|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gene Robinson's Divorce
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
Huffington Post
Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the US Episcopal Church, has announced he is divorcing his husband and partner of 25 years. They were married in 2010.
Bishop Robinson made his relationship a public case for allowing gay marriage in the church. The details of the breakdown are not public at this time.
Could this have an impact on how the SSM issue is viewed in the church?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Could this have an impact on how the SSM issue is viewed in the church?
I don't really see why it should - plenty of Bishops have had divorces - the fact that there's a gay one divorcing shouldn't be much of a surprise.
I'm sure some of those opposed to SSM will use this as a talking point about how gay men are promiscuous and unfaithful, but I don't think it will make any difference - those in favour will remain in favour, and those opposed will remain opposed.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
In the US about 40% of marriages end in divorce, and people who identify as evangelical have higher divorce rates. So a gay guy getting a divorce isn't surprising, and evangelicals shouldn't be throwing stones on this one!
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Could this have an impact on how the SSM issue is viewed in the church?
Could it? Absolutely. Should it? No, but people eager to find fault with SSM will seize on any kind of 'evidence' they can find.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Betty Bowers: quote:
4 out of 5 Baptist divorcees want gays to stop undermining the sanctity of marriage
Can I have an amen, sisters? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I was very sad to hear about this. Partly for the couple concerned (obviously) but also, I must confess, for the way in which I know this will be used by conservatives. It would be so much easier if the first openly gay Bishop was a paragon of perfection rather than a flawed human like the rest of us.
I'm in the odd position of being in favour of equal marriage but still pretty leary about divorce. I could accept Bishop Gene's reasons for his first divorce but I'll admit that it did concern me that the first openly gay Bishop was a divorcee. I worries me that parts of the church seem to have crossed a line from "we allow divorce out of compassion when all else fails" to accepting a failed marriage as the normal course of life. There does need to be a discussion about what standard of life is expected of priests, and whether any such can be supported without those of us who have never experienced marital breakdown pronouncing judgement on those who have.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Not many couples have to put up with the constant strain that was placed on Bishop Robinson and his partner by the church and the media. At one stage they were wearing bulletproof vests on the advice of the police. That would place a strain on any marriage and many people divorce under much lower levels of stress.
Its sad, but not completely surprising. Betty Bowers has it right!
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
The danger has always been objectifying Gene and Mark. From the start they became symbols of LGBT ordination and SSM by supporters and opponents alike, rather than the struggling, flawed human beings we all are. I believe divorce is a sin as Jesus said, but have to remember Martin Luther's quote: "As long as we are here we will sin, for this life is not a place where righteousness resides." Sometimes divorce is the lesser of two evils. I pray for healing to all involved.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Not many couples have to put up with the constant strain that was placed on Bishop Robinson and his partner by the church and the media. At one stage they were wearing bulletproof vests on the advice of the police. That would place a strain on any marriage and many people divorce under much lower levels of stress.
That is almost exactly what I was going to say.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Indeed, same sex divorce has its role in cementing the legitimacy of same sex marriage. In the US, where states as of now do not need to recognize same sex marriages from other states or countries, gay couples that got married in another state and now live somewhere where their marriage is not recognized have been suing to be able to divorce in the state of their residence (many states prevent you from getting divorced there unless you have lived there for a certain length of time, even if you got married in that state).
There is an even more subtle way to get states to recognize another states' same sex divorce even if they didn't recognize the same sex marriage in the first place. The US Constitution has a clause about states' recognizing each others' "acts, records, and judicial proceedings." Up until now, states have been using what remains of the Defense of Marriage Act after part of it was struck down by the Supreme Court to avoid recognizing same sex marriages in other states. Let's say a man and a woman want to get married in a state that does not recognize same sex marraige. The woman was married to a woman in another state, but then got divorced to that woman in the same state. If she had been still married to a woman in another state, even if her current state of marriage did not recognize that marriage, she would not have been able to marry anyone else, even a man. Since the divorce is different from an annulment, by recognizing the woman as single and able to marry the state is effectively recognizing the court order of divorce from another state. This is a legal wedge that might help in cases to get states to eventually recognize each other's same-sex marriages.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The woman was married to a woman in another state, but then got divorced to that woman in the same state. If she had been still married to a woman in another state, even if her current state of marriage did not recognize that marriage, she would not have been able to marry anyone else, even a man. Since the divorce is different from an annulment, by recognizing the woman as single and able to marry the state is effectively recognizing the court order of divorce from another state.
I don't think this quite makes sense. If state B doesn't recognize that same-sex marriages exist, then according to state B, the woman is single (because B doesn't recognize that the marriage she underwent in state A to another woman was a marriage.) If the woman is single, there is obviously no need (or indeed ability) for her to obtain a divorce before "re"marrying.
The more interesting case would be if your woman married another woman in state A, moved to state B, and wanted to marry a man in state B.
Now, according to B, the woman was never married, and so is free to marry. According to A, the woman is still married, and so her marriage to a man in B would be bigamous.
