Dominicans Rage Against Obama's Gay Ambassador Pick

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Foreign Policy

Opposition to President Obama's nominee for U.S. ambassador to the Dominican Republic reached a fever pitch this week as religious organizers stage a "Lunes Negros" or Black Monday protest against James "Wally" Brewster.

If confirmed, Brewster will be the first openly gay ambassador to the country, a prospect that is not going over well with some segments of this conservative Christian country of 9 million people. Local reports indicate that church leaders are pressuring the government to reject Brewster's nomination and calling on the faithful to dress in black on Monday in solidarity against him.

Praise Christian Church Pastor Sauford Medrano is quoted in Diario Libre as saying that Brewster could cause "the U.S. promotion of gender beliefs in the country." That supposedly violates a general education law in the country that "all the Dominican education system is based on Christian principles."

The report was flagged by Cable reader and Dominican expat Will Williams, an architect in New York City. He said he witnessed the animosity toward the ambassador in a visit last weekend. "I could confirm myself that the opposition has been even worse from what have been reflected in the news," he said. "As a Dominican, I feel ashamed this is happening in my country ... The evangelical church is convoking the general public to reject this ambassador ... [It's] asking the public to show a black band, black banner or ribbon on cars or dress showing rejection."

Read more: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/11/dominicans_rage_against_obamas_gay_ambassador_pick

---

If the Dominican Republic's government has the gall to reject our ambassador we should cut off all of the $23 million in annual aid which earmarked for their country.

[msongs]

1. so they are not even true to their own religion, no surprise there, since according to their cult

ALL persons are sinners. of course their own sins are no big deal, just the sins of others that are baaaaaaad. typical

[iandhr]

2. Tell em to shove it.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. That's horrible

[closeupready]

4. Not going to say what I'm thinking; just K&R.

[mwrguy]

5. fuck 'em

Cut their aid and trade ties if they want to be dicks about it.

[bunnies]

6. Hate ribbons.

Thats a new one.

[Deep13]

7. Religion must control sexuality to survive. nt

[Sand Wind]

19. Exactly....nt + 1000

[William769]

8. I am so sick of this shit.

But then again all we have to do is look right here in our house.

[KamaAina]

9. The substantial Dominican-American community may have something to say about this

My own favorite Dominican-American is from NYC, visits DR once or twice a year, and is a staunch LGBT ally; she even used to rip on her boyfriend for being a homophobe! Needless to say, she is NOT pleased.

And the $23 million in formal aid is a drop in the bucket. On just about every block in any Dominican neighborhood, there is a sign that reads Envios de moneda: money orders. So much money goes back to DR that the neighborhoods are sometimes deficient is basic shopping needs.

[geek tragedy]

16. There are some really awful homophobes in the NYC Dominican community, though

Ruben Diaz Sr, in particular. (His son has repudiated the father's bigotry, so perhaps it's a generational thing)

[alp227]

20. San jose has Dominican community?

I thought most CA Hispanics were from Mexico/Central America.

[KamaAina]

23. They are

this is someone I met when I lived in NYC.

[Zen Democrat]

10. Recall the ambassador and cut foreign aid. They can't dictate their religious intolerance.

Even taking the "Christian" point of view ... I was taught in the church that sin is sin and none is worse than another, and all have sinned and fallen short. That's what I learned in church. If you have wished someone dead, you have murdered. If you lusted for someone not your spouse, you have committed fornication or adultery. And there's the thing about not picking the speck out of your brother's eye when you have a beam in your own.

All this anti-gay bigotry that is "based on the Bible" is really just based on anti-gay bigotry in the Bible. I remember asking a pastor when I was about 13 why the Bible said don't eat shellfish or pork when we loved shrimp and bacon. That Baptist pastor told me that Leviticus was Old Testament law that was overturned by Jesus and his Good News. He said that those old Jewish laws don't apply to modern life. That would cover scriptures claiming homosexuality as an abomination. And it keeps men from putting their menstruating wives out in a tent in the 21st century. And since we now know that homosexuality is something people are born with, that excludes it from being a sin. And menstruation is not a sin. How did church teachings deteriorate into hate, fear and ignorance over the past decades from a gleam of enlightenment in the 60's?

