• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Episcopal leaders approve gay bishop

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
Is gay-marriage right around the corner? ;)

CNN.com - Episcopal leaders approve gay bishop

MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota (CNN) -- The House of Bishops voted Tuesday evening to confirm the Rev. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire, making him the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church's history.

Robinson needed a simple majority of the 106 votes to be confirmed. He received 62.

A date will be set for his consecration.

The vote by the House of Bishops follows weeks of heated debate, several days of a contentious conference and a one-day investigation that cleared Robinson of wrongdoing related to two 11th-hour allegations. (More on allegations)

Some Episcopal leaders who have opposed ratifying Robinson since the New Hampshire diocese elected him in June said that if he won Tuesday's vote, they would walk out of the church's meeting in Minneapolis and go across the street to a Lutheran church for a prayer service.

Sunday, Robinson won a vote by the House of Deputies, made up of more than 800 priests and lay leaders.

The bishops' vote had been set for Monday but was postponed after David Lewis of Vermont accused Robinson of touching him inappropriately at a convocation and an activist opposed to Robinson's candidacy told bishops an organization Robinson was connected to offered a link on its Web site that could lead to erotica.

A spokesman for Robinson said he did not recall meeting Lewis, though he did remember the crowded event that Lewis described. He also said Robinson had no relationship to or knowledge of the Web site.

Organizers of the Web site -- outright.org -- also said Robinson had no connection to the site, and that potentially objectionable links were removed. Outright in Portland said the link was not in line with its mission "to create safe, positive and affirming environments for young gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans and questioning people ages 22 and under."

The allegation, the group said, was "clearly an attempt to discredit this important nomination."

Lewis, in an e-mail sent Sunday night to Bishop Thomas Ely of the Vermont diocese, said Robinson "does not maintain appropriate boundaries with men."

"When I first encountered Gene at a ... convocation a couple of years ago, he put his hands on me inappropriately every time I engaged him in conversation. NO GAY MAN HAS EVER BEHAVED TOWARDS ME THIS WAY" (capitals in original).

Church investigators went to Manchester, Vermont, on Monday to speak to Lewis, church officials told CNN.

"Where there's smoke, there isn't always fire," Bishop Geralyn Wolf of Rhode Island said about the allegations. "There's a lot of smoke in our culture today, on all sides of all kinds of issues. And it doesn't mean that there's any fire there.

"The fire can be really the fire of evil, deception, and fear -- but the fires of truth and righteousness will prevail."

...
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,684
0
76
I bet Pat Robertson is praying extra hard the next following weeks.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Is gay-marriage right around the corner?
I could care less what this church does or any other. Actually that's not true, I think they should all pay taxes. Anyway in answer to you question, I agree with what Dean said last night on Larry King. I'm paraphrasing but he said that marriage is a function of the church and the gov't should not dictate who the church can and cannot marry. He also went on to say that he supported "civil unions" which would give couples the legal rights of being married. I agree with his position.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
could care less what this church does or any other. Actually that's not true, I think they should all pay taxes. Anyway in answer to you question, I agree with what Dean said last night on Larry King. I'm paraphrasing but he said that marriage is a function of the church and the gov't should not dictate who the church can and cannot marry. He also went on to say that he supported "civil unions" which would give couples the legal rights of being married. I agree with his position.
Damn . . . wisdom at AT . . . I wonder what the knuckle draggers have to say . . .


As long as he keeps his hands of the children, let him smoke the meat pipe.
. . . figures.
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Is gay-marriage right around the corner?
I could care less what this church does or any other. Actually that's not true, I think they should all pay taxes. Anyway in answer to you question, I agree with what Dean said last night on Larry King. I'm paraphrasing but he said that marriage is a function of the church and the gov't should not dictate who the church can and cannot marry. He also went on to say that he supported "civil unions" which would give couples the legal rights of being married. I agree with his position.
States currently do give licenses of marriage (between a man and woman) which must be recognized in all the other states. Should they be allowed to? Or should they only be allowed to give licenses of civil unions which would be for both straight and gay couples (which is my view) which would have to be recognized in all other states?
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
could care less what this church does or any other. Actually that's not true, I think they should all pay taxes. Anyway in answer to you question, I agree with what Dean said last night on Larry King. I'm paraphrasing but he said that marriage is a function of the church and the gov't should not dictate who the church can and cannot marry. He also went on to say that he supported "civil unions" which would give couples the legal rights of being married. I agree with his position.
Damn . . . wisdom at AT . . . I wonder what the knuckle draggers have to say . . .


