Total visitors right now: 118

Logged-in members:


Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Gay US Anglican bishop speaks of physical threats against him

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 • 10:21 am

Not my headline - it’s AFP’s. I am chagrined that they haven’t gotten the memo… it should read “Simple country bishop speaks of physical threats against him,” but whatever:

Gene Robinson, the openly gay American bishop whose appointment has sparked furore within the Anglican church, said in an interview Monday he had received physical threats in recent years.

Speaking to the BBC while in Britain ahead of this summer’s Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops, Robinson said the controversy surrounding his appointment was “deeply troubling”.

Robinson, who will be attending the fringes of the Lambeth Conference but has not been officially invited, told the broadcaster: “I’ll be coming to the Lambeth Conference, and there have already been threats against me and others.”

Let me guess: Was it a “muscular” man, his taut ebony body glistening from head to toe in the moonlight, perhaps wielding a syringe, and shouting threats in a style of speech eerily reminiscent of Mercutio and Benvolio?

66 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook

This IS an issue that causes strong feelings on both sides, and there are folks who threaten people, wrong as that is.

I do get tired of Gene et al “playing the victim” to the media…who panders to this.

And be careful - we need specifics, Gene.  It’s easy to say “I’ve been threatened”...I could say it too.  But we only want to deal in TRUTH, so we want PROOF.

[1] Posted by B. Hunter on 04-29-2008 at 10:54 AM • top

It matters not if actual threats have been made. The very fact that someone - anyone - would think it reasonable that there could possibly be made speaks to the real issue.

[2] Posted by texex on 04-29-2008 at 10:55 AM • top

I would bet that anyone in the public eye gets a threat or two a year.

The fact that Gene is a lightning rod for a divisive issue makes it more probable.

Perhaps he should lower his a little?

[3] Posted by Paul B on 04-29-2008 at 11:02 AM • top

Will he wear his consecration bullet-proof vest as he mingles with the reporters outside the Lambeth meeting?

[4] Posted by Dan Crawford on 04-29-2008 at 11:16 AM • top

This is easy victimization that gets much sympathy from his constituents.  It is also not easily rebuffed by those who ask for proof, because it makes them seem calloused or bigoted.

Yesterday, when Katherine Schori was at St. Thomas in Dallas, there was a noticeable police presence gathering as we left from the morning session. Is the PB such a dignitary that 12 or more of Dallas’ finest need to protect her from threats?  If so, then where did those threats come from?  Or was it just a possible threat that may manifest itself.  St. Thomas is not exactly in a “rough” neighborhood.

My guess is that somewhere in the planning the issue was raised that some radical reasserter may pose a threat.  It is demonization of the opposition plain and simple. We are the bad guys after all.

[5] Posted by frreed on 04-29-2008 at 11:16 AM • top

This man is a lost soul in desperate need of salvation.  We should be in constant prayer for him.  Our deepest desire should be for God to send His Holy Spirit upon Gene Robinson, convict him of his sins and convert him.  As long as Robinson has breath, there is always this hope.  Of course he is going to get threats.  This does not make them right.  At the same time that we condemn ECUSA for making this man a bishop, we should be euqally loudly condemning threatening actions made towards him.

[6] Posted by physician without health on 04-29-2008 at 11:20 AM • top

In his mind…in his mind…in his mind.  Which he clearly indicates is centred on the flat earth theory of Gene as the universal pivot.  Could we get Skip to have a chat with him, do you suppose?

Besides, I’m sure his tailor is thrilled to get to do the June Bride in Kevlar.  Such an exciting material to work with that it’s nearly possible to tolerate the simple country bishop of NH on the world tour of “I’m the simple country gay bishop of NH and YOU need to be NICE TO ME or you aren’t being really episcopal and I AM really needing to be the centre of attention” gala of events.
I do hope our backward friends in CoE, Wales, ACCanada and ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC client-provinces enjoy the association as much as the ABC and Primates of the Anglican Communion.  They really think it will all go away and its no big deal They should have to travel with Gene.  In fact, I think Frank Griswold and E. Browning and all the bishops who voted for Gene and all those ‘consecrating’ Gene should have to travel with him on this “I’m just the simple GAY country bishop of NH” tour.  Invite the ABC along for the fun and games, or perhaps he could just show up withou and invitation like the simple country GAY bishop of NH plans to do at Lame-beth on his civil liturgical self-approved honeymoon.

[7] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 04-29-2008 at 11:26 AM • top

Greg, Come now. Benvolio would never say something like that. Tybalt however…

“Peace? Peace? I hate the word. As I hate Hell, all Montagues, and thee”

Yours in Christ,

[8] Posted by Jacobsladder on 04-29-2008 at 11:29 AM • top

I do not doubt that +Robinson has received physical threats.  All people in the public eye on controversial issues have.  I do, however, deny that Christians have issued those threats.  I very much deny that reasserting Episcopalians or Anglicans issued those threats. 

