James Lileks, the best writer in the blogosphere is finally back and Bleating with observatives on Arnold, gay bishops, and more. As always, he has some very astute points to make:
He makes a very interesting comment on the Bishop Gene Robertson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church. He notes something that was curiously missing from the debate:
This story has irritated me from the start, and it has nothing to do with Rev. Robinson’s sexual orientation. The guy left his wife and kids to go do the hokey-pokey with someone else: that’s what it’s all about, at least for me. Marriages founder for a variety of reasons, and ofttimes they’re valid reasons, sad and inescapable. But "I want to have sex with other people" is not a valid reason for depriving two little girls of a daddy who lives with them, gets up at night when they’re sick, kisses them in the morning when they wake. There’s a word for people who leave their children because they don’t want to have sex with Mommy anymore: selfish. I’m not a praying man, but I cannot possibly imagine asking God if that would be okay. Send them another Dad, okay? Until you do I’ll keep my cellphone on 24/7, I promise.
If Bishop Robertson were straight, this would be a scandal. But because he decided to become one of the Oppressed Minorities(tm) he’s getting a free pass on it. There is a double standard there, but it isn’t based on sexual orientation.
I’m with Lileks on this, I don’t dislike Rev. Robertson because he’s gay. I dislike him because he put himself above his obligations to his family. Being gay may not be a reason to boot him, but putting himself over the most important vocation in life certainly is.
Um, how is it that you’re so sure that his wife didn’t leave him because he was gay?
For all you know he said “Honey, I’m gay, but let’s stay married for the children” and she said “Why would we want our children to grow up under a loveless marriage?”
If you’re such a mind-reader that you’re privy to the inside scoop on their divorce maybe you could give me the lotto picks for this week.
And anyway, if this would have been such a scandal, why didn’t it come up? Why did the conservative elements have to dig so hard for that bullshit about “inappropriately” patting a dude on the back or having been involved with a website that’s 7 links away from porn? (I would point out that your own website is only 3 links away.)
If his divorce as so scandalous why wasn’t that the angle that the conservatives took to smear him? Sounds like a much better idea than the path they took.
He’s the one who divorced his wife, not the other way around.
As to why it wasn’t brought up on those terms is beyond me. The attacks against Rev. Robertson were shameless and stupid, and there a lot better reasons for criticizing him than porn links or pats on the back.
He’s the one who divorced his wife, not the other way around.
Source, please?
As to why it wasn’t brought up on those terms is beyond me.
Well, what’s more likely – you’re smarter than the entire conservative Episcopalian minority, or they know something you don’t?
He’s the one who filed the papers, his divorce is pretty much a matter of the public record. (One of the many disadvantages of being in the public eye.)
Maybe they didn’t bring it up because they did know something I don’t. Maybe they didn’t bring it up because it’s easier to go with more dramatic innuendo.
I still agree with James Lileks – whatever the reasons, it’s simply selfish to leave a marriage and two children for one’s own selfish motive.
I still agree with James Lileks – whatever the reasons, it’s simply selfish to leave a marriage and two children for one’s own selfish motive.
Instead of trying to force a marriage that obviously couldn’t work thus making everyone involved more miserable than they need to be.
He’s the one who filed the papers, his divorce is pretty much a matter of the public record.
Pardon me, but what does that have to do with the circumstances of their divorce? For all you know it was her idea, but he agreed, and was the one for whom the courthouse was on the way to work.
And I don’t see that it’s a “selfish motive” to avoid burdening your children and family with the emotional fallout and bitterness of a loveless marriage. I’ve seen what that did to my dad’s family. Divorce would have been the best thing for my grandparents. Instead they poisioned their family with an atmosphere of recrimination and bitterness that most of their adult children are only now coming to terms with.
We obviously have to come up with a new Federal standard for Appropriate Marriages.
Sadly I fear that the religious minority is working to do exactly that.
What we need to do is de-couple civil marriage from the religious institution. I think it’s laughable that critics of Robertson said this would legitimize sex outside of marriage, given that they won’t allow gay people to get married.
Sorry, guys. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t blame two people for having sex outside of a union if you won’t let them have that union in the first place.
But because he decided to become one of the Oppressed Minorities(tm)
And out of curiosity, what exactly does this mean? That’s like saying “he decided to become black.”
Bevster:
Instead of trying to force a marriage that obviously couldn’t work thus making everyone involved more miserable than they need to be.
Yes.
When kids are involved, that’s exactly what you do, unless your safety is involved.
Children do better with both a parents together – even “miserable” ones – that with them apart.
Once you have kids, it’s not about your happiness – or sexual fulfillment – anymore; not while they’re still under your roof. If you can find happiness and/or sex, that’s great, but it’s about the kids, period.
