic minorities, he has appointed a record number of LGBT officials, including judges and ambassadors who require Senate confirmation.

Before Obama’s presidency, there had been only two openly gay U.S. ambassadors. The first, James C. Hormel, was nominated by President Bill Clinton as ambassador to Luxembourg in October 1997. Although Hormel was eminently qualified for the post and quickly won approval from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he was subjected to an ugly confirmation battle during which he was defamed and belittled by homophobic GOP senators such as Jesse Helms and John Ashcroft. His nomination was effectively blocked by Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, who refused to schedule a vote.

Finally, in May 1999, to the outrage of some Republicans, Clinton named Hormel ambassador via a “recess appointment.”Â

In 2001, to little public controversy, career foreign service officer Michael E. Guest was nominated as ambassador to Romania by President George W. Bush and became the first openly gay ambassadorial nominee confirmed by the Senate. Guest served as ambassador until 2003 and then in the State Department until his retirement in 2007.

At his retirement ceremony, Guest bitterly criticized Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice (and by extension Bush) for the discrimination faced by LGBT employees and specifically for the benefits denied to their same-sex partners. He made clear that his decision to retire was a direct result of this discrimination:

“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.”

Obama’s Ambassadors

In contrast to the difficulties faced by Hormel and Guest, the ambassadors nominated by Obama have had little difficulty in the confirmation process and received unqualified support from the State Department. In addition, they have been encouraged to make the furtherance of LGBT rights a key part of their portfolio. (Moreover, many of the benefits that Guest complained were denied to his partner during the Bush administration were extended by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009. Others were added after the Defense of Marriage Act was ruled unconstitutional in 2013.)

As Hillary Clinton declared at the United Nations in 2011, under Obama official U.S. policy is that “Gay Rights are Human Rights.”

Obama has appointed seven openly gay ambassadors: U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa David Huebner (who served from 2009 to 2014); U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Daniel Baer; U.S. Ambassador to Spain and Andorra James Costos; U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Rufus Gifford; U.S. Ambassador to the Dominican Republic James “Wally” Brewster; U.S. Ambassador to Australia John Berry; and U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam Ted Osius.

Huebner discussing his role as Ambassador to New Zealand:

Costos introducing himself and his partner Michael Smith:

Baer and his husband, Brian Walsh:

Berry introducing himself, and discussing same-sex marriage and his husband, Curtis Yee.Â

Osius and his husband, Clayton Bond, on PBS Newshour:

The six currently serving openly gay ambassadors recently participated in a panel discussion — sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, the Harvey Milk Foundation, and GLIFAA, an organization for LGBT foreign service employees — at the Newseum in Washington, D.C.

The six participants shared their personal experiences and the obligations of representing not only their country but also the LGBT community.

Particularly interesting is the contrast between the experiences of Brewster in the Dominican Republic, which criminalizes homosexuality, and Gifford in Denmark, a notably gay-friendly country. In one, the ambassador and his husband are beleaguered and sometimes vilified as a gay couple and advocates for LGBT rights. In the other, the ambassador and his husband are celebrated and their wedding became a major social event.

Ambassador Brewster

Brewster, a Chicago businessman who has served as a National LGBT Co-Chair for the Democratic National Committee and on the Board of the Human Rights Campaign, was nominated as Ambassador to the Dominican Republic on June 22, 2013.

His nomination was greeted with hostility from the Dominican Republic’s influential religious establishment. In a press conference, the Dominican Republic’s highest-ranking Catholic official, Cardinal Nicolás de Jesús López Rodríguez, referred to Brewster as a “maricón” — a derogatory term that is usually translated as “faggot.”

Another Catholic official, Monseñor Pablo Cedano, an auxiliary bishop of Santo Domingo, issued a veiled threat against the nominee. “I hope he does not arrive in the country because I know if he comes he is going to suffer and will have to leave,” Cedano said. He added that it was “a lack of respect” that Obama “sent … a person of this kind as an ambassador.”

Evangelical Christians were equally inhospitable. Ex-president of the nation’s Evangelical Confraternity, Cristóbal Cardozo, called the appointment “an insult to good Dominican customs” and said it is inappropriate to send such an ambassador to “a country where homosexual relationships are not approved, neither legally nor morally.”

On November 22, 2013, Brewster was sworn in as U.S. Ambassador to the Dominican Republic by Vice President Joe Biden. Just a few hours later, Brewster married his longtime partner, Bob J. Satawake. The ceremony and reception took place at the Hay-Adams Hotel, overlooking the South Lawn of the White House.

Ambassador Brewster and his husband have persevered in a country that penalizes homosexuality and constitutionally bans same-sex marriage. They have refused to allow the hostility of homophobes to deter their commitment to equal rights.

They have engaged the attacks forthrightly and with dignity, always conscious that their very presence in the country gives hope to those who cannot speak out on their own behalf. They know that their openness as a gay couple itself makes a powerful statement:

Brewster especially infuriated his detractors when he and Satawake met with Dominican LGBT leaders, prompting the Dominican Republic’s Ambassador to the Vatican to protest.

In honor of Pride 2014, the ambassador produced this video:

In June 2016, Ambassador Brewster announced that he and his husband would participate in the Dominican Republic’s Pride Caravan:

Ambassador Gifford

Gifford, the son of a Boston banking family and a former film producer, came to political prominence as a prodigious fundraiser, first for John Kerry’s 2004 campaign, and then for Obama. In the 2008 campaign, he raised some $80 million as head of Obama’s Southern California fundraising operation. He subsequently became a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee, and then the finance director of Obama’s re-election campaign. In the latter capacity, he is believed to have raised more than a billion dollars.

Gifford was appointed Ambassador to Denmark in 2013 and quickly became a national celebrity, appearing frequently on Danish radio and television programs. In 2014, he appeared in his own six-episode reality show (or, as he prefers, “documentary”) called I am the Ambassador from America, which followed his professional and personal life over the course of three months.

In the show’s first episode, he said, “the most common question I get is what does an ambassador do, and the only way you can explain it to people is by living it.” Thus, the show attempted to answer the question by inviting viewers to follow him during his work and in his life more generally.

The show was a surprise hit and was renewed for a second season. It won the Danish equivalent of an Emmy and made Gifford a familiar face and personality, especially since he so freely shared so many personal aspects of his life, including his upbringing in a small, wealthy Massachusetts town, his coming out experience, and his relationship with his partner Dr. Steven DeVincent, a Provincetown veterinarian.

But as Danish media critic Mads Hvas Jensen has observed, the show did more than highlight Gifford himself. It also advanced American diplomacy. Gifford has understood the strategic use of television to present American foreign policy in a favorable light, especially to young people. From this perspective, even Gifford’s openness about his sexuality and his advocacy for LGBT rights can be seen a means of demonstrating the advances made by the Obama administration in recent years.

Among the major recent advances in American civil rights was the achievement of marriage equality throughout the nation on June 26, 2015. Hence, it was not surprising that in October 2015, Gifford and DeVincent decided to marry, and to feature their wedding on the television show.

They also made the decision to be married not in the U.S. nor even in the American embassy, but in Copenhagen’s City Hall, where they were wed by the Lord Mayor in the same gold-filigreed room in which the world’s first legally recognized same-sex civil unions were performed in 1989.

The decision to wed in Denmark was “to be a statement,” DeVincent told Vogue. “We got married in the town hall in Copenhagen because it was the location of the first same-sex civil union. We also very much wanted to have the wedding in Denmark, because once Rufus became ambassador, we knew that was going to be our home for the next three and a half years. It was going to be the longest we’ve ever lived in one place together.” He added, “Once we were there, the country was so welcoming to us and we wanted also to show our appreciation.”

In the video below, an episode from PBS Newshour, Gifford is profiled:

Ambassador Gifford has spoken in favor of LGBT rights and participated in Pride parades not only in liberal Copenhagen, but also in other less accepting areas of his purview, including Greenland and the Faroe Islands. For example,  Gifford and DeVincent and members of the embassy staff participated in the Faroese Pride Celebrations on July 27, 2016, which were attended by 10 percent of the population.

Conclusion

America’s openly gay ambassadors are an impressive group. Some, such as Ambassadors Costos and Gifford have been chosen, as is a long honored and bipartisan custom, because of their political and personal connections to the president. Others, such as Ambassadors Baer and Osius, were chosen because of their academic or cultural expertise. The ambassadors have different styles and face different challenges, but all have distinguished themselves in their jobs.

In addition to the customary diplomacy that they practice, however, they also serve as living symbols of American progress in human rights.

When they march in Pride celebrations, for example, they make an important statement about American values in general and about American policy under Obama in particular.

When Ambassador Berry answers a question about same-sex marriage, he is careful not to interject himself into Australia’s fractious debate on the issue, but he nevertheless furthers the quest for marriage equality by offering the example of his own marriage.

Similarly, the high-profile weddings of Ambassadors Gifford in Copenhagen and Baer in Vienna have also helped normalize same-sex relationships here and abroad, as has the example of Ambassador Osius and his husband and children in Vietnam. In August, Osius and Bond renewed their vows in a ceremony presided over by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and attended by several LGBT rights advocates. “We thought it might be meaningful not only to us, but to the LGBT community in Vietnam,” Osius said.

The dignity and resoluteness of Ambassador Brewster in the face of insult offers hope to those who are unable to stand up to homophobia themselves; and Baer’s denunciation of Russia’s anti-propaganda law gains increased credibility because of his openness as to his own sexuality.

The appointment of openly gay ambassadors helps fulfill President Obama’s campaign pledge to make the face of the American government more representative of the nation’s people. But it is does more than that. It also announces to the world that in the U.S., opportunities are not limited because of whom one loves, and it illustrates concretely that the country’s much-touted support for human rights includes LGBT rights.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial

Published

on

Donald Trump’s Friday morning claim Manhattan’s Criminal Courts Building is “heavily guarded” so his supporters cannot attend his trial was torched by a top CNN anchor. The ex-president, facing 34 felony charges in New York, had been urging his followers to show up and protest on the courthouse steps, but few have.

“I’m at the heavily guarded Courthouse. Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial, presided over by a highly conflicted pawn of the Democrat Party. It is a sight to behold! Getting ready to do my Courthouse presser. Two minutes!” Trump wrote Friday morning on his Truth Social account.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins supplied a different view.

“Again, the courthouse is open the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on trials days, is easily accessible,” she wrote minutes after his post.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Trump has tried to rile up his followers to come out and make a strong showing.

On Monday Trump urged his supporters to “rally behind MAGA” and “go out and peacefully protest” at courthouses across the country, while complaining that “people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights.”

On Wednesday Trump claimed, “The Courthouse area in Lower Manhattan is in a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN mode, not for reasons of safety, but because they don’t want any of the thousands of MAGA supporters to be present. If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!”

After detailing several of his false claims about security measures prohibiting his followers from being able to show their support and protest, CNN published a fact-check on Wednesday:

“Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away ‘thousands of people’ from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building,” CNN reported.

“And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that ‘for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.’ In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.”

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

on

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

on

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.