The State Department’s dishonest celebration of homosexuals
In what is only be described as “business as usual,” Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, describing the Secretary of State in “her robin’s egg blue pantsuit,” added that Mrs. Clinton’s appearance at a State Department event was to address a gathering of “gay and lesbian foreign service workers,” and recognize those who “give such visibility and credibility that so many of you have done over so many years.” The day before, columnist Richard Cohen chimed in with his philippic about the liberating effect of the New York’s now allowing homosexuals to marry. Cohen’s sister is a lesbian.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 29, 2011 02:25 PM | Send
The two reporters and the institution that employs them are rabid devotees of the homosexual agenda, so their collective pieces were of no great moment, or interest. But what did annoy me, a State Department Foreign Service Officer for nearly three decades, were Clinton’s totally preposterous words about the contributions of homosexuals to the Foreign Service. It is a modern day myth that homosexuals were part of the service, because, until recently, such a practice would have caused their termination. During the Cold War, homosexuals were considered a serious security breach, because if caught in flagrante delicto, they could be easily coerced into divulging classified information.
But more disturbing was my thought about what would men like the highly regarded George Kennan have said about Mrs. Clinton’s appearance? I cannot tell, but it did seem to me that as a result of our conversations, he would have been less than sympathetic to the Obama’s decision—long before the NY law—to allow homosexuals to claim their partners as “spouses,” and thereby become eligible for benefits that they could not have previously enjoyed. One must always remember that, true or not, the State Department was always considered a notch above other federal bureaucracies, but the homosexual agenda is now part and part of the apparatus of government.
I recently came across a quote by the fiery Sam Adams (the 18th century Sam Adams, not the current one), which is, in my view, appropriate here:
Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty or happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.
So, perhaps Adams, more so than Kennan, would have been the person to ask.