Ultimately, I think this is why the supreme court will slap B down.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Not many couples have to put up with the constant strain that was placed on Bishop Robinson and his partner by the church and the media. At one stage they were wearing bulletproof vests on the advice of the police. That would place a strain on any marriage and many people divorce under much lower levels of stress.
That is almost exactly what I was going to say.
Me three. I know the terrible stress put Bp. Robinson back in rehab a few years ago. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) for him and his ex.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
But state B's that don't recognize SSM have been careful to not let people enter opposite sex marriages if they are still in a same sex marriage from state A. There haven't been any cases of bigamy that I am aware of resulting from people who have not gotten a same sex divorce being allowed to enter into an opposite sex marriage. You can't marry someone of the opposite sex if you are still in a civil union somewhere else, either, even if the civil union is not recognized where you live now.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
You can't marry someone of the opposite sex if you are still in a civil union somewhere else, either, even if the civil union is not recognized where you live now.
But isn't this also why your divorce argument is a non-starter? If the practice in state B is to only permit marriage if you are free from legal entanglements in state A, then why does marrying an A-state divorcee amount to recognising A's marriages? Surely it does so no more than not marrying someone who is currently in an A-state marriage?
A B-state could argue that they don't recognize an A-state sham "marriage" involving two people of the same sex, but out of courtesy to the state of A, they require you to not have impediments in that state. I think there's no extra wedge here.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
You can't marry someone of the opposite sex if you are still in a civil union somewhere else, either, even if the civil union is not recognized where you live now.
But isn't this also why your divorce argument is a non-starter? If the practice in state B is to only permit marriage if you are free from legal entanglements in state A, then why does marrying an A-state divorcee amount to recognising A's marriages? Surely it does so no more than not marrying someone who is currently in an A-state marriage?
A B-state could argue that they don't recognize an A-state sham "marriage" involving two people of the same sex, but out of courtesy to the state of A, they require you to not have impediments in that state. I think there's no extra wedge here.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
You can't marry someone of the opposite sex if you are still in a civil union somewhere else, either, even if the civil union is not recognized where you live now.
But isn't this also why your divorce argument is a non-starter? If the practice in state B is to only permit marriage if you are free from legal entanglements in state A, then why does marrying an A-state divorcee amount to recognising A's marriages? Surely it does so no more than not marrying someone who is currently in an A-state marriage?
A B-state could argue that they don't recognize an A-state sham "marriage" involving two people of the same sex, but out of courtesy to the state of A, they require you to not have impediments in that state. I think there's no extra wedge here.
Recognizing a same-sex marriage even as a legal impediment is a start. And recognizing an out-of-state divorce as a removal of that impediment is another step. The doctrine of states' recognizing each other's legal acts is called "comity." And same-sex marriage has made comity much murkier than usual. In a different situation, a judge in Mississippi just granted a divorce to a same sex couple using comity as her reasoning.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The most radical thing may be that gay people are like everyone else.
One reason for homophobia is straight people using LGBT persons as scapegoats for their own need to be sexually pure. As long as gays were there, straights can always insist that no matter the number of divorces, incidents of viewing pornography/stripping, adultery, etc, at least they were more sexually pure than those gay folk.
Sexual orientation, it may turn out, have little to do with actual sexual behavior. Now, I know some people who insist that gay men are the most promiscuous of the lot, pointing to bath houses and casual sex in night clubs. But I suspect, it is difficult to say who is more promiscuous. There are many gay couples who are faithful and monogamous.
While I support same-sex marriage, I also question the modern, social fixation on the perfect marriage and the assumption that the reason for one's own being is "finding the One."
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
While I support same-sex marriage, I also question the modern, social fixation on the perfect marriage and the assumption that the reason for one's own being is "finding the One."
There is a world of difference between expecting a perfect marriage with "the one" and committing oneself to a marriage that is lifelong, loving and faithful. I would even go so far as to say that the former is the enemy of the latter.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Huffington Post
Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the US Episcopal Church, has announced he is divorcing his husband and partner of 25 years. They were married in 2010.
Bishop Robinson made his relationship a public case for allowing gay marriage in the church. The details of the breakdown are not public at this time.
Could this have an impact on how the SSM issue is viewed in the church?
I don't think Bishop Robinson's first divorce had any impact on how marriage is viewed by the church, so not sure why his second divorce would.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Huffington Post
Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the US Episcopal Church, has announced he is divorcing his husband and partner of 25 years. They were married in 2010.
Bishop Robinson made his relationship a public case for allowing gay marriage in the church. The details of the breakdown are not public at this time.
Could this have an impact on how the SSM issue is viewed in the church?
So an Episcopalian bishop is getting divorced for the second time. As long as he doesn't behead either of them he'll still be ahead of the founder of the CofE...
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So an Episcopalian bishop is getting divorced for the second time. As long as he doesn't behead either of them he'll still be ahead of the founder of the CofE...
I didn't think St. Augustine of Canterbury was even married, never mind divorced!
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Don't you mean St. Aidan of Lindisfarne?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So an Episcopalian bishop is getting divorced for the second time. As long as he doesn't behead either of them he'll still be ahead of the founder of the CofE...
<pedantry>
Annulled not divorced.
Those marriages never existed.
</pedantry>
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