[warrant46]

34. How did church teachings deteriorate into hate ?

It simple that's how the leaders of the cult, control the sheep by getting them to hate someone, Hitler used his persuasive powers to target the sheeps' hatred to as he described them---the Untermenschen defined as

(German for under man, sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen) is a term that became infamous when the Nazi racial ideology used it to describe "inferior people", especially "the masses from the East," that is Jews, Gypsies, Armenians, and Slavic peoples

[Enrique]

11. "some segments"

let's not assume these people represent the DR any more than Pat Robertson represents the US:

When news of opposition to Brewster first began, the Dominican embassy in Washington told The Cable that the country supports the president's pick. "The Dominican Republic is a democracy with a vibrant media and a wide diversity of opinions on every conceivable topic," the statement read. "However, it is the position of the Government of the Dominican Republic that a person´s sexual preference is strictly a personal matter and it looks forward to working constructively with Mr. Brewster in his official capacity once his nomination is approved by the U.S. Senate."

[Behind the Aegis]

15. That sentiment should apply to all countries.

[Orsino]

60. Exactly. The story studiously avoids even attempting to count the haters.

A "fever pitch" among a few hundred or few thousand is not going to translate to a significant number of black armbands in the streets. Does the average citizen care?

[azurnoir]

12. Is this the official stance of the Dominican government or just a noisy nut case religious group?

much like we have here in the US, according to the article it seems the latter

from the OP's article

When news of opposition to Brewster first began, the Dominican embassy in Washington told The Cable that the country supports the president's pick. "The Dominican Republic is a democracy with a vibrant media and a wide diversity of opinions on every conceivable topic," the statement read. "However, it is the position of the Government of the Dominican Republic that a person´s sexual preference is strictly a personal matter and it looks forward to working constructively with Mr. Brewster in his official capacity once his nomination is approved by the U.S. Senate."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/11/dominicans_rage_against_obamas_gay_ambassador_pick

[geek tragedy]

13. This from a country that auctions off young girls and boys to pedophiliac sex tourists.

Cry me a river, homophobic bigoted hypocritical assholes.

[alp227]

21. A certain right wing radio host also has some explaining to do!

[geek tragedy]

22. Limbaugh is the world's most loathsome sex tourist. Quite a feat, given the other

contenders.

[totodeinhere]

14. Sadly LGBT rights have a very long way to go in many parts of the world. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

17. But..but..but...sometimes homophobia is just something we should tolerate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113728853

What year is it again?!

[Grins]

18. Awwww. That's OK.

I think we should simply recall the Ambassador and replace him with someone more to the Dominican's liking.

And I'm thinking of notable sex tourism spokes-model and Viagra enthusiast, Rush Limbaugh would be perfect for them! I hear he likes it in the Dominican Republic; as in really, really likes it.

And then forget about him.

[24601]

24. Imagine a country trying to send an Ambassador to the US and that individual was steadfast that

women and girls were property subject to the dictates of their husbands and fathers. Why would we not PNG him because his positions were odious?

Suppose the Chinese tried to send an Ambassador whose views were that female fetuses should be all be aborted because they were less desirable than males. Why would we not PNG the asshole?

How would we receive a proposed Ambassador who was working to reinstate apartheid? Welcome him with tolerance or refuse to accept his credentials?

In sending representatives to nations, the receiving nations values should be considered whether we agree with them or not.

[Enrique]

25. the nation of the Dominican Republic is not protesting this ambassador

just some preachers there.

[Perez Pradosky]

38. people assume "dominicans" means 100% of dominicans

Which is ignorant.

