Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Gay bishop rejoices in NH’s gay marriage vote
06.08.2009 9:03am EDT
(Concord, NH) It was tough enough to get New Hampshire’s lawmakers and governor to approve gay marriage, but Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson says there’s an even tougher job ahead: getting churches to fully embrace gay marriage and gay people.
“What we have to work against is countless centuries of tradition which has judged homosexual people to be an abomination before God,” said Robinson, the Episcopal church’s only openly gay bishop.Robinson sat in the front row of the gallery in the state House of Representatives last week, hands clasped at times, praying for lawmakers to push a little green button that indicates a “yes” vote.
In the end, there were 198 green lights to legalize gay marriage, and 176 red ones.
The gallery erupted and Robinson was caught up in a sea of hugs, which continued as he walked through the Statehouse to a rally outside.
“There are a lot of people standing here who, when we grew up, could not have imagined this,” Robinson said. “You can’t imagine something that is simply impossible. It’s happened, in our lifetimes.”
But Robinson, who was elected bishop six years ago this month, said more must happen to change attitudes in churches.
“The law says that every church gets to choose what it will do,” he said, meaning they can refuse to perform gay marriages. Robinson approves, saying the law protects religious freedom.
“But now we need to be working in our religious institutions to come to this new place about what is God’s will about this,” Robinson said. “I think a close look at that will reveal God loves all of God’s children, not just certain ones, and that’s the harder work.”
The law spells out that churches, their employees and religious groups cannot be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services.
They were key elements pushed by Gov. John Lynch to win his approval.
But gay marriage opponents said the constitution already provides those protections to religious institutions. They argued the protections should be expanded to cover commercial vendors, such as photographers and caterers. That drew fire from gay marriage supporters who said the state’s anti-discrimination laws would be unraveled by allowing people to discriminate at will.
The law goes into effect in January.
In a speech in Washington last month, Robinson said despite recent momentum, the struggle continues for gay rights supporters in churches.
“Religion in general still presents the greatest obstacles we face in full equality,” he said. “Ninety-five percent of the oppression that we know in our lives comes from the religious community.”
Robinson’s election in 2003 caused a rift in the global Anglican Communion, intensifying a long-running debate over what Anglicans should believe about salvation, sexuality and other issues. The Episcopal Church, the Anglican body in the U.S., is more liberal than growing Anglican churches in Africa and elsewhere.
Meeting in Egypt in February, Anglican leaders requested their churches continue a temporary ban – enacted after Robinson’s election – on consecrating openly gay bishops and writing prayers for gay unions.
New Hampshire legalized civil unions for gay couples last year, but in a pastoral letter, Robinson told Episcopal clergy he would prefer they not preside at civil unions, instead, presiding over a blessing, afterward.
“It is my hope that we will be able to provide for the private, pastoral needs of the faithful people entrusted to our care, while causing a minimum of further furor in the Church,” he wrote in February, 2008, a month after civil unions became legal in the state.
But he said he would be “personally and institutionally supportive” of clergy who did not want to bless a civil union.
Robinson and his partner of 20 years were united in a civil union a year ago this month.
He said legislators recognized that gay marriage is more than a policy question and hopes churches will do the same.
“A lot of New Hampshire families have come to know people in their families who are gay, co-workers, former classmates and that’s what really made this difference. We are no longer talking about an issue,” he said. “We are talking about people.”
Sorry, have to make correctionsof some of the words I used: the peoper rendering of these two contnetious verses.
The corrections are: the proper rendering of these two contentious verses…
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
I do not bother trying to expose the vagaries of especially the Book of Leviticus.
Jesus the Christ brought one new law, that of unconditional non-judgemental love. love again not as an emotion but as an action verb. Don’t tell me that you love me, show me by being kind, thoughtful, generous, forgiving, patient, all of the fruit of the Holy Spirit that St. Paul talks about. did you ever read the New Testament in its entirety? Yes, I have read every verse of every book in the entire Judeo-Christian Bible book? Well, have you, punk? Go ahead, make my day.
By the boo, did it ever seep into your little trap door shut mind that the one you worship as a god incarnate, was in fact a Jewish man? probably not as most of you here probably didn’t either.
Wher was he born? Beth-Lechem which does mean in Hebrew; House of Bread. No mystery, no mystification. Let the dross fall from your eyes and do get some understanding, you judgemental cunt.
Andy B.
I would like to be able to instruct you on the peoper rendering of these two contnetious verses. Reading them again as they are quoted here, what I was told by Jews who actually own these scriptures far more than Christians, since the originals texts are all in Hebrew. The Tanach, even the O.T. were books all written by Jews for Jews. Various passages in the Hebrew texts are difficult to render properly because of the nature of old Hebrew. Hebrew is a language that uses imagery in its wording, and when certain words are formed into a specific expression, these expression have only one meaning.
