What's That You Say, Mr. Robinson?

Marriage-neutering advocate V. Gene Robinson, Episcopalian bishop, got way too much news coverage for offering a tired suggestion. Here's the Los Angeles Times story by Harriet Ryan.

[Analysis is below the fold if you care to read it.]

Nearly six years ago, Robinson became the first openly gay Episcopal bishop. His election was decried by some in the church and in the global Anglican Communion of which it is a part. Some 700 conservative U.S. parishes said last year that they were leaving the Episcopal Church in part because of his consecration, and last summer, Robinson was barred from taking part in leadership meetings at the Lambeth Conference, a once-a-decade global gathering of Anglicans.

Hey, everything must be sacrificed on the altar of homosexual esteem. Scripture, tradition, sound government policy - everything. By the way, my church has had "openly gay" speakers and welcomes "openly gay" people into the congregation, though the church maintains that sex is for marriage, and calls for repentance from sin.

President Obama tapped him to deliver the invocation at the kick-off concert for his inaugural ceremonies. On Saturday night, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation gave Robinson an award at a star-studded show at the Nokia Theatre.

It's a rough life, being so open, isn't it?

The bishop, a bespectacled man in a white collar and crimson shirt, drew laughs as he recounted the celebrity doors opened by his outcast status. Elton John -- to whom Robinson referred by his first name -- sang at one of his events. Actor Ian McKellen cooked him dinner and invited him and his partner to visit the set of "The Hobbit" in New Zealand.

It can be nice to be the darling of "the world". Doesn't sound like there is enough adversity to warrant an Oscar-winning biopic, though. Let's hope it stays that way.

In response to a question about how the parish should respond to the passage of Proposition 8, the bishop suggested that churches could begin mending the split on same-sex marriage by having clergy get out of the civil marriage business altogether.

Ah yes, the False Compromise.

He said that "untangling" the roles of clergy and government in this country would focus the discussion of same-sex marriage on civil rights rather than religion.

One need not have a religion to see that, from a civil perspective, the state does not have the same interest in licensing or promoting brideless or groomless coupling as it does a bride-groom marriage. And people get civil marriages without a religious ceremony all of the time.

"The church is infringing on the secular society and trying to enforce its beliefs onto the entire culture," he said.

And which church would that be? Society did not create marriage. Marriage created society. The state did not get the notion that marriage unites the sexes from a church.

"If we can get these two things separated, we can assure every religious group, no matter how conservative, that they will never have to bless these marriages."

We've heard promises before from homosexuality advocates that turned out to be false. Such promises are not legally binding, and we don't believe you any more.

By the way, he spoke at St. Michael & All Angels Church in Studio City, California, a church the article says actively opposed the California Marriage Amendment. Funny, I didn't hear those saying that churches should stay out of the election citing this church in their complaints.

I have not heard a good reason for implementing the False Compromise other than to get marriage neutering advocates to stop complaining. Asserting "the state should not be involved in marriage" over and over again doesn't make it true, and getting the state out of marriage entirely is impossible, because marriage involves interpersonal relations.

Euripides wrote about this over story at Self Evident Truths.