[idwiyo]

27. WTF? Opposition to misogyny and racism is the same as homophobia? Seriously, WTF?

[24601]

29. Never said or implied they were. I was saying only that what receiving nations believe needs to be

taken into account.

Would we sent a Jew to be Ambassador to Saudi Arabia or a Muslim to Israel? I think it very unlikely. But go ahead and make the case otherwise.

[idwiyo]

30. You sure did, or I wouldn't be objecting.

.

[24601]

36. You must work for the CIA or NSA, because your dot-connecting ability has jumped from what was

said to what you want to believe it said. Your analytical leap of faith has served you poorly.

You are welcome to your opinion, but not your own facts.

[idwiyo]

43. The facts are provided by your post: the false equivalency where intolerance of bigotry is no

different than homophobic intolerance directed towards gay ambassador.

As a matter of fact, what you wrote is no different then openly defending homophobia on the grounds that its 'cultural issue'

It's sick.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. We wouldn't send a Jew to SA because s/he wouldn't be allowed in the country.

A Muslim could be sent to Israel, there is a 17% population of Muslims there. For your information, the opposite of Jew is NOT Muslim.

[24601]

39. You are not accurate in the belief that Jews are not allowed in Saudi Arabia. While any non-Islamic

materials will be scarfed up at he border, SA doesn't ban Jews any more than they ban Scientologists, or Atheists.

You may be thinking back to the days (circa 1994 and before) that an Israeli visa in your passport would bar you, whatever religion you are or are not isn't the factor.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/delta.asp

And you will not find any words in my post defining a faith as the opposite of another. Those are not my words and you should not infer that was my meaning in any way, shape or form.

There is, however, a political calculus in Presidential appointments. For example, every US Ambassador to the Holy See has been Roman Catholic - imagine that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Ambassador_to_the_Holy_See

[geek tragedy]

47. We send Christians to Israel as ambassadors, why not a Muslim? nt

[aikoaiko]

31. Jury Results

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Thu Jul 11, 2013, 09:10 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Imagine a country trying to send an Ambassador to the US and that individual was steadfast that
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=534377

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This person is equating the US evaluating whether to accept a misogynist or racist embassador from another country with the Dominican Republic allegedly considering refusing someone appointed US embassador to DR because they are gay. In other words

Homophobia = opposition to misogyny and racism. They are equally good reasons to refuse an embassador. If you understand what that implies, that is a really hateful and disgusting suggestion.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jul 11, 2013, 09:18 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Don't really agree with the comment, but don't think it's nearly offensive enough to be hidden.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: false equivalence by poster, deserves a hide
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The alerter presents a strawman argument and fails.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Seems like a reasonable analogy to me. If you disagree you should say so in the thread.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[nomorenomore08]

35. I'm a little surprised that one stood. Guess some are easily fooled by a "reasonable" tone.

[Marrah_G]

41. Not surprised, to be honest

[idwiyo]

44. My sincere apologies to LGBTQ DUers that post like that was allowed to stand.

I am not surprised it was not hidden. It's sick but not surprising.

[Posteritatis]

32. I'd actually imagine quite a few ambassadors to the United States hold odious views

I'm open to the possibility that, e.g., the Sudanese or Saudi ambassadors to the United States, or the Vatican's nuncio, might be egalitarian feminists, or that the Japanese ambassador holds reasonable views about war crimes and desires a transparent and fair criminal justice system by our standards, but I'd be rather surprised if any of those were the case.

Ambassadors represent their host governments by definition, and that means they're occasionally going to be hold stances which the government they're speaking to despises. It's probably actually better for any kind of honest diplomacy rather than putting up that much of a false front. After all, the US and the Soviets maintained embassies through the Cold War even though each utterly despised the other's positions on most things. On a local and pettier level, I would've been thrilled had the Canadian government PNGd Cellucci for his overall attitude, but he sure as hell represented the stances and goals of the Bush administration.

