Cheers,

Bud Clark
San Diego CA USA

“Like Bishop Robinson, John is in a committed relationship. Two years ago, he entered a civil union with his longtime lover, Grant Holmes, also an Anglican priest. Both men maintain they are celibate.”

The word celibate means “unmarried.” Why would a married man / couple maintain that they are “unmarried?”

I suspect that they are misusing the word “celibate” to mean that they are “living in a sexless union.” Why would a married gay man / couple want to maintain that they are “living in a sexless union”?

Huh? They’re in a Civil Union but they are celibate? May I ask why? Celibacy is neither a sacrament nor a requirement for Anglican priests, so I don’t get it. Perhaps each simply has no interest in sex (possible, but a little unusual) and it is certainly the right of each to express his sexuality, or not to, but adding this footnote to the debate is a red herring. It is no more relevant than if they had disclosed that the men had sex with each other 11 times a day. It simply is not a factor because, as I already stayed, celibacy is neither a sacrament nor a requirement for priesthood in the Anglican church. If supporters of a potential gay bishop think that introducing this factor into the discussion somehow helps their candidate, they are sorely mistaken. The Anglicans debate gets more and more bizarre every day. I hope he gets elected if he is qualified (and most reports state that he is) and, for the sake of everyone he withholds the details of his and his partner’s sex-life rather than to interject what most gay men would consider a strange fetish into the mix.