BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Episcopalian

19 comments on Episcopalian

Episcopalian
: First and foremost, let me pat the Episcopalians on the back (if such a touch would not be seen as sexually inappropriate by some looney parishioner). They elevated Bishop Robinson. They left it to locals to decide on holding gay committment ceremonies and thus blesses those that do occur. The Presbyterians should be half as Christian.

: James Lileks said one good thing about gay marriage in his Newhouse column:

Does gay marriage threaten heterosexual marriage? Of course! Who knows how many women woke last week to find notes on the kitchen table: “Dearest Wife, now that homosexual sodomy is legal in Texas, I have to go try it. Took the cell phone. Farewell.”

No, if heterosexual marriage is threatened by anything, it’s by heterosexuals. Famous heterosexuals in particular. We see them grinning from the covers of gossip mags, celebrating wedding No. 9 or dissolving marriage No. 14, or just having a hot fling with whatever good-gened, white-toothed cretin is the flavor of the season….

Say what you will about gay marriage, it’s nice to see someone taking the institution seriously.

: But then, on his bleat, Lileks sings a slightly different tune regarding Bishop Robinson. He complains that Robinson should not have left his wife and children just so he could sleep on the other side of the fence — a meme I’ve been seeing on weblogs and in my own comments, below.

Mike at Begging to Differ begs to differ, giving a heartfelt summary of Robinson’s heartfelt struggle with his sexuality and family life and religion, a story well worth reading.

19 responses to “Episcopalian”

  1. Buzz Avatar
    Buzz

    Yeah, yesterday’s was the first Bleat I didn’t like.
    It was positively ignorant. It’s not like homosexual
    men trawl for single women to marry and then dump.
    How does Lileks know what these people went through?

  2. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    Is it inappropriate to ask that people postpone satisfying their immediate desires in order to honor their other obligations? Lileks point is quite clear. If the Good Bishop had left his wife for another woman, he NEVER would have had a shot at his most recent promotion.
    Yet he did effectively that in leaving his marriage for another man. Having kids requires sacrifices. Bishop Robinson had other options that may not have led to immediate gratification, but would have permitted him to honor his obligation to his kids.

  3. Andrea Harris Avatar
    Andrea Harris

    It is obvious to me that Lileks took issue not with the Robinson’s sexual orientation but of the fact that he left his wife and children for reasons in order to take care of (in the interests of “tolerance” I will not use “indulge”) his own needs. This event also illustrates that gay public officials are fast becoming the in-crowd’s new cuddly toy, about whom no one had ever better speak one mean word. Strange, I seem to recall a great deal of fuss over a certain Republican who left his wife and children and later married another woman and how that apparently made him unfit to hold his head up in public ever again… now what was his name… oh yeah, Newt Gingrich.
    And no, I was never a fan of the man, I just remember that the attitude towards his truly bad treatment of his first wife was that since he was a Republican, and that party’s members are always going on about morality, then he should therefore have had a squeaky clean moral character to qualify for whatever political position he was after (I’ve forgotten what it was). So about these church people… you mean they don’t preach all that stuffy jive about morality? Cool! I can go back to church now. I’ve heard you don’t even have to be Christian any more — you can be a druid or something, and you still get the wine and bread.

  4. Andrea Harris Avatar
    Andrea Harris

    Hm. Remove “the” from in front of “Robinson’s” and “for reasons” from in front of “in order to” and my comment will make sense, maybe.

  5. Justin Katz Avatar
    Justin Katz

    Andrea’s got something right: there’s an incredible degree of cuddlyizing going on in all of those various accounts of Robinson’s past. It’s “a story well worth reading,” but not one I’d publish as fiction if I didn’t want to be accused of laying it on a little thick. I don’t question any of the facts (think about it, though: from KY to Temple, a girl’s name, that ubiquitous smuggled Playboy scene), but I do wonder where all that dirt that the media usually loves went. (Such as those “significant relationships” he’d had with men before his marriage.)
    Nonetheless, I don’t see how anything in the story conflicts with Lileks’s judgment: “selfish.” Robinson “fell in love” with his wife and then wondered if he couldn’t find “deeper love” elsewhere after having been with the same person for a long time. I don’t think this is all that uncommon in marriage, even without switches of sides. That’s marriage: a commitment, sometimes requiring work and compromise.
    But no. We must be true to ourselves, as Robinson’s daughter has learned from her father: “no matter the consequences.”
    Why do we need religious figures to tell us what primetime TV provides in the comfort of our own homes and without any sort of commitment?

