“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.
In the Eye of the Storm, by Gene Robinson, £12.99, Canterbury Press. Available
from Times BooksFirst for £11.69, free p&p, 0870 1608080,
timesonline.co.uk/ booksfirst
If a man loves 'Jesus' as the Bible defines, then he has no need for a 'sexual' relationship with another man.
If the relationship with another man is not sexual, then it is simply a special friendship and needs no declaration of marriage.
To take pay is to rob the body of the church.
Carol, Midlands, UK
Gen 2v.24-25:For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. Intercourse between a man and a woman is not a result of the fall but is a gift from God, corrupted by the Fall
Katharine, London,
We can't separate the Old and New Testaments, just as we can't separate Jesus and God. Jesus is God, and was involved in Creation: John 1v2-3: He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made.
Not directly relevant; just being pedantic about Jonathan's point.
Katharine, London,
"Not my will thine be done," prayed Jesus, the Good Shepherd. He surrendered. Men like Gene Robinson do not. He has a docile manner yet is defiant, forcing his own will above God's. Unfaithful. Scripture warns about leaders intentionally sinning and encouraging others to do the same.
Cheryl, Foothill Ranch, USA
I want my daughters! I want my boyfriend! I want to marry him! I want to be Bishop with all its trappings! I will lead my flock astray! I will go to Lambeth even if I've been uninvited! I want, I want! Me, me, ME! Where is CHRIST in your life? You are bereft of self-sacrifice and self-denial.
Aileen, London, UK
To live free from criticism? To live without having to think about what you say before you say it? Who lives life in that way, gay or straight? From weakness of character, Gene Robinson is demanding of the world more than any reasonable adult would expect; certainly any religious leader.
christopher menzhuber, St. Paul, USA
Yes Carolann there is. It's in Matthew 15 and was one of many of Jesus's sayings aimed at the Pharisees, a group - lest we forget - that was obsessed with the minutiae of laws and codes deriving from the Hebrew Torah. Sound like any Christian grouping you can think of?
Gareth Morgan, London,
Yes Carolann there is. It's in Matthew 15 and was one of many of Jesus's sayings aimed at the Pharisees, a group - lest we forget - that was obsessed with the minutiae of laws and codes deriving from the Hebrew Torah and taking a literalist view. Sound like any Christian grouping you can think of?
Gareth Morgan, London,
Yes he is such a modest, honest man. He admitted that he doesn't belief parts of the creed and can only say the parts he believes...what a wonderful man of God... The blind leading the blind...isn't there a passage about such in that old, outdated, fictional book called the bible?
Carolann, Seabeck, USA
Some one appears to have claimed that Jesus made MAN and WOMAN. You're missing up your Testaments. And besides, all sexual intercourse is deemed to be a result of the Fall.
Jonathan, london, england
Greg, I think you misunderstand the Anglican Communion. The ABC is not the equivalent of the Pope. He is more "Primus inter pares" and nor is there the same sense of hierarchy in the AC as with the RC Church. Robinson was duly elected by the Episcopal Church under its own independent processes.
Gareth Morgan, London,
Gareth: looks like you are right about him not lying to his wife. So I retract that statement. But that doesn't change the facts of the Anglican communion being subservient to his aggressive homosexual agenda, and his arrogantly ignoring the authority of the Bishop of Canterbury.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Greg, Perhaps it says it all that you think prejudice is OK in any context. Gene did not live a lie to his wife and was very open and honest about it, or so says his ex-wife in the documentary film "For the Bible Tells Me So" and she was at his consecration and openly supports him.
Gareth Morgan, London,
Gareth"Gene proclaims the radical love of God. "
By splitting the Anglican communion through manipulation? Nice try, Gareth. In anycase there is nothing wrong with being prejudiced against liars such as Gene Robinson, who effectively lied to his wife. It is outrageous that he is a bishop.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Correct Greg, his actions do speak louder. They speak of someone prepared to walk courageously with the Spirit against those who spew prejudice and hypocrisy using the "shield" of the bible. Gene proclaims the radical love of God.
He is also a warm-hearted, modest and charismatic man in person.
