Why Isn’t Obama’s New Ambassador to the Vatican Gay?

Screen shot 2013-06-21 at 12.03.15 PMLast Friday, late in the afternoon (which is apparently the administration’s favorite time to do business) it was announced that President Obama was nominating Ken Hackett (the former head of Catholic Relief Services) as the new U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican.

Many prominent Catholics have praised the appointment.

But what I’m curious to know is, why didn’t Obama nominate a gay man or woman to become the next U.S. ambassador to the Vatican?

After all, Obama is on-track to nominate five new openly-gay ambassadors to key posts around the world (including Spain, Australia and Denmark) as part of the administration’s ongoing celebrations of “June gay pride month” — bringing the total to eight.

It’s no secret this is payback to the wealthy gay bundlers who helped finance Obama’s reelection campaign. One-in-six of Obama’s top campaign bundlers in 2012 was gay, WaPo reported. And as soon as Obama won reelection, the heads of a powerful gay activist organizations began to publicly call upon Obama to appoint more gay ambassadors and cabinet members – and so he has.

Obama’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has gone before the world proclaiming the United States believes “gay rights are human rights” and for Clinton and the Obama administration, that includes the “right” to redefine marriage.

Fast-forward back to this month, the current Secretary of State John Kerry celebrated June gay pride month by telling U.S. State Department employees that promoting gay rights abroad is “at the very heart of our diplomacy.” And if that wasn’t going far enough, this week he declared that the U.S. has a “moral obligation” to advance the gay agenda domestically and overseas.

He’s serious. Back in April, USAID announced it was spending eleven million taxpayer dollars to, what, combat global hunger and poverty? Nope: to train gay marriage activists in foreign countries.

If promoting gay marriage is at the “heart” of American diplomacy these days and with the Obama agenda becoming practically synonymous with the gay agenda, why not go all the way? Why not appoint a gay, gay marriage-promoting ambassador to the country which is most recognizably and consistently opposed to redefining marriage in the world? Does the administration actually believe what it tells its gay supporters or doesn’t it? If the Vatican is guilty of violating the “human rights” of gay people by not endorsing gay marriage and if promoting gay marriage is a “moral imperative” for this administration why didn’t Obama appoint an ambassador who would bring that message to the pope?

The Obama administration doesn’t deserve a pass for making one good appointment to the Holy See when their entire foreign policy approach and priorities continue to so deeply offend.

11,107 views

Categories:Politics President Obama Vatican

50 thoughts on “Why Isn’t Obama’s New Ambassador to the Vatican Gay?

  1. Bender says:

    Maddie, I believe the point Mr. Peters was making is that if President Barak Obama truly believed in and supported the advancement of the gay agenda, he would have selected an openly gay ambassador to the Vatican, the most anti-homosexuality organisation in the world. Furthermore, I think it is POSSIBLE (I’m not saying this definitively due to the fact that I do not select ambassadors myself) that the current ambassadors who are openly gay were selected first on the basis of their sexual orientation and only secondarily on the basis of their qualifications and merits. I am not trying to take away from these ambassador’s abilities and qualifications (witch are much greater than my own), however I am simply trying to say that perhaps they were not selected ONLY on the basis of merit.

    1. Maddie says:

      Hi Bender-yes, you’re completely right. They COULD have been selected because of their sexual orientation. However, the point here is that Mr. Peters concluded that they WERE. There’s no COULD in his article. As you clearly stated in your reply, there’s no proof.

  2. Russell says:

    This journalistic nightmare of an article was apparently the musings of someone who just wanted to get an argument started, just for the sake of arguing. This was just an inflammatory piece by someone we know dislikes the President and just had an ax to grind and a convenient and mostly receptive audience to do it with.
    I hardly ever agree with the author but usually the articles written by him have more substance.
    This is a fail.

  3. Richard says:

    No Thomas Peters. Gays want complete access to civil marriage, its rights and responsibilities. Call it defined if you wish but it has nothing to do with you. As to religious liberties, gays want everyone to adhere to Federal and state anti-discrimination laws. It is a civil society we live in not a theocratic society as you would wish.

  4. Agnes Meo says:

    As a catholic educated in New York up and through college, I wish the institution of the church stop it. Stop the madness with its bogus claims that Obama is against catholics!! He is not nor does he want to do away with it as an institution. This President has been nothing but accommodating to those opposed to him–even the Church only to get slapped down in the media. The catholic church in the US has become an apparatus of the conservative crazies!!!! No wonder there is a decline in Mass attendance because of the secrecy governing this institution. The Catholic religion is beautiful but one would never know from the stupidity of the clergy!!! I hope your organization takes heed from this new pope to focus on what matters!!! Helping those in need and comfort the suffering!!! Christ talked about helping those with less!!!! Organization like CatholicVote surely does not speak for all catholics–me especially!! Leave President Obama alone!!!!

    1. JackB says:

      Agnes, you and I are two voices crying in the wilderness. Our church sends mixed messages when they say that they accept gays. Pope Francis has charged the flock with “the new evangelism” at the same time reaching out with an offer of ecumenism.
      They are caught on their own petard and seem to want to stay there.

      The

      1. GREG SMITH says:

        Dear Agnes and Jack ~ The gay marriage question in the US will be largely settled as early as tomorrow. My hope is that the American Church will then focus on more important matters, especially those identified as priorities by Pope Francis. ~ Pax vobiscum, Greg

  5. RT says:

    You said Kerry says we have a moral obligation to advance the gay agenda, but Kerry actually said: “We have a moral obligation to decry the marginalization and persecution of LGBT persons. And we have a moral obligation to promote societies that are more just, more fair and tolerant.”

    If that’s the gay agenda, are you actually against it? Would that mean you favor marginalizing and persecuting gay people?

    Really?

    1. Thomas Peters says:

      for gay marriage activists, a “more fair and tolerant” society includes redefining marriage and curtailing religious freedom. yes I’m opposed to that. and any gay marriage activist on this thread will agree they believe you can’t have a tolerant or fair society without redefining marriage.

      1. Patrick says:

        you’re opposed to all redefinitions of marriage, or just this one? Thomas, you speak as though civil marriage is and always ahs been some fixed, constant arrangement. But you know that’s not true.

      2. RT says:

        You do understand that when the State Department is talking about this moral obligation around the world, they’re not talking about marriage, right? They’re talking about LGBT people being jailed or censored or threatened with the death penalty.

        Instead of putting your own (inaccurate) spin on Kerry’s words, why not just repeat what he said? That will help save you from the sin of bearing false witness.

  6. Robert S. says:

    Should Alan Turing have been key figure in the Office of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in Britian? Or would the millions of Jewish people whose lives were not ended because of Turing’s brilliance been better off without him, because he would have been advancing a gay agenda?

    It’s Turing’s competence and skill vs. his homosexuality. It’s the five ambassadors’ competence and skill vs. their sexuality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.