  6. Misanthropyst Avatar
    Misanthropyst

    “…He complains that Robinson should not have left his wife and children just so he could sleep on the other side of the fence — a meme I’ve been seeing on weblogs and in my own comments, blow….”
    Ah, the power of the unconscious mind…
    [uh, thanks. who says copy editing is no fun? – jeff]

  7. Buzz Avatar
    Buzz

    People keep complaining about “the kids, the kids;” but
    again: what facts does anyone know about the matter?
    Are Dann and Adrea seriously comparing Robinson to
    some ghetto jackass who procreates at will and can’t
    be found when there’s a birthday or bills come due?
    Once again: What do the really know about the matter?
    What do you know?
    Here’s what I know: Robinson’s daughter got up at the
    convention and put in a good word for him. Here’s
    what I suspect: as homosexuality become normalized within
    society, the frequency of screwed up marriages for this
    reason will decline.
    Your argument is a little like: “Gee Mr. Cohen. I’m
    sorry we’re going to take your son away to be Baptized
    because you made a commitment to Christianity.” “But I
    only converted from Judiasm under threat of death!” “Sorry,
    you made a commitment. Never mind that we think Jews
    are devil spawn, you made a commitment.”

  8. balbulican Avatar
    balbulican

    Church and state both agree that marriages can fail, for a variety of reasons, and both sanction divorce…it was never a crime, and it is no longer a sin. Yup, marriages require work and compromise. And sometimes, despite the work and compromise, they don’t work anyway. This one didn’t. So…?
    Stripped to the essential argument, Lileks (and the posters above who agree with him) seem to be arguing that a consensual divorce should render an individual ineligible for ordination as a bishop: that’s a pretty draconian position.

  9. mog Avatar
    mog

    So he left his wife and children, yeah that sucks. But it sucks worse to be the wife of a man that is trying to make it work living in the closet but is NOT attracted to her cause she is the wrong sex. Yes, there can be love and caring between a gay man and a straight woman but it is not the same cause no matter how much she tries, he will not find her sexually attractive. If the wife is someone that abhors sex and only does it cause it’s her duty, then it wouldn’t matter. But most women like to feel desired. And staying married in a loveless, sexless or severely limited sexual relationship is a living hell. So, although he could be considered shirking his parental duties, it did his ex wife a favor leaving her free to find someone who really desires her.

  10. Catherine Avatar
    Catherine

    What I think is the point with Lileks and now myself is that selfishness is so commonplace.
    I was not swayed by Mike because I believe the wife is at fault too. She went into the marriage “eyes wide open” with a gay man. What? With their fingers crossed they entered marriage? Mike laments (according to Mike) Boo and Gene’s “passionless” marriage. However, if he’s gay, was it ever full of passion? Marriage is not about “passion.” You don’t promise to stay married until death or it becomes passionless. This I think is really the issue Lileks and I have with the excuses people make for divorce.
    The myth of “happiness”: My sister (and many people who divorce) was “unfulfilled” and she left when her youngest was 14 who then had tremendous problems. She didn’t have a bad husband. He was faithful, supporting, hard worker, good dad. She remarried to years later and got everything she wanted in a man. Now she laments getting what she asked for. She is resigned, but not “happy” like she imagined. This is often the reason for divorce. The passion waned after kids and day to day concerns (money being a big issue in most marriages). While they are married, the marriage is one long divorce negotiation of who gets what, and who wins this battle over this and that.
    Another myth: It is also popular to say that staying married for the children is wrong because your children would want you to be happy and they will be happier if you are happy. BS! I really doubt the story about the Robinsons. At 21 the kids may understand, but at 8 and 4 they wouldn’t support it. When I was a child, I didn’t think once about my parents happy. If I had to choose between my mother blissfully happy 5 miles away or suicidal in the next room, I would have chosen the next room every time. Most children wood outside of the horrors of physical abuse. I had friends growing up who had parents who were arguing fighters and Dad often left in a huff and sometimes didn’t come home overnight. Those friends never said “my parents might be happier if they got divorced,” but lived in fear of their parents divorce. The kids would have been happier if their parents didn’t behave so badly and kept their petty arguments to themselves. I think as adults thinking about our own interests we forget what a nightmare divorce is for children.
    The point is people don’t take responsibility for their choices and personal happiness has taken over responsibility for choices you make (marrying, having children). To me, that is the point of Lileks essay. He went in with his eyes wide open into his own marriagg. The successful marriages I know (and they aren’t always happy – no one is) are the ones who place family over their personal bliss. They also have close relationships with their extended families that reinforce that.
    One such couple who thought of splitting up in year two (mostly over money troubles) of their marriage was told NO by their parents who said “you made your bed, now work on making it.” With respect for their families, they did, stopped yelling, started talking and started accepting their differences. They are not the same people 10 years later and happiness depends on the day of the week, they still gripe about this and that now and then, but they have happy healthy kids and a great partnership based on these values.
    If more people appreciate what they have and feel lucky grateful for it rather than wishing for some vague idea of “happiness,” “passion,” and perfection, then we will value marriage more.

