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.

8,427 views

Categories:Politics President Obama Vatican

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

  1. EMS7 says:

    I don’t have a problem with the fact that gays want to be accepted in certain segments of society. I do have a problem with having their sexual orientation being “rammed down our throats”. I oppose their constant insistence that they be included in organization that clearly have policies that are in opposition to their life style e.g. the Boy Scouts, military and most offensive changing the definition of marrage. I equate gays in certain situations as a female being in a males’ lockeroom and vice versa again as in the Scouts or the military. Complying with their demands will eventually cause additional problems in the future.

    1. Patrick says:

      EMS7,

      Similar things were once said about my Irish immigrant ancestors.

      -Padraig

  2. Domer 65 says:

    Through my employment I know a man who was a prominent supporter of Barack Obama and raised a lot of money for him back in 2007/2008. As a result he was awarded an ambassadorship which lasted for the President’s first term.

    Let me assure you all that any man or woman who is appointed an ambassador because of their support for a president’s election (whether Republican or Democrat), is throughly vetted by the Government prior to his or her appointment.

    I guess I am having difficulty seeing the purpose of Mr Peter’s post here. Is he suggesting that gays who raise large amounts of campaign funds should not be considered for ambassadorships?

    BTW, the man I referred to the the first paragraph above, served our country with honor. He (and his wife too!!!) was well-liked and respected by the governing officials of the country to which he served as our ambassador.

  3. David J. White says:

    I could be mistaken, but I believe that the host country has the right to refuse a proposed ambassador from another country. If the Holy See (which I believe is the correct name for the Vatican as a diplomatic entity) had refused to accept an openly homosexual American ambassador, it isn’t the Vatican that would have looked bad. (Those who would condemn the Vatican for doing so already don’t like the Vatican, so who cares what they think.)

  4. Chris says:

    The Obama administration is taxing overworked, underpaid, and over-taxed Americans to attack the institution of marriage around the world. We need new leadership ASAP.

  5. Jairo says:

    Reading these comments only one word came into my mind: naivety

    Most of you wrote about the fairness and rights of the LBGT community and how Kerry wants to defend it, but one question arises: does the defense of the so wrongly called gay rights (as if those rights do not exist) are more important than to defend the religious freedom rights and the right to live of more than 100,000 christians that has been killed annually because of their faith? I don’t hear Kerry even mentioned this fact or even trying to do something about, internationally. But yes, LBGT rights are more important for this administration than defending the lives of 100,000 people that only want to live, and live their faith freely. Priorities, priorities, all upside down.

  6. SLCMLC says:

    Oof. Rough couple days for Mr. Peters. First he completely takes an Obama quote out of context and decides that the President wants to end all Catholic schools because you know, he wishes that Catholics and Protestants would work together in a war-torn country.

    Then there’s this article about Obama making a popular choice among Catholics for his ambassador to the Vatican. “Many prominent Catholics have praised the appointment.” So why is this article being written? Sounds like Obama got this right!

    Oh, the author had to go here…”It’s no secret this is payback to the wealthy gay bundlers who helped finance Obama’s reelection campaign”. So gays gave money to Obama and he will reward them with a whopping five ambassador appointments (aren’t there like 180 ambassadors?). That scary gay lobby, trying to take over the world, giving Obama tons of money and in return they get to be…ambassadors to Denmark. Definitely on par with the CEO of Halliburton becoming the VP or the CEO of Goldman Sachs becoming the Treasury Secretary.

    What’s that line from Anchorman? “Take it easy, Champ. Why don’t you sit this next one out, stop talking for a while.”

    1. Maddie says:

      We now have an earth-shattering 96% of our ambassadors as heterosexual. The world is coming to an end.

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.