As long as he keeps his hands of the children, let him smoke the meat pipe.
. . . figures.

Sh!t Doc, if I woulda known you were gonna read my post I would have added an
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Is gay-marriage right around the corner?
I could care less what this church does or any other. Actually that's not true, I think they should all pay taxes. Anyway in answer to you question, I agree with what Dean said last night on Larry King. I'm paraphrasing but he said that marriage is a function of the church and the gov't should not dictate who the church can and cannot marry. He also went on to say that he supported "civil unions" which would give couples the legal rights of being married. I agree with his position.
States currently do give licenses of marriage (between a man and woman) which must be recognized in all the other states. Should they be allowed to? Or should they only be allowed to give licenses of civil unions which would be for both straight and gay couples (which is my view) which would have to be recognized in all other states?
Dean addressed this too and again I find myself agreeing with him and that was that the feds role in all of this is that it should make sure that the fed and all the states recognize these "civil unions" from all the other states, Canada, etc. Just like they do wrt heterosexual marriages. At least that's what I think he said.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,724
3,542
126
Dean is wrong. A different name is separate and therefore unequal before the law. Gay marriage is just that, marriage.
 

Brie

Member
May 27, 2003
137
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Dean is wrong. A different name is separate and therefore unequal before the law. Gay marriage is just that, marriage.
I agree Dean's position is not acceptable. Frankly i thought that Bush would of took Dean's position and Dean would of supported marriage. It is amazing that the Log Cabin Republicans still support Bush after he insults them time and time again by stamping out their civil rights.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,724
3,542
126
Brie, I personally think the issue is front and center because the Republicans, Rove, intend to use it as a wedge issue.

"We are like most Americans, bigoted, but we won't call it that. We oppose a change in the meaning of marriage and the Democrats are different. They support gay marriage, can you imagine that?"

Dean has steered a middle course to avoid being completely tarred with that brush, but it's a political, not a moral stance. It's an interesting situation when nobody could run and tell the truth. Doesn't say much for our people. I'm ignorant about the Denis K guy. Wonder if he'll go for the truth.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
Well, it seems Bush has to take a tough stance on gay marriage, because post-SC decision that "all Americans must have gay sex," the religious-right is all up in arms. You can almost hear them mobilizing in their wood-paneled rumpus rooms. Scampering about like little mice on crack.

So Bush has to do something or face possible abandonment by those who love him the most: the bible-thumping gay-haters. Although I hear Dubya caught a few episodes of "Gay Eye for the Straight Guy" and was heard saying off-camera that the Fab 5 could probably spruce up the oval office some. He's probably just sick and tired of Laura's "country kitchen" look. Every room with those stupid plaid curtains, blue and white wallpaper and decorative plates on the walls...

;)
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,430
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Dean is wrong. A different name is separate and therefore unequal before the law. Gay marriage is just that, marriage.
I think the government should stay out of the marriage business altogether. Leave marriages in the church and leave the marriage certificate as only recognizable by the church. The legal relationship between adults, for government purposes, should be under the legal document of a civil union.

 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,979
1
0
What the hell is so special about the word "marraige" anyway? Religion dosen't have a trademark on it. They didn't invent it. It's only a word. Lots of people get married and the church has no part in it. If the church doesen't participate, why should they have a say? Marraige is meerly a legal commitment in the eyes of the government. Such a commitment should be available to everyone. Let people call it whatever they want. To me, this whole thing is making a mountain out of a molehill. Next thing you know, only hetero men will get a BJ. Gay men will have to call it something else so it is not confused with a "normal" sex act.
 

bulldawg

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,214
0
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Dean is wrong. A different name is separate and therefore unequal before the law. Gay marriage is just that, marriage.
Call it what you wish, but it's still wrong.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY