Reply
Fri 21 Dec, 2007 08:37 am
All our citizens have always considered that our country is a civilized state with real and greatly developed democracy. But in reality our US democracy has a very selective character. Take, for instance, present situation in observance of main rights of gay community's representatives.
At first my close friend, who has made a choice of working at US diplomatic service, has been sure that here in America those, who has non-traditional sexual orientation, have nothing to fear. But now she has learned at first hand that our State Department is a collection of excellent hypocrites. In word our authorities allow people of different sexual orientation to start diplomatic career, but in deed their permanent sexual partners will have less rights than domestic animals!
See for yourself! My friend told me that unlike her possible husband her lesbian partner has not received diplomatic passport, as well as, she has had to pay her own relocation and health care abroad (as opposed to my friend's tame animal). Moreover, it has turned out that her permanent sex partner must provide her own personal safety in even such dangerous places abroad as Iraq or Afghanistan!
It is a crime that this discrimination has become possible in the USA, the most democratic country in the world! It is high time for our sex minorities to assert their human rights more actively. And, first of all, they should form some NGOs, the main goal of whose will be protection of rights and freedoms of gay community's members in our offices of state!
The same rules apply to boyfriends or girlfriends of members of the diplomatic corps.
There is nothing new with that.
Are you suggesting that gay or lesbian members of the State Dept get different rules then straight members?
Has gay marriage been legalized in all of the U.S.? I think not, so this concern is really asking for some sort of special treatment for a "significant other," I believe. "Significant other" is not a spouse, possibly analogous to homosexuality is not heterosexuality.
In my opinion, those homosexuals that believe they should be allowed to legally marry his/her significant other should get an "A+" for not being in the proverbial closet, but a "D" for the denial of the depth of conviction of this country's social mores. And, an "F" for thinking these social mores can change in the space of 40 some odd years (from the time that homosexuality was in the DSM as a psychological condition). Again, this is my opinion; try to value its candidness.