The policies overall are something else entirely, but with the representatives in general there's pretty much always going to be a certain level of nose-holding. It's part of the diplomatic game and has been for centuries.

[Marrah_G]

40. You did not just post that.........

[geek tragedy]

46. The situations would NOT be similar unless you're a bigot. nt

[Zorra]

49. Bigotry should never be accommodated. If the pseudo-christian haters in the Dominican Republic

don't like us sending an Ambassador who happens to be LGBT, they should not be appeased, but maybe should be told how much it sucks to be them.

[Moonwalk]

52. I know you don't think you're comparing apples and oranges, but you are. If they objected...

...to, oh, say, an Asian person, then you'd have your comparison. Or say, a person born with a blue eye and a brown eyes. Or someone born left-handed who was not taught to write with his right hand and is publicly left handed. Or, say, a woman.

This gay ambassador is not holding a "view" of anything. His attraction to his own sex is not a philosophy or ethics or even cultural. It's not anything he can change any more than you could change your attraction to whatever gender attracts you. Not those against him believe that, but there are people who believe the world is flat, too. If there are a group of anti-left-handers in a country, or anti-woman, do we keep back our best ambassador to a government because of that? Even if the government itself says they welcome that left-hander or woman?

And FYI, we here in the U.S. don't usually know what views ambassadors from other countries have. Be they anti-woman or whatever. Those countries have the right to send to us whomever they wish, and we tolerate them. Now, if they commit some crime, or come forward and try to interfere with us and how our country is run (like get involved in taking away a woman's right to vote) that's different. But just because an ambassador doesn't think women should be allowed to vote, doesn't mean we U.S. citizens have a right to tell the country sending him not to send him. We have the right to say that if he makes speeches to us and ours on that topic we will protest them, but if he acts only as the ambassador for his country, making deals with the U.S. government and swallowing down his objections to the women representatives, then why not? Maybe his time here will change his mind, after all, and make him a better ambassador for both countries.

[hatrack]

26. Get over your stupid selves, you douchecanoes.

Fucking pathetic. Who the hell cares, other than the divinely inspired representatives of Kiddie Diddlers 'R Us?

[DreamGypsy]

28. The U.S. could invade...

...we've done it before.

United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1916–24)

Most Dominicans, however, greatly resented the loss of their sovereignty to foreigners, few of whom spoke Spanish or displayed much real concern for the welfare of the republic. A guerrilla movement, known as the gavilleros, leaders such as General Ramon Natera, enjoyed considerable support from the population in the eastern provinces of El Seibo and San Pedro de Macorís. Having knowledge of the local terrain, they fought against the United States occupation from 1917 to 1921. American naval forces maintained order during a period of chronic and threatened insurrection.[RL30172] In 1921, the gavilleros were crushed due to scorched earth tactics, superior air power, firepower and counterinsurgency methods of the United States military.

United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1965–66)

After a period of political instability following the assassination of long-time Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo in 1961, candidate Juan Bosch, a founder of the anti-Trujilloist Dominican Revolutionary Party (PRD), was elected President in December, 1962 and inaugurated in February 1963.

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church also resented the secular nature of the new constitution, in particular its provision for legalized divorce. The hierarchy, along with the military leadership and the economic elite, also feared communist influence in the republic, and they warned of the potential for "another Cuba". The result of this concern and opposition was a military coup d'état on September 25, 1963.

The coup effectively negated the 1962 elections by installing a civilian junta, known as the "Triunvirato", dominated by the Trujullistas remnants. The initial head of the Triumvirate was Donald Reid Cabral. The Triumvirate never succeeded in establishing its authority over competing conservative factions both inside and outside the military; it also never convinced the majority of the population of its legitimacy. The widespread dissatisfaction with Reid and his government, coupled with lingering loyalties to Bosch, produced a revolution on May 16.