This is a “I’m being threatened, so I must be right” defense.  It is a logical non-starter.  President Bush was and is threatened much more that Bishop Robinson.  Does that make him right or make those who disagree with his policies lunatic haters?  No.  Neither are those who believe that Bishop Robinson is terribly wrong on his stands on sexual morality lunatic haters.

Phil Snyder

[9] Posted by Philip Snyder on 04-29-2008 at 11:39 AM • top

Was this (from 1st Cor 6) the “threat” VGR may have been talking about?

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

[10] Posted by hanks on 04-29-2008 at 11:51 AM • top

The more threats he gets, the more he goes on about “poor me”. It is in his self interest to recieve as many threats as possible so that he can go on and on and on about “poor me”. Has he documented all these threats so that we can check if they were all real? Of course it couldn’t be about him being the cause celebe that the Anglican Union is breaking up over. If I was actively trying to do something that would cause the break up of the Anglican Communion, I would expect a few threats. When you mess with a people’s God you get messed with. What is so hard to understand about that Gene?

[11] Posted by ctowles on 04-29-2008 at 11:55 AM • top

He said he did not relish the attention put on him by the controversy


[12] Posted by Piedmont on 04-29-2008 at 12:08 PM • top

Mercifully I have been gone long enough to have some distance from the fray, although the hijacking of what used to be my church by crazed radical leftists leaves me sad and even angry at times.  Y’all do want to pray for VGR’s personal safety so that he does not really become a martyr, the present fiction in his own mind in that regard notwithstanding.  He freely chose to be “poster boy” for his cause, whatever that really is, or whatever his “handlers” (pun) want it to be.

[13] Posted by Long Gone Anglo Catholic on 04-29-2008 at 12:12 PM • top

As far as VGR being tired of being in the spotlight - I do think it is possible that he has many people who push him to take that spotlight. Whether he minds it or not, I don’t know - he says that he does - but I imagine he gets a lot of pressure from gay activists within, and perhaps outside, the church.

[14] Posted by oscewicee on 04-29-2008 at 12:15 PM • top

I seriously wonder about the threats. Not that he may have gotten some, but their level of seriousness, and the whole bull-proof vest canard leaves me skeptical. I mean, Have you ever heard that the Pope wears a bullet-proof vest? I doubt it. And the point is: you never will.  Only a fool would advertise the fact that he is wearing one, because then the shooter goes for a head shot, where there is no protection.  Sorry about the graphic details, but this is security 101 folks: you never advertise your defenses, because the minute you do, they are no longer defenses, they are liabilities.
The bottom line for me is:  If VGR were being seriously threatened, he would be dead by now. 
Serious asassins do NOT make threats.  They strike.

[15] Posted by The Pilgrim on 04-29-2008 at 12:19 PM • top

Physical threats are wrong, whether they be against revisionists or reasserters.  When we pray for Lambeth and GAFCON, we should include prayers of protection for all.

[16] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 04-29-2008 at 12:22 PM • top

Dear simple country bishop - the threats in this life are NOTHING like the threats in the bible…those awaiting you in the afterlife.

[17] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 04-29-2008 at 12:31 PM • top

Amen, Jill.

[18] Posted by oscewicee on 04-29-2008 at 12:33 PM • top

#15 Pilgrim- You are quite correct in your statements. Logic bears you out. This is all a bunch of grandstanding, folks. He has a book to sell you know… and an agenda to promote. I wonder if Susan Russel will be the best man?  smile

[19] Posted by Gordy on 04-29-2008 at 12:40 PM • top


Without a doubt physical threats and violence are wrong and it we should all stand against them. The morality of threats and violence isn’t the issue.

Gene, Colin and Davis are using the specter of threats and violence to smear their opponents with in the Anglican church. But they have shown little or no evidence that have actually been threatened or assaulted by their Anglican opponents. No doubt, Gene has received threats, but most likely they come from groups outside the Anglican church. Davis is certainly at risk in Nigeria and Togo, but I would wager Muslims present a greater threat to him than the church hierarchy or their flock.

Instead of showing that Network members or clergy in Nigeria are behind these threats or assaults they simply include anyone who disagrees with them in the same group. Simply by mentioning the idea of threats they are allowed to associate all reasserters with violence. That’s not intellectually honest.

[20] Posted by texex on 04-29-2008 at 12:57 PM • top

Too bad for Gene…not only have I been threatened by the gay community here in Colorado Springs, they have actually followed through.

I have been harassed on the street, blocked into parking spaces by men holding their genitals, had a pie thrown at me while preaching, and the dikes on bikes have roared their motorcycle engines while going past our church during our worship services…

And this doesn’t begin to compare with the personal attack and abuse of judicial process against me by Gene’s buddy the Episcopal Bishop of Colorado.