  11. balbulican Avatar
    balbulican

    The point is, we’re all judging the Robinsons’ marriage through the lens of our own experiences and beliefs, which have nothing to do with their reality or their choices. Are he and his wife happier now than they would have been had they remained married? Seems likely, but I don’t know. Does God prefer couples who make a mistake to suffer together? Seems unlikely, but again, I don’t know.
    If you don’t agree with the Robinsons’ choices, then don’t ask them for marital advice (God knows I wouldn’t ask most priests either). But what does that have to do with his fitness to serve as a bishop?

  12. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    Catherine’s comments are right on track.
    Marriages do fail for a lot of reasons. They do take a lot of work. Lord, knows I haven’t been the best husband in the world, but you just have to work to make things the best that they can be.
    Illustrations have been offered demonstrating that analogies are usually poor substitutes for debate.
    The bottom line is that this man is seeking to advance himself into a position of moral authority. Were he seeking to climb a corporate ladder, his marital past would be irrelevant in most cases. He has demonstrated that he places his own gratification above any prior commitments. Such prioritization is generally in conflict with Christian teachings of self sacrifice and personal service to others.
    Thus his fitness for higher service is in question.
    Bad analogy warning****
    It’s like a civil engineer who’s previous designs collapsed spectacularly seeking to join the board of directors at a major engineering house. While this particular engineer might still find suitable work in the engineering field, his past substantial failures will disqualify him from leading more technically involved efforts.
    Having standards is not a bad thing.

  13. Catherine Avatar
    Catherine

    Ugh – sorry for my grammar and spelling boo boos (happy should be happiness – wood should be would).

  14. Justin Katz Avatar
    Justin Katz

    I’m with Dann and Catherine.
    Even adjusting for some of the journalistic Photoshopping in Robinson’s story, if he were just the average gay man who left his wife to “be true to himself,” he would be in the ninety-something percentile of that group for responsibility. Judging him, under those circumstances, would only be possible with a heavy disclaimer of being just general suggestions dependant upon the actual reality.
    But Robinson’s activity turns Christianity on its ear. Said his daughter Ella: “God made us who we are supposed to be.” That’s not Christianity. That’s Oprahinanity. Christians of all major denominations believe that God made us who we are, but that we are supposed to take that flawed whole and work toward becoming who we are supposed to be, and it invalidates all claims to Truth of Christianity to use the tools that Robinson used in his exegesis of the Bible to make who he wants to be compatible with who he ought to be (e.g., “Oh, well, they never envisioned homosexuality like I intend to practice it.” What couldn’t you say that about 2,000 years later?).
    As for staying together for the children: I remember fielding that “what would you think if we got divorced” question when I was a young kid. Like a good little student of my society I explained that, although I would prefer my parents stay together, they had to do what would make them happy. Inside, I was thinking, “No!”
    (Incidentally, my parents stayed together, and what do you know, within a year, their relationship had improved.)
    P.S., Why do I get the feeling that most of those who support Robinson won’t be but so concerned about addressing the “argument from Christianity”?

  15. Buzz Avatar
    Buzz

    OK- Since no one picked up the gauntlet, I ask again
    what does anyone really know about Gene Robinson or his
    divorce ? What does Lileks know about it? I apologize for
    earlier muddying the issue with a poor analogy, so I will
    Google the subject of Gene Robinson’s divorce. From the Star Tribune:

    Robinson says as a boy he became aware that he was not attracted to women.
    As an adult, he spent two years in therapy seeking a “cure” for his homosexual
    urgings. He told his girlfriend about his sexual struggles, but they married anyway in
    1972, moving to rural New Hampshire and having two daughters. But Robinson
    eventually realized he would not change and the two divorced.