<snip -more political turmoil and armed clashes>

U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson, convinced of the defeat of the Loyalist forces and fearing the creation of "a second Cuba"[4] on America's doorstep, ordered U.S. forces to restore order. The decision to intervene militarily in the Dominican Republic was Lyndon Johnson's personal decision. All civilian advisers had recommended against immediate intervention hoping that the Loyalist side could bring an end to the civil war.

[Pterodactyl]

37. Deal with it, Dominicans! We'll pick whomever we damn well please as our ambassador.

[24601]

42. You do realize that nations are not obligated to accept the credentials of another don't you? And

diplomats already credentialed may be PNG'd.

The tone that suggests you (other nations) must do as he US dictates seems a bit out of place on DU. It certainly is wearing thin in some nations around the world who hold that sovereignty has meaning beyond the power to compel via force.

[geek tragedy]

45. Sure, if they want to spit in our eye out of homophobia, their price to pay. nt

[24601]

51. What price are you suggesting? Would the President need another Authorized Use of Military

Force resolution by Congress? Or, is the DU population moving toward the Executive Branch position that the War Powers Act unconstitutionally infringes on a President inherent Article II authorities?

[geek tragedy]

55. Who said anything about military force? There are many other avenues. nt

[24601]

56. You weren't specific and I couldn't tell what you were suggesting. Didn't know if you meant this is

one of the "all options are on the table" situations.

That's why I started with asking what price you meant. The AUMF discussion was if you were referring to things on the use of force end of the spectrum. My view BTW is that level of response would be disproportionate.

So what price did you mean? I still don't know how far you are suggesting the President go.

[Pterodactyl]

54. They need to wake up and smell the coffee and accept modern values.

So, you expect we'd discriminate against a perfectly qualified gay candidate just because some people in a foreign country might have a problem with it?

[Hekate]

48. Apparently it's not so easy to "appoint gay ambassadors" to places that don't want them

I've been following the argument here for the past 5 years, and the amount of energy that has been expended castigating Obama for not hustling to appoint openly gay ambassadors/diplomats has been amazing.

Personally, I would not want to send someone to a place like Uganda, where they might be killed, or to Russia, where they might be imprisoned. But that's just how I am. I don't like to send people to their deaths just to make a point. Who knew about the Dominican Republic?

But, like the GOP in Congress has the obnoxious right to deny or delay appointments, countries have the sovereign right to reject ambassadors or to expel them. Uncle Sam can take umbrage, Uncle Sam can force the issue, but wait... there's more info to be had. The article says "some segments" and "the evangelical church." So we really don't know yet if the Dominican government will say no to the ambassador.

We'll see.

[tblue]

50. I'd be concerned about his safety.

Why such bigotry? Goodness! Is that all they care about?

[displacedtexan]

53. I guess they're sick & tired of our aid money.

Kiss my ass, Bigots!

[DADR]

57. EX PATS IN DR ARE WATCHING AND HELPING

As a representative of 3000 Ex Pats, I made a declaration on Friday, condemning the Black Monday. I indicated to the press that the whole thing was nothing but "theater" and a public relations stunt from small groups of the Catholic Church and some other anti gay organizations, who are also prejudice about haitians and other issues.
I indicated that there is no freedom without equality and Dominican Republic is a democratic country and intolerance is unacceptable.
We are organizing a public relations team to show Ambassador's record in human rights and as a leader and businessman. He is not alone. E PLURIBUS UNUM

[DADR]

58. RALLY AGAINST AMBASSADOR WAS A FAILURE.

I am very pleased to inform that our press conference, last Friday, to speak in defense of Ambassador Brewster, was a success and that the so called "Black Monday" in which everyone in Dominican Republic was supposed to wear black in protest against Ambassador Brewster's nomination, was a failure and that Dominicans refused to wear black and dismissed that rally, as disrespectful and unjustified.
We will continue to support Ambassador Brewster, because this is not over, since the organizer of the protest, is the Cardinal of the catholic church, a mighty powerful individual.
E PLURIBUS UNUM

[Arkana]

59. Then they can get over it.