The new Bishop Robinson's partner, Mark Andrew, and his daughters, Jamee Muzzy and Ella Robinson, present him with a mitre.
Posted on 05/01/2008 5:58:17 AM PDT by NYer
“I always wanted to be a June bride.” As soon as the words were out of my mouth, I knew there'd be trouble. I'd just delivered an hour-long lecture on the relationship between religion and public discourse, and why religious fervour over homosexuality plays such a large and negative role in the securing of full civil rights for gay people.
During the question-and-answer period, someone asked me about the forthcoming civil union between me and Mark, my partner of 20 years. The audience had been welcoming and sympathetic, full of laughter and understanding, and for one moment, I forgot that the C-SPAN cameras were rolling and that every word I said would be parsed by my critics. Within hours, those eight words had made it around the world, thanks to conservative bloggers and the magic of the internet.
No context; nothing about the preceding hour of carefully constructed comments; nothing about my defence of - and love for - the Scriptures; nothing about the loving God to whom I constantly pointed. Just this one sentence.
Surely no one thinks that I'll don a wedding gown and wear flowers in my hair. But I suspect that a lot of people are uncomfortable with me using the word “bride” - a word associated with women as property - to describe a man. For many centuries marriage was about the transfer of property (the bride) from one man (the father) to another man (the groom), in some places accompanied by the payment of a dowry or bride price. Is calling myself a “bride” offensive because it relegates a “privileged” man to the status of a woman? I'll be the first to admit that it would have been better if I'd never uttered those eight words - not because they aren't true, but simply because they gave the conservative forces something else to use against me. It was a stupid thing to say, and I should have known better.
What I should have said was something like this: “Gay and lesbian people grow up with the same hopes that other people do - that they'll be able to celebrate their love for one another with family and friends gathered around, pledging their support for the faithful, monogamous, lifelong-intentioned, holy vows they've just taken. I, too, have always longed for such a day.”
The worst part is that it's reminiscent of the years and years that I had to self-censor everything I said, so as not to give away the fact that I was gay. Gay and lesbian people learn at an early age to filter every single word before uttering it, straining out anything that might indicate who we really are on the inside. I know from my own experience, and from that of countless others, that this is an exercise in self-alienation. In a nanosecond we listen in our heads to what we're about to say and, before speaking, edit out anything that might indicate to the listener that we're gay. We get really, really good at it, until it becomes second nature. But it takes a toll on our souls.
This may not sound like oppression - it's not the same as being thrown into prison or burnt at the stake - but it's one of the silent, painful results of oppression. The result of any oppression is living in fear - fear of discovery, rejection and retribution. It's what most gay and lesbian people live with every day, all over the world.
A fellow bishop, responding to my “June bride” comment, recently questioned the appropriateness of my having a civil union just before the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference of the bishops of the Anglican Communion. He suggested that to spare the communion further distress, Mark and I should cancel our plans.
Why a civil union? Why take advantage of the new civil law permitting such a social arrangement, provided for by the state of New Hampshire to support the stability and societal good that comes from having committed, faithful gay families in the state?
Mark and I have been together for 20 years. In much the same way that women have done for countless generations, Mark left a great career with the Peace Corps to make a life with me and my daughters in New Hampshire. I'd made it clear right from the beginning that I'd never leave them. For all that time, we've shared our lives in every aspect. Although a fiercely private person, Mark wholeheartedly supported me in responding to God's call to the episcopate, and when my election took place, and ever since, he's stood by my side - in the uncomfortable limelight - as my partner and spouse.
We've dealt with all the ramifications of being a gay couple in our culture. All the protections that exist for heterosexual couples were not automatically available to us. At considerable cost, we legally contracted some of these: durable power of attorney for financial and medical decisions, inheritance (of course, an inheritance tax would be imposed on him as if he and I were complete strangers), a trust for him and our children. But literally hundreds of rights and protections afforded heterosexual couples at the utterance of “I do” are not available to us. The kind of protections that became instantly available to Britney Spears - who, on a lark, decided one night in Las Vegas to get married - are not available to Mark and me despite 20 years of love and fidelity.
Now that some - though not even half - of these rights and protections have been afforded by an act of the New Hampshire legislature, why would we not take advantage of them? If loving one's spouse should come at the top of the list of one's priorities and commitments, how or why would I say to Mark: “We really shouldn't do this because some people in the Anglican Communion will be upset”? Our union will not be marriage, with the more than one thousand federal and state rights that instantly accrue to a traditional married couple. But it will offer us something. Does Mark not deserve - do we not deserve - the protections now available to us?