Both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 – yes I am very familiar with these two verses. Inquiring of Jewish schalors about these verses from the Hebrew to the English, I was assured time and again that there is definitely misrendering of the meaning in both these verses. That is right. Literal rendering of Lev 18:20 is very awkard and should actually read: “No man shall lie with another man ‘as in the lyings of a woman.’ The expression, “as in the lyings of a woman” is only used only one or two other times in scripture in Tanach. In that other context, its use indicates that it refers to the rape of a woman by a male aggressor. Therefore the proper rendering of both verses Leviticus 18:20 & 20:13 are about male rape of a man and must rendered as follows: “No man shall rape another man, this too is abomination in the eyes of the Lord.” Sum total!!!! Male of men is also distasteful and unacceptable to the Lord.
The final invective of 20:13 is more condemmning. In this case both the male aggressor and his unwilling male victim are condemned even the same expression is used: “as in the lyings of a woman” is a Hebrew expression that is expressly about male male rape. Nothing more. It is not a condemnation of all same-sex love or sexual activity.
Although, Leviticus 20:13 condemns both the male rapist and his male victim to death, the redeeming feature of these verses is that there is no final weight of judgement added in that this part is missing and it is very significantly absent: “So says the Lord your God.” It is missing and therefore this uncharitable condemnation cannot be taken as sanction by God himself but is a human made decision, therefore nothing but a human made prejudice that can be altered because it is not an injunction sanctioned by God: the usual statement that indicated that this is a pronouncement made by God – So says the Lord – is very conspicuously absent.
Now what I have just presented to you is the Jewish scholarly traddition of expounding on THEIR scriptures using a type of mishnaic and midrashic discussion about their scripture. Tanach and all of the additional books of Old Testament belong exclusively to Jews. The O.T. belongs exclusively to Jews and are only on loan to all of you Christians who do a very poor job of both understanding this and respecting it. You don’t understand a verse or passage in O.T.? Ask a respected Jewish scholar to comment on their own scriptures, see what answers you get. The types of answers that you do get from a Jew about their scriptures will no doubt make you very uconfortable.
I am not a Jew but to understand their sacred texts better I did immerse myself in the Jewish frame of mind to understand their scriptures from their perspcetive. anmd to understand scripture better as a whole. I am a biblical scholar of some note, as well as having formal theological training in a Christian format that I no longer adhere to. Nonetheless, the knowledge that I have acquired based onJewish studies is relaible as well as verifiable for those who are not blinded by the ridiculous notion that the whole book was qritten by one deity. Men wrote the many books of this larger collection of Judaica. Maybe even a few Jewish women scholars contributed to writing these books. The most important feature to recognise about these books is not that they were supposedly written by an imaginary god but they are really nothing mjore than a historical account somewhat accurate about how a ragtag group of people way back around 2,160 BCE following an odd man named Avram leaving from an ancient city called Ur eventually after long struggles formed a nation called Israel. If you read this book thinking that it is a mystery, then you simply will not understand it. If you do not recognise that the whole of O.T. As long as you blindly believe that this book is a mystery written by dog(sic – intentional) and cannot be understood, you have condemned yourself to hell right here on earth. No, you have condemned us all to hell right here on earth. Christians give up your evil ways, Your God and saviour did say in his own words: “Judge not and you too shall not be judges.” So who are you to judge. I’m just pointing the finger, not judging. But if the shoe should fit…
Now, I would like to congratulate Bishop Robinson and his husband/partner.
Since i am also a religious historian, you all should know that the very first Believers who followed the teashings of Jesus called the Christ, did bless and fully accept same-sex couples as meant-to-be, as soul-mates, sacred other, finally in the Jewish tradition of besheret. If you were meant-to-be, gender was no longer an issue. Jesus the Christ did say that all of the old Laws of Moses had been fulfilled so that the old laws of eye for eye and tooth for tooth, of retribution and revenge were no longer to be observed. Yeshua ben-Yosef, whom you all still call Jesus the Christ, said himself that he brought a new set of laws based on the spirit of reconciliation, of forgiveness – How many times should I forgive someone who has given me offence? Seven times. Yeshua son of Yosef answers: You must forgive not seven times but seven times seventy?” Do not make the error of interpreting this literally also, not just 490 times (7 X 70 = 490). this number indicates an ifinity of times in Hebraic thinking. Jesus the Christ brought a new law of unconditional love, never, condemning, never judgemental, never mean or hateful. But what can we expect from dumbass right wing Christians who do the exact opposite of what their Lord and God commands. No all of those passages in the pseudo-Jewish Christian testament that speak of forgiveness, unconditional love, totally ignored because of such mindless statements: I am saved, Jesus is my Lord!! If you think that that is all you have to say to get to your imaginary heaven, then you right-wing Christian have already condemned yourselves to an eternity of suffering.
