Too Much To Dream

That link took me to a story about Arnold and Collyvornia, which I found to be right on the money...

But I just couldn't find the gay bishop story. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.

Here we are going back to the assumption that all gay relationships are based on sex instead of love. Do you believe that no men or women who have gotten divorced should be in the clergy? To say that Robinson got divorced solely to "do the hokey pokey" with other men is kind of reductionist and assumes a lot about his motivations. Does that mean that everyone who has ever gotten divorced did it solely so they could get laid?

Do you, perhaps believe that it would have been more "godly" for Robinson to lie to his wife and his kids and himself every day for the rest of his life by staying?

As for the phrase "life-intentioned" which Robinson used to describe his relationship with his partner, I do not think the bishop used this phrase with the intention of leaving himself an escape hatch. He did it because there isn't a word to use when you can't say you're married because it's against the law. Can you suggest a workable alternate phrasing?

D

David -

If you're coming from the point of view that marriage is a sacred vow (which episcopalians are), then it shouldn't matter whether you leave it for a man or a woman. And although Christianity teaches forgiveness for sin, it also teaches selflessness.

In this case, it can be argued that a bishop of whatever preference might not want to continue as a church leader and figurehead if he cannot uphold the sanctity of the marriage vow. He's not going to hell, but maybe the better thing for his CHURCH would be if he served God in a different capacity. That is selflessness--something this fellow seems to utterly lack.

Thanks for pointing that out, Andrea. I am Episcopalian, and that was one of the issues that's been bugging me. I was trying to explain it to a friend in email yesterday, but I could just send her the link now :)

Every time I see Robinson, I think what a narcissitic troll he is. To fulfill his selfish desires he broke up his family and left his children. And now to fulfill his selfish desires he's willing to break up his church. What a contemptible person.

Divisive? Can we call him divisive? I think so. I really liked Canon Robinson's Good Friday/Easter comparison.

I have lots of links to General Convention news at my nifty new TypePad site, so wander in if'n you want.

Andi: scroll down.

David: I don't care about gay or straight. What I agree with Lileks on is what he said about Robinson leaving his wife and kids. I don't care what sex you have fallen in "better," "for real this time," or whatever excuse you come up with for it, "love"; leaving your wife and kids for another person, male or female, is a scummy thing to do. Sure, people do it all the time -- I even used to beg my squabbling parents to get a divorce when I was a kid. Of course, by that time I was a teenager and knew everything and didn't need my parents (or so I thought). But when I was younger you bet I'd not have been thrilled that my father or mother was going to gallivant off with some other person because of some stupid emotion like "love." That would be how I would have thought of it before the age of twelve, and now that the heat of my teenage and twenty-something years has worn off, that is how I think of it now. It's not that I don't think love and all that is cool beans, but I think that fidelity is even more important, especially when you have already made someone bear your offspring.

Now, according to this article, the good bishop has been in his relationship 27 years, and he claims it is now "celibate." Well I have no reason to believe he is lying. But 27 years ago was 1976. Ah, yes. The seventies. People were "experimenting" left and right; they called it "exploring their sexuality." It wasn't called the Me Decade for nothing. At least Robinson stayed in the relationship he forged then. And at least he seems to get along swimmingly with his kids. But still; if gays want to get married, or have their relationships given some sort of equal standing with heterosexual marriages, then they should maybe consider the state of marriage as it currently stands. I am not saying we should go back to the bad old days of "staying together for the children," but I think that married couples with kids should not get to approach life as if becoming single and for all practical purpose childless again (being a divorced parent "involved" with your kids is not the same as staying home and helping to raise them, not by a long shot) is an option for -- if you will excuse me -- frivolous reasons such as "I've fallen in love with someone else." You can fall out of love just as easily -- you did it with your first spouse, didn't you? Do gay people want marriage to be a serious commitment or not? If not, then there is nothing stopping gay couple from visiting lawyers and drawing up papers giving each other inheritance rights and hospital visitation rights and all the other benefits married couples are supposed to have with each other, barring some tax and insurance things (and there are ways around that too, I am sure, and there are some companies that will give gay partners spousal-type benefits). All they don't get to have is that special societal status of "they're married!" Well, I'm single, I don't have it either, and I have survived.

As far as the church and god stuff goes, I'm not a Christian and I don't believe in god, so I don't care much about that. I do find it... interesting, though, that the Anglicans decided on the one candidate that would piss off the most of their followers. But that's their problem if 95% of their church breaks off with them to go Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or something like that. (Actually, it shouts to me of a passive-aggressive "I hate my profession!" type thing, but that's just me, I'm cynical.)

Actually, I think we could do with a bit more "staying together for the kids." That's the biggest gripe I have with Robinson. One daughter at least (the one up on the podium with him) was 3 or 4 when they divorced.

What I've read about him and his history, he had doubts regarding his sexuality even before he and his wife were married, doubts he shared with her. That they went ahead and got hitched shows some poor judgment on both their parts; that they then had two kids shows even worse.

And, from the stories I've read, his current relationship took place long after the divorce (in fact, after the ex-wife got remarried). It doesn't actually sound like he left the wife & kids to run off with a lover, but to simply not be married any longer (and it sounds like it was a mutual agreement).

I still think the kid thing sucks (even if they both agreed to it), but that aside, I don't have anything to criticize.

The rhetoric is very pretty, but I don't know what kind of relationship the bishop has with his children, and I doubt Lileks does either. All divorces in which children are involved could be painted negatively...perhaps divorce should be illegal "for the children".

"All divorces in which children are involved could be painted negatively...perhaps divorce should be illegal "for the children".

When divorce was illegal in Britain during the 1700's, the result was out right abandonment or bigamy. In those days you could literally disappear off the face of the earth as far as the government knew and they could do very little about it. Some marriages were dissolved by "wife-sale". Usually with a prearranged "buyer" and in a public market.

The present "liberal" divorce laws allow the process and yet the fallout can be regulated. Can't say that it is best approach, but if you make divorce illegal you are probably just asking for a different set of social problems as a result. Banning things strictly and outright does not guarantee any more compliance.

Fixing the problem, still falls back to individuals taking responsibility for their actions, sticking to their promises and being more moral and ethical people.

The churches need to step up and do more as well.

To make things better requires a change of heart in individuals and to make those changes more widespread.

Standing around pointing fingers at others, screaming the sky is falling, or saying you are a victim does not accomplish anything.