Now I am being accused of intentionally poking a finger in Lambeth's eye by scheduling the service in June. But if we'd waited until after Lambeth to announce our intentions, I'd be just as severely criticised for having been disingenuous and secretive about the civil union to assure an invitation to Lambeth. There is no time when our civil union will be acceptable to many in the Anglican Communion. But I will not be irresponsible to the partner and love of my life just to avoid giving offence.
Why not just a civil ceremony? Why a blessing, too? When I testified before legislative committees for legal civil unions in New Hampshire I argued for separating the civil right of unions from the religious rite of blessing. Mark and I will solemnise our union in a building owned by the state, signifying the civil authority for this union, then proceed across the street to St Paul's church, where we will give thanks for our union and ask God's - and the gathered community's - blessing on us. We contemplated participating in a simple Eucharist, without any words of blessing, out of deference to the Anglican Communion. But does anyone think that the headlines would have read “Gay bishop carefully steers clear of offending communion”? And because the blessing of unions has gone on in the Diocese of New Hampshire since 1996 (seven years before my election), why should the bishop not be entitled to the same pastoral care offered to other people in the diocese?
But why not just make it a “private” service - a solution offered by some in the Anglican Communion? But “private blessing” is an oxymoron. Although our service will be by invitation only, and out of sight of the press, our understanding of marriage is that the couple make their vows public, in the presence of the gathered community, seeking the community's prayers and assistance in being faithful to those vows.
To relegate the blessing of a marriage to a private, secretive venue is to violate its very nature. When I was growing up I could never have imagined same-sex couples being “out”, never mind being married or partners in a civil union. There were no role models for a happy, productive life as a gay or lesbian person - no Billie Jean King or Greg Louganis, no Ellen DeGeneres, no Ambassador James Hormel, no Congressman Barney Frank. We had not yet been told that Walt Whitman, Tennessee Williams and W.H. Auden were all gay; nor did we know that it was a renowned pacifist, Bayard Rustin, who happened to be gay, who taught Martin Luther King Jr about non-violent resistance. My life might have been very different had I known these things.
Our civil union will no doubt be reported by the press. I can't stop that. But I can rejoice that somewhere in Idaho or Ontario or Sussex there's a gay boy or a lesbian girl who will read about it and know that they, too, can aspire to a healthy, whole life with a person of the same sex - and that they don't have to give up their faith along the way. It might occur to them that they, too, can put their sexuality and their spirituality together in a way that makes for happiness and spiritual depth. Like me, they may have “always dreamt of being a June bride”. But unlike me, they will know it is possible.
Ping!
God will not be mocked.
Hundreds? I'd like to see a list.
Ping.
He is undoubtedly the most selfish man of this century.
“To relegate the blessing of a marriage to a private, secretive venue is to violate its very nature.”
Er...he seems to ignore the fact that a homosexual *marriage* is a violation of nature.
...my wife and I are friends with an Episcopal priest and his wife...he’s in his early 40s and wonders aloud if he’ll ever get his retirement...he works very hard for a modest salary and is a good family man... privately he will tell you he is worried for the future of his congregation....they are aging, dying off and are not being replaced....and we live in the South where church-going has always been part of the culture....as congregations get smaller, members suffer church fatigue....too many committees for too few people....there’s financial suffering too when the church budget shrinks due to declining membership....the people in this article are selfish....they’re killing the church.
Probably that idiot Spong, which I sure he had a lot to do with dropping standards.
This is the major reason I quit the Church. About 60 years ago, the seminaries began to be populated with liberal revisionists and that crap is now coming home. I weep for what these idiots have done to my church. I wonder is he’s a NAMBLA member? I wouldn’t be surprised. We need more prayer!
In other, related news, THIS...
...is a beautiful swan!
and the ex-wife suffers another humiliation. One of his daughters looks like she’s under 20.
Anglican Church died a long time ago, now folks are just having fun with the corpse.
“We need more prayer!”
Prayer is very effective. ;-) These liberal revisionists inflicted a great deal of damage on my Church as well, but it is now in the process of being purged. To eradicate such evil takes time and a great deal of consistent and faithful prayer.
They are all so sweet and pretty. Cafeterian christians.
Is that a Druid wedding?
Can Episcopalian/Anglican bishops get married after being ordained?
(Or is it like the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox men who cannot marry once ordained, and cannot be a bishop if married?)
This is an image too absurd to even contemplate.