Yeshua ben-Yosef v’ Miryam min Beth-Lechem v’ Yirushalayim, whom you mistakenly call Jesus the Christ, was a total lover of humankind. You moralising, judgemental and condemning self-righteous jackasses that actually call yourselves chriatians are heinous, and not of Him at all; not at all.
You condemn yourselves to your own imaginary hell every time. Personally, I rejoice every time that I hear your own condemnations from your own mouths. I don’t even have to do it for you.
B.A. Religious Studies, maybe it’s only a B.A. but all of the additional studies qualifies me for an M.A. and PhD in the same subjects, biblical exegesis, theological discourse.
Finally, all of you self-righteous Chrisitans, being self-righteous, the very thing that your God and Savior said you should do, is one of the seven deadly sins, and you are all going right straight to hell where you all belong with your crazy screwed ideas about being saved. I will laugh all of the way. You all think you’re saved; you’ve all condmned yourselves to eternal suffering in hell.
Don’t worry though, because there is no such thing as hell or heaven for that matter. But you won’t find that out until after you die.
To Cardenas: take the time to read this and understand that your knowledge and understanding of scripture is sorely perverted and completely off base. Good luck. I do hope that you learn more about the real Jewish man, mystic, seer, prophet, master astrologer and New Age motivational speeker called Yeshua ben-Yosef v’ Miryam. This means Jesus son of joseph and Mary. It is in transliterative Hebrew. Not a son of god, not a god incarnate. As “ha Moshi’ach” – this means that he is the one who is “anointed with the oils”, Yesua ben-Yosef was a man, just a man, but a very gifted man.
More homeletics on a different subject later.
Andy B.
Jen, if Jesus were here walking the earth today, I have no doubt he would tell you and your kind to get behind Him, He doesn’t know you. You are not the least bit Christ-like with your words or deeds. Maybe you should leave the OT for a while and read the words in red. Jesus, the Way Shower only spoke of love, and not in the condescending fashion as you have demonstrated repeatedly here. Now, be gone little girl!
Wayne, darling, as a “Christian”, you should really read your Bilbe. People such as this bishop and others on here you defend burn in Hell. There’s no hatred there, at all. Just truth
Sorry you’re too blinded by the Devil to see it, and I pray for your lost soul.
Ms. Cardenas:
Being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgendered is not sick, sinful or immoral. You need to become familiar with recent, good and independent scientific and psychological knowledge concerning homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe the scientific knowledge proves that homosexuality is not an abomination in God’s eyes– although it is clear that sexual abuse is an abomination and immoral. Bishop Gene Robinson is a Godly person. You, unfortunately, are crippled up with hate. I pray for people like you, that you will truly learn to love instead of hate.
Wow, “sick”, you are really sick. Thought we were talking about the abomination of being gay? hmmm…looks like you people did it once again. Always have to quote everything else from the Bible to make yourselves feel better. Well sorry, but this nasty “bishop” will burn in Hell for all eternity, along with you. But it isn’t too late you know, you can turn around and make the right choice on the path of God.
To: Jen Cardenas:
Me thinks that you just need a good f—with the right sex!
Hey Jen Cardenas – first of all – why the hey are you on this website??? Why don’t you stick to your own sort – you know screwballs like Pat Robertson. Maybe you can be girl friends with Shirley Phelps – LOL!! Also girlfriend, if you want to follow everything in the famous MAN god book, women are filthy creatures. So look what that makes you. Lets not forget when your dirty time of the month comes, you are to leave the family/home till you are once again clean. Yeah the good old book is full of lots of gems. It also says that you are a big nothing being a woman and its ok for your old man to beat you. Hey and slaves are ok too. Yippy Yahoo!!!
It’s time that we stop fighting about what we believe is correct and start treating each other with respect, dignity and equality. We too want a family that can be grown over time, we want the joys of joint ownership and we should have the same rights, which have been granted to others, to comfort our loved ones. We must have ability to care for our partners when they are in a Hospital, comfort them when they are sick, and know that we can make a life and death choice with and for each other if need be. We should be able to pay and receive our state, local, and federal taxes as the single unit household that we already function as.
We do not seek the approval of the church, nor do we seek your personal approval what we want is the same fundamental rights our parents and their parents have, and what our founding fathers wanted for all American Citizens. The “Church” claims that marriage should be sanctified, however the sanctity of marriage has been thrown out the window long before we asked for it. When an annulment is granted by church for any other reason besides death it has belittled itself and their core values. Furthermore any church that refuses to make open its doors to all God’s children should not call itself a God fearing church thus not a church at all. Do not continue to twist God’s words to benefit your organization, and spread hate throughout his world. You are meant to spread his love and teach of his ways, not put your own spin on biblical text.
