What’s in a “passport record,” you ask? It’s just a record of where that person traveled, right? Apparently not.

What exactly is a passport record? A passport record typically consists of applications made by a person for a U.S. passport, together with supporting evidence of U.S. citizenship. The records include details such as date and place of birth, naturalization details, family status, occupation and physical characteristics. Passport records do not include evidence of travel, such as exit and entrance stamps, visas or residence permits. Passport records are protected by the Privacy Act of 1974.
…
In addition to passport applications and the related material, the system stores investigative reports that might have been compiled in connection with granting or denying a passport, or in connection with any violation of passport criminal statutes. It also stores court documents and administrative determinations related to passports and citizenship, as well as copies of birth and baptismal certificates, medical, personal and financial reports and details on arrest warrants of the person applying for, extending or renewing a passport and a person’s Social Security number.
…
Apart from helping to determine citizenship and eligibility for a passport, the information can be used for employment applications and estate settlements, and to determine Social Security benefits. It can also be used for federal and state law enforcement investigations. Records are retrieved using an individual’s name or passport number.

This is more than just “imprudent curiosity.” This is a serious breach of all three candidates’ personal privacy. Secretary Rice has already apologized to Sen. Obama (and I’m sure apologies to Clinton and McCain are forthcoming), but that isn’t enough. This is hardly the first time that the Bush Administration has lost private personal data. All three candidates should be calling for full-scale investigations.

Most departing ambassadors use these events to talk about their successes . . . But I want to talk about my signal failure, the failure that in fact is causing me to leave the career that I love,” said Mr. Guest, 50, whose most recent assignment was dean of the leadership and management school at the Foreign Service Institute, the government’s school for diplomats.

For the past three years, I’ve urged the Secretary and her senior management team to redress policies that discriminate against gay and lesbian employees. Absolutely nothing has resulted from this. And so I’ve felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner — who is my family — and service to my country. That anyone should have to make that choice is a stain on the Secretary’s leadership and a shame for this institution and our country,” he said.

Unlike heterosexual spouses, gay partners are not entitled to State Department-provided security training, free medical care at overseas posts, guaranteed evacuation in case of a medical emergency, transportation to overseas posts, or special living allowances when foreign service officers are assigned to places like Iraq, where diplomatic families are not permitted.

The New York Times summarizes the case of Michael Guest exactly correctly:

Treating gay public servants by different standards than apply to everyone else is unacceptable, especially at a time when all American diplomats and military personnel are being called on to serve — sometimes repeatedly — in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s also foolhardy since the two conflicts have put such strain on American resources that personnel shortages are commonplace. The government should be doing everything in its power to retain its best and brightest, beginning with treating them equally.

How can George Bush and the Republicans even utter the phrase “family values” when employees of the Bush administration have to choose between their families and their jobs? It’s one shameful thing for this country to refuse an entire group of people their rights because of who they are, but the fact that George W. Bush’s government is willing to prohibit or make it difficult for gay people to lay down their lives for their countries as soldiers, translate terrorist communications and analye intelligence, or train America’s next generation of diplomats is incredibly negligent of the needs of the country and represents a dereliction of President Bush’s duty to uphold the Constitution and protect the United States.