He SHOULD have worn his bridal gown!. Why not just take everything out of the closet and display it to the flock?
Oh please. The Anglican Church is thriving world wide and domestically. The Episcopal Church, however, is dying on the vine.
I wonder why the article referred to him as an Anglican, rather than Episcopalian? Seems a bit disingenuous. I know that the Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion, but ‘Anglican’ is the identity that the conservative orthodox are identifying with as they disaffiliate with the Episcopals.
Why does he think he has to stay an Episcopalian?
Are you implying rights for necrophiliac couples who want to marry?
Gives a whole new meaning to “til death do us part”!
Perhaps what you mean to say is that as the Anglican Communions is further mired in sheepdip, those pockets within the communion that reject some of the nonsense are seeing new members arriving from the loony congragations?
If you point to data that shows Anglicans thriving I would love to see it (as it wold warm my heart to see increasing numbers rejecting the analism of Robinson and his ilk). All I ever hear is that the churches in England and the USA are perennially empty. Where is this thriving going on, and what do you mean by thriving?
Just sickening. All of those whitened sephulcres in phony vestments will have much to answer for.
Just an added thought. The Roman Catholics have been ordaining homosexuals for years, but they take the vow of chastity. I know it’s a weak excuse, but the Episcopalians didn’t have that excuse. I wonder how many E priests are homosexuals. Probably quite a few. Just another indictment to the present House of Bishops. Homosexuality is NOT an alternative lifestyle, it is sin pure and simple. All of that said. I doesn’t mean that homosexuals are to be discriminated against in the US secular world. They pay their taxes just like the rest of us and deserve equality before the secular law.
He wants to attach himself to the growing Anglican Church and not the dying Episcopal church (that he helped kill). In doing so he is trying to give credence to the idea of gay marriage, trying to make it look like it has mainstream support. Very dishonest! But what else would you expect from this person?
Many many churches (and whole dioceses) have left the Episcopal Church and joined various ‘alternative’ groups still within the Anglican Communion. My own church is an example - we voted to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate with CANA (The Convocation of Anglicans in North America). Our congregation has grown as a result as orthodox Christians seeking liturgical worship have flocked to our church. We’re also getting folks from other Episcopal Churches who have left due to the ECA’s heresy.
Many large, thriving churches have done the same thing. Indeed, it’s the orthodox Anglican churches that are thriving (witness Truo in Wash DC.).
Here are a couple of sites that will help you see how vibrant this movement is:
http://www.united-anglicans.org/
http://www.canaconvocation.org/
I confess to a raw nerve when people paint all Anglicans with the same brush, or when folks discount the mainline churches with such derision. There are countless orthodox Christians trapped in these churches. People who need our prayers. People who don’t want to attend a mega-church or church with endless ‘praise’ songs and no meat. These people need our prayer. The head may be rotten in most of these mainline denominations, but we need to do what we can to save the body.
Oh, come on now. You don't really think any of that matters in this situation do you?
Everything is up for grabs including the Trinity and the Resurrection.
“Leave Vicki alone!”
Amen.
We probably could leave Vicki alone if she would stop thrusting herself (did I say that?) into the limelight. She just likes the attention too much.
My point - or the point that might also be true, but I was inquiring about - is simply that this is wrong on so many levels.
Even if one was dumb enought to think that “anal marriage” was holy, it is possibly not permitted even for a hetero bishop to get married while he is a bishop.
Why did he want to formalize this anal union?
Because he wanted the whole community to tell him what a good boy he is and how special he is.
Its all about meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Mark my words: it won’t be too long before this crowd will encourage sex acts directly on the altar as a sacramental ceremony.
Any doubt?
Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 indicates that certain members of that church had been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.
John 3:16
Revelation 3:20
that's the point now, isn't it?
Homosexuals are like flies. Whatever they don't eat, they sh#t on.
I feel sorry for his daughters. To realize that their dad does the nasty with another man. Too much.....
“Why does he think he has to stay an Episcopalian?”
...they’re looking into other options right now.
“I feel sorry for his daughters.”
me too....they’re probably good kids.
My father used to take me to New Hampshire on fishing trips when I was a little boy. What great memories.
The last time I was there, I saw some really tripped out teenager, the kind that you wouldn't want to know where you lived, talking to himself very animatedly in an intersection in the middle of a tiny, nowhere town.
Those childhood memories are just that. You cannot, as they say, go home.
Are our laws secular? Doesn’t man want to be lawless, and do as he wants? Total rebellion, living in open rebellion, against the One True God, ahhhh, liberty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.