- Unifyhouston.org
Bishop Gene Robinson is a Godly man who knows that Godly living means loving one’s neighbour and understanding scripture in within context of the times and scientific knowlege. The so-called fundamentalists simply do not want to understand the deeper and full meanings of scripture because it becomes a convenient crutch to support bigotry that could not be supported in any other way.
Don’t know how to post pics here. But the picture of Gov Lynch signing the bill shows Gene peaking around the guy on the left and grinning…here in my flickr:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3586/3594380478_b66c0ee204_o.jpg
Jen, read this and cure your ignorant ass…
Proof that fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible:
A lesson about the book of Leviticus . . .
Homophobic fundamentalists often quote two particular verses that seem to be against gay people. These two verses, both of which appear in the book of Leviticus, are . . .
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)
and . . .
“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13)
Below, we’ll take a look at other scripture verses that are in the exact same book (Leviticus) as the above verse. This exercise proves that those preachers who are so enthusiastic about quoting the book of Leviticus to affirm their personal prejudice against people who are gay or lesbian become awfully quiet when it comes to other verses that appear in the very same book.
Remember, this isn’t about faith whatsoever. It’s about people who have pre-existing anti-gay prejudice in their hearts. They choose the Christian Bible as the tool with which they attempt to affirm and legitimize that pre-existing prejudice.
Sadly, the truth is that they just don’t like gay people.
“For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9)
Imagine what would happen today if we killed every child who was disrespectful to his parents. Fundamentalists explain this verse away, saying that it is part of the Old Levitical Holiness Code and is not meant to be taken literally.
But the above verse is just a mere 3 verses before Leviticus 20:13, one of their favorite anti-gay scriptures which, of course, they do choose to apply literally.
It’s just incredible, isn’t it?
Fundamentalists change their entire methodology of scriptural interpretation when it suits their purpose, even when dealing with verses that are a just couple of sentences away from each other!
“If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people.” (Leviticus 20:18)
Imagine what would happen today if we deported every man and woman who had ever had sex together while the woman was having her period. Fundamentalists decline the opportunity to take this verse literally, which is merely 5 verses after Leviticus 20:13
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.” (Leviticus 25:44-45)
Did you ever wonder where racist, uneducated people in the 19th century got the idea that slaves were just property and not people? Directly from the above verse, which fundamentalists do not, of course, take literally.
“Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.” (Leviticus 19:27)
“Bible-believing” fundamentalists never preach against the evils of shaving, as they do not take this verse literally for our day. Of course, they most certainly would do so if they had a personal bias against shaving, but apparently, they do not.
“…and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.” (Leviticus 11:7)
As you can see, the book of Leviticus also prohibits the eating of pork (a swine is a pig). Of course, fundamentalists do not choose to use this verse to preach against eating pork. Sadly, however, they have no problem abusing the Bible to condemn gay and lesbian people. Remember, it’s about their personal prejudice against gay people, not about a true desire to understand what the Bible actually says.
“…do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material.” (Leviticus 19:19)
Farmers in this country almost always grow more than one kind of crop in their fields. In fact, they often must do so for ecological reasons. Fundamentalists do not apply this verse literally. If they were to preach against farmers, there would be an uproar, and rightfully so.
Fundamentalists also ignore the Biblical command to not wear clothes that have two different kinds of material. The shirts that many fundamentalists are often seen wearing must be a cotton/polyester blend, the most common in the United States of America. They may be “Bible believing” Christians, but this is yet another verse that they don’t believe should be applied to today.
An “abomination?”
Fundamentalists also like to use Leviticus 18:22 to justify their anti-gay prejudice. That verse says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Perhaps you have heard some people refer to gay people as an “abomination.” They get the idea directly from Leviticus 18:22. But did you know…
The Bible says that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination:
“But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you.” (Leviticus 11:10)
“They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.” (Leviticus 11:11)
“Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you.” (Leviticus 11:12)
In conclusion . . .
The above exercise proves that anti-gay fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible. They enthusiastically and openly embrace those parts of the Bible which affirm and justify their own personal, pre-existing prejudice against gay people, while declining to become as enthusiastic about verses like the ones listed above.
After all, how many times have you heard a fundamentalist say that eating shellfish was an abomination? But they sure don’t hesitate to say it about gay people, do they? What does that tell you?
Email us at: fallwellcomments@aol.com
“If a man also lie with man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Leviticus 20:13. I highly doubt this disgusting gay bishop has read this passage, or many passages of his Bible. This is a pure act against God. Nasty.
I think more and more clergy will naturally come to be more comfortable with their gay parishioners, and the gay community at large. I wouldn’t like to see an agressive campaign to do any arm-twisting. If we want clergy to grow in respect for our rights, we have to continue to show respect for theirs, which means not dragging them into court every time a church turns down a gay couple seeking a church wedding.
Congratulations to Bishop Robinson and his “Husband”. Maybe one day you will be able to perform a wedding ceremony down South. Openly!