Gareth Morgan, London,
Ettienne:"they restore ones faith that out there there are sweet and caring people"
Gene Robinson really does not come over as sweet and caring. Perhaps in person he has a nice demeanor. But his actions speak louder than that.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Growing up my greatest fear was what they would do to my daddy for preaching the Gospel. Now I am afraid of bringing children into this world. I'd rather die at the hands of an Islamic radical for preaching the gospel of Christ Jesus than have my child grow up in this. Jesus give us wisdom& truth.
Shaguftah, Karachi, Pakistan
I think it's wonderful for two men two enjoy a deep, life-long friendship. Surely Jesus would approve of such a union. However--Jesus does not approve of sodomy. It violates. Jesus created Man, & Woman, and it's THEIR union that is wholeheartedly blessed by God. (Please take an honest look.)
L.G. Marshall, Carlsbad, USA
the world is full of horrid hateful people....it seems mark and gene are two wonderful gentle guys...thank god that people like them exist.....they restore ones faith that out there there are sweet and caring people....may god bless them
ettienne, bad lauterberg, germany
There is no doubt in my mind that +Gene was & is empowered by the Holy Spirit. How else could a person survive such bile & vile treatment & still be such an agent of Grace? Some day when most of us have entered Life Eternal, he will be entered into the Calendar of Lesser Feasts & Fasts by Gen. Conv.
Helen, priest, providence village, TX, USA
BRAVO!, to Brian of Ann Arbor
Janet, Tryon, USA
May they have a long and happy life together. His courage is admirable in the face of all the hatred he is receiving.
David, Florida, USA
I have several questions that beg to be answered:
Where is the 'gay gene'?
If the Gay Gene exists, is a person 'destined' to be gay?
If a person has this Gay Gene, does he/she have to allow it to function? (many straight people obstain from sex, why not gay people?)
leo west, Hong Kong,
Wow. I am so glad and blessed to have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. I think its amazing how now we all have become our own infallible interpreters of scripture. Judging from the fruit of this church, I would say the Holy Spiirt left their episcopacy a long time ago.
Brian, Ann Arbor,
Beautiful. Awesome. Thank you to one truthful and devout man.
Amanda, slo, usa
That's 'Episcopalian,' thank you very much.
Susan, Tiffin, USA
Am born&raised an Epicopalian. G. Robinson has to be the most selfish,self-centered SOB in the priesthood. Whatever happened to self-sacrifice? Five years ago lay,clergy &bishops decided it was okay for priests to shack up. We're "The If It Feels Good Just Do It Church of the What's Happenin' Now."
Susan, Tiffin, USA
alan, germany:"Believers, take your pick!"
The help of The Holy Spirit is enough: it isn't necessary to depend on the false crutches of the biblical literalists or the liberals. Christ promised that God's own Spirit would guide us in to all truth. That what Catholics believe.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Seems to me you either accept the bible literally and become a fundamentalist ...
or you interpret the bible any way you like (to fit your own needs), so that the bible loses all binding moral authority.
Believers, take your pick!
alan, germany,
Being a follower of Christ must surely mean that we are to be hated by the world. And, there is very little love in the world these days. As a Christian, I deeply respect the Bishop and his partner for their courage and grace and example to us all. May God bless them and their marriage with joy.
Br. Ron Fender, BSG, Chattanooga,
hi all just a question here about homosexuality, is it anything other than sex? because i love hundreds of men but i dont want to have sex with them. surley its just the attainment of sexual pleasure not love that is involved, to say its "just the way i am" is not to know who you are, or god
mike, cornwall, england
Love it...
What would Jesus do!
F.S.Summers, NY,
Oh dear! When will we all learn that the key of the interpretation of Scripture is context, context, context!. We have to attempt to understand Scripture (which I treasure) in the context in which the words were first written, before applying them to our own situation and contexts.
Ian, Bishops Stortford, Herts
It's interesting to see how people handle the conflict between personal priorities and following God's calling. Perhaps we need to rediscover 'taking up our cross' and denial of self. I seem to remember something about that in the gospels!
Bill, Yeovil, UK
And if you don't believe me Greg, check out Walter Brueggemann who is probably the most renowned living Old Testament scholar who is clear that you cannot take one aspect of the Holiness Code of Leviticus as having universal importance over and above other parts, ie. its either all or nothing.
Gareth Morgan, London,
Will of New York City writes that those who think Mr Robinson ought not to attend must think themselves sinless. We certainly do know that we are sinners Will. But we do not escape responsibility from our sins by cajoling others into pretending that they are not sins.
Tam Earl-Aine, Cheltenham,
The Bible is 'explicit' that Jesus was executed, was resurrected and that He will return at the on the final day of history to judge everyone who has ever lived. Liberals should not leave the church, but they must defer to a high view and a strong understanding of the Bible as propositional truth
McGinty, Glasgow, UK
Just as ambassadors for countries present the policies and beliefs of their countries, as opposed to their own personal opinions or feelings, ....as Christians, we are ambassadors of The Word, as written in our Holy Book, The Bible. Our personal opinions and feelings are irrelevant.
Diane Ikonen, Sudbury, Canada
Sophie:"The Bible is not 'explicit' about anything, it is all interpretation"
Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Interpret away, Sophie.
Liberals look for ways to invert scripture. But really they should be honest and leave the church.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
"The Holiness Code in Leviticus condemns ..." That just about says it. Jesus condemned hypocrisy and advocated loving one's neighbour as oneself. Christians are supposed to be followers of - who? Jesus, actually.
chris, Dunoon, Scotland
The Rt. Rev. Bishop Gene Robinson is duly elected, consecrated and accepted ( House of Bishops) as a bishop of the Anglican Communion. To say he is not worthy to attend raises questions as to who does think they are worthy to attend. Those who criticize him must think themselves sinless. Not true
Will, New York City, USA
He can choose whatever kind of private lifestyle he wants in New Hampshire so long as it's legal there. But he wants to be a consecrated apostle for something which has always been roundly rejected by the scriptures and by the Church - and he can't figure out why it is divisive!
Vincent Coles, Forfar,
No Greg, the bible is not "so explicitly against homosexual acts". Your interpretation of it is so but many Christians acknowledge the importance/relevance of scripture without seeing it as some dictated book from God. They respect its culture, (human) authors, its audience, its theology and variety
Gareth Morgan, London,
Gene Robinson, is seeking his own will and not that of Jesus. Why doesn't he just resign his post and do what he wants? Stop trying to re-invent Christianity and giving people reason to profane God. How about the works that Christ did? Preaching the Gospel with signs & wonders? Glorifying God!!
David Pitan, Surrey, UK
it is to the leaderships great shame that they are not leading the church in the 21th century. just ignor the nasty bits from the bible as you already do elseware and work for the benefit of society. gene robinson and bishop tutu seem to be exactly the type of people who should be in the church
bob, london,
Bishop Robinson has behaved in all this in a very ethical and Christ-like manner, despite the vile and despicable way he has been treated by Rowan Williams, the ABC, in not inviting him to Lambeth.
Phoebe King, Arlington VA, USA
The Bible is not 'explicit' about anything, it is all interpretation. In terms of sexual morality, it is not even explicit about requiring consent from a partner. Do people want to take that at face value as well or is that just 'of its time'? I'll take my chance with my secular morality
Sophie, Liverpool,
'men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet'. i believe that the comments "that they will be given over to their own perversion' also appears in scripture.
stephen baron , leith, tasmania
When will Arkona and his group turn their efforts to their country which is falling into dispair, and let go of attacking "love" and God's plan. Isn't "hypocrasy" the very element Jesus preached against!Their looking at the speck in their neighbor's eye, while that big log is stuck in theirs.
Steven Leong, Aiea, Hawaii USA
Exactly how do you justify leaving your wife for a man and then expect to carry on as if nothing has happened? Never mind when you are a Bishop, bearing in mind that scripture says a Bishop should have no more than one wife!!!
James Brown, Swansea, Wales
The Bible is so explicitly against homosexual genital acts that the only way around it is to dismiss such tracts as being "of the time".."no longer relevant" in which case the authority of the Bible is effectively annulled and Gene's love of scripture quite meaningless.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
The question is not whether he and his partner are entitled to the same rights as others. The question is whether he should be a bishop. The article is more about rights than about responsibilities. A bishop should perhaps have the opposite priorities. The Holiness Code in Leviticus condemns...
Joe, Baltimore, USA