I don’t particularly oppose gay civil unions, and I agree it’s time to get government out of “marriage” (it should be a contract, as far as they’re concerned, one that can be initiated in a church or in the JoP’s office).
But Robertson’s act was selfish, immature, and not one that I’d condone in a deader of any church I’m in.
Er, “*l*eader” of any church I’m in.
Children do better with both a parents together – even “miserable” ones – that with them apart.
On Planet Mitch, maybe, but not in the rest of the observable universe. Or did you not see my personal testimony? A bitter, loveless marriage is far, far worse for children than divorce. Children do better in a home with two loving parents, to be sure. But they do far, far worse in a alienated marriage because.
… because the bitterness poisions the whole family. And children know when they’re the only reason two people who hate each other are sticking together. It doesn’t do wonders for your self esteem.
But apparently love is incidental to family life on Planet Mitch. Can’t say as I’d like to live there.
Look, why don’t we just cut the horseshit and look at this for what it is – a way for Lileks and Jay to openly condemn the idea of gay clergy without appearing anti-gay. Jay’s comments about “deciding to join an Oppressed Minority” are especially revealing and ignore the copious data that suggest that homosexuality has a strong genetic component.
If (your) God makes people gay, then why is it inappropriate for a gay man to be clergy? And if this divorce wasn’t a non-issue, why didn’t the huge opposition movement bring it up? If it’s such a scandal as you two make it out to be, it would have torpedoed the whole thing. That it never came up speaks volumes to me.
First, Chet, there is no “Planet Mitch”, and I’ll thank you to knock off the puerile ad-homina. I don’t know that you can do better than that, but let’s give it a try, shall we?
And yes, there are actual, empirical studies that do show that children do do better in life, generally speaking, with both parents around, even in a “miserable” marriage. Boys grow up achieving more in school and less likely to commit violence, and girls are a fraction as likely to get pregnant in their teens or out of wedlock, if there’s a father around, regardless of whether the parents “love each other” or not. Yes, it’s predicated on the parents having their childrens’ best interests enough at heart to actually act civilly – to act like parents. And if people aren’t grown up enough to do that, then they should neither marry nor have children in the first place. (But by this point, of course, it’s too late…)
It’s not in the least bit an idle issue to me; I’m a single father. I had a wretched marriage – which I stayed in until it was absolutely impossible to go on.
Not until I felt I needed love in my life.
Not until I wanted to get laid regularly.
Not until I felt the need to be happy.
Until is was impossible. I fought to keep a wretched, abusive marriage going until the kids were grown up, unlike that self-indulgent son of a bitch Robertson (and I’d say the same thing if he’d left for a woman).
As to the “Look, why don’t we just cut the horseshit and look at this for what it is – a way for Lileks and Jay to openly condemn the idea of gay clergy without appearing anti-gay” crack – well, look, Chet: I know Lileks. Not anti-gay. I don’t know Jay, but I’d suspect the same. (Me? I dove into a gay-bashing, on behalf of the bashee. Call me “anti-gay” at your own peril. You are not qualified).
So, Chet – refrain from puerile slander, either of our views on gays or marriage, and stick to the facts.
If you have any.
And yet, after all this invective, nobody’s come close to answering the really important question: If Robertson’s divorce was so scandalous that it would have immediately disqualified him from serving as bishop, then why didn’t the conservative opposition bring that up at the time?
My guess is that Robertson is not – by far – the only bishop to have left a marriage. Perhaps Episcopalians feel that their clergy don’t have to be any more perfect than anybody else?
Studies were found in Stephanie Staal’s “The Love They Lost”, “The Case for Marriage” by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, and “The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce”, by Judith Wallerstein.
I’m particularly interesting in their metric for a “miserable” marriage.
Metric for misery. Cute. Write when you want to get serious.
And out of curiosity, how do you think your clearly open loathing for the mother of your children affected them? Just curious.
I’m just curious – why do you assume I “openly loathed” their mom? You’ll need to knock out a few teeth to make room for all the words you’re jamming into my mouth.
y own “peril”? I’m curious, what exactly are you going to do?
Rhetorical peril, Mr. Dramatic.
Metric for misery. Cute. Write when you want to get serious.
What, you don’t remember saying “And yes, there are actual, empirical studies that do show that children do do better in life, generally speaking, with both parents around, even in a “miserable” marriage.“? Since you said that the studies said even “miserable” marriages were better than divorce, that means they must have had a way to determine which marriages were miserable and which were not.
Unless you’re reading things into the study which aren’t there? That would be pretty dishonest, wouldn’t it?
I’m just curious – why do you assume I “openly loathed” their mom?
The way you write about your marriage suggests that you were not at all in love with their mom – that she had no attractiveness or interest to you. It’s pretty clear from your writing, actually.
And still no answer to the important question, I see.