    From the Witichita Eagle:

    He also met his first love, Isabella Martin, nicknamed “Boo.”
    “Within a month of meeting Boo, I had told her all this. I didn’t want to mislead
    her,” he says. “We both cried and said we could deal with it.”
    They married in 1972 and moved to rural New Hampshire, where they soon
    had two daughters. But Robinson still felt uncomfortable about his sexuality.
    After more therapy, separately and together, the couple divorced.
    Ella Robinson, his youngest daughter, was 4 at the time of the divorce. She
    remembers little from that time, but says he’s always been an attentive dad —
    in the audience at every horse show and school play.
    Now 21, she said she is proud of the father who taught her “to live for what
    you believe in and who you are.”

    It sounda a lot like lemonade from lemons to me, and maybe
    Lileks should own up that he has never met the man or his
    ex wife or his kids and that he doesn’t know what he is
    talking about. If he has information that the rest of us
    don’t have, he should spill it.

  16. Catherine Avatar
    Catherine

    Buzz, if they made lemonade out of lemons, they would be married now. As I said above, I think she made a mistake too in marrying a man who said he was gay. She put the lives of her children in a very precarious position. She was lucky he was a decent man and didn’t run off and abandon them.
    If he was “truly living with what you believe in and for who you are,” he would be leading the life of the Christian values he supposedly espouses and would have cherished his wife and family. Justin is correct. This is Oprahism. This is where you forsake all others for yourself.
    I support gays in the clergy. I support forgiving sinners and would have no problem with those who have joined my church as one of the priests. I have forgiven those who have stolen from me and those who have fallen to the depths of depravation and asked for forgiveness to be welcomed back into the church. I have watched those people spend the rest of their days being thankful for the forgiveness and giving back 10 times what they have been given out of gratitude and to tend to those who are in the shape they used to be in. That is Christianity, but they don’t become Bishops.
    I would like a Bishop to have led an exemplary life. Sorry, all of you secularists telling me I should accept anyone in this position. I expect and want my elders in the church to be people to look up to. I don’t want to work for someone who breaks company policy and who got rewarded for doing what he wanted at the expense of the people he worked with anymore while I toe the line anymore than I am told to look up to a Bishop who followed his feelings over his responsibility for his actions.
    I don’t know Robinson or what his deeds are. What I hear reported in the papers, by Mike and by Buzz is a man who says “I made a a poor marrying my wife. And rather than deal with the consequences of my mistake I did exactly what I followed my feelings and that can never be wrong.” I don’t hear humbleness in any of the quotes or news stories. He declares his being a gay Bishop “Easter” vs. humbly accepting becoming a Bishop despite his being gay as it shouldn’t be an issue. That is troublesome.
    That is the secular popular thought. That is not the way of a man who says he follows the Canons. Say what you feel, do what you feel, what you want and to hell with everything else.
    As for those who post that I don’t know Robinson or his family, I never will. It am replying to the posts/points of view that Lileks and “Mike” posted and by the news stories as I have read. I also answer as a Christian and as an Episcopalian. He is not being elected to government (this is not a secular position), but to head a diocese.

  17. Steve Avatar
    Steve

    God said marraige = 1 man + 1 woman for life. Anything else is anti-God’s-word and therefore anti-Christian. This church has just proven that it disregards the word of God, and thus cannot really be a Christian church. It’s a humanist church.

  18. Dan Z. Avatar
    Dan Z.

    It’s worth remembering that most of God’s favorite people in the Bible — Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon — were polygamists and had many wives.

  19. Buzz Avatar
    Buzz

    Probably no one is following this thread anymore, I just came
    back to look something up, but I hear two themes here:
    Theme 1: Robinson is not dealing with the consequences
    of his choices. Once again, we don’t really know what
    consequences the man has had to deal with. However,
    since Catherine seems sure that he has not dealt with
    the consequences, perhaps she might enlighten the rest
    of us precisely what those consequences are? Perhaps
    that Robinson should sit down and shut up?
    And before you put me in a box labeled “secularist,”
    Catherine, let me assure you that I am a very spiritual
    Episcopalian, who believes that God is
    moving in the world today, and believes that the Church
    through its councils, prayer, and debate has the best
    chance of divining His will. Which is a nice segue
    into
    Theme 2: God’s Will was written down once and for all
    time in a book called the Bible and is interpreted by
    a poster to buzzmachine.com named “Steve.” Do I
    really need to argue this point? And by the way, isn’t
    Christ a “humanist” ?