What goes around comes around Gene…and you set about destroying the church our families have worshipped in for generations and it is bound to be costly…I know defending it from you has been costly for me…

[21] Posted by Don Armstrong on 04-29-2008 at 01:02 PM • top

I agree with prayers for protection for all who attend Lambeth, especially Gene Robinson.  Last thing the communion needs is for him to become a martyr.  TEC would immediately elevate him to sainthood and that would create a whole new set of issues.

[22] Posted by The Templar on 04-29-2008 at 01:05 PM • top

texex, I think it behooves us, though, to make crystal clear that we don’t condone violence or threats—all the moreso since it appears that there are people who want to claim we are doing so already. Jill is right, too, that we should pray for all concerned.

[23] Posted by oscewicee on 04-29-2008 at 01:10 PM • top

#21. I have been harassed on the street, blocked into parking spaces by men holding their genitals, had a pie thrown at me while preaching, and the dikes on bikes have roared their motorcycle engines while going past our church during our worship services…

Ecccchhhh. Sounds pretty heterophobic. I’ll bet that the conservative and moderate bishops are also getting threats and heterophobic remarks. I remember reading about some police or firemen who were getting heterophobic things said and done to them at a gay pride parade. I’ve heard of people being arrested or fired for expressing traditional views of human sexuality. We’re even being called ...“breeders”. The heterophobia needs to stop.

Perhaps a civil rights complaint is in order.

[24] Posted by Ralph on 04-29-2008 at 01:22 PM • top

For the record, other people who routinely get death threats include politicians of all stripes, Hollywood celebrities, and even popular authors.  Unfortunately it’s part of being a public figure nowadays.  Not all such threats are considered credible, however.

So no, VGR is not an Extra Special Person because of this.

[25] Posted by st. anonymous on 04-29-2008 at 01:23 PM • top

I think he should wear a lightning-proof vest.

[26] Posted by Alli B on 04-29-2008 at 01:38 PM • top

I used to post (under a different nom-de-net) at a “progressive” website, upholding the historic biblical view on sexuality (as well as a number of other important issues).  I sought to be as factual and impersonal as possible.

It was not uncommon to have replies to my posts that said that if the person knew who I was, I would be picketed, harassed, or even assaulted.  No death threats—but threats even so.  I don’t know if those making these comments were serious—but I have heard from some friends who have been picketed or confronted by angry “pro-gay” people. 

Threats can come to anyone, and from all sorts of people.  It is not a matter of brave, oh-so-sensitive and caring progressives being confronted by hidebound conservatives with irrational fear motivating efforts to repress any change from the status quo.

[27] Posted by AnglicanXn on 04-29-2008 at 01:57 PM • top

More static…need to change the channel…

[28] Posted by Passing By on 04-29-2008 at 02:03 PM • top

Pilgrim [15] You are so correct in Security 101.  The Bishop is looking for attention as a part of the gay agenda.  What he is not is honest… After all there are no degrees of honesty.

[29] Posted by Tom Dennis on 04-29-2008 at 02:49 PM • top

Man up Gene, quit acting like a scared little school girl.

[30] Posted by The Templar on 04-29-2008 at 03:07 PM • top

“Physical threats” is actually a step back from his claims of death threats, referred to in the New York Times piece and by him in the Radio Four interview Sunday, discussed here. Moreover, he is now using death threats as the reason for getting civilly unionized (or whatever the verb is) before Lambeth, so to get “legal protections” before he goes in harm’s way—without ever explaining what those protections are (since there really aren’t any under the New Hampshire law that he couldn’t have without being civilly unionized).

[31] Posted by RomeAnglican on 04-29-2008 at 03:14 PM • top

Physical threats—then he should quit hanging out in those gay bars like we saw in the CNN special after his “ordination.”  IMHO

[32] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 04-29-2008 at 03:22 PM • top

Sorry, but I believe that the biggest single threat to VGR would be that people started to ignore him.  That is what we really should do, if we spent less time on him, we might have a more possitive outlook and discussion.  There are some situations that we can not change, only God can, so why do we waste so much on them?

[33] Posted by Soy City Priest on 04-29-2008 at 03:41 PM • top

If his cause were truly just in the sight of God, he would be silent about his suffering, offering it to God alone.

[34] Posted by Alice Linsley on 04-29-2008 at 04:22 PM • top

When we have confidence in God’s goodness, we are able to endure hardships, threats, losses, and condemnation because we know that God is our Judge and our sure Defense.

[35] Posted by Alice Linsley on 04-29-2008 at 04:24 PM • top

How tired I am of Vicky Gene’s whining…You messed with our church “you set about destroying the church our families have been worshiping in for generations”... you are going uninvited to Lambeth..You bragged about being a June bride…you are delighted to have so much attention ..but prayer for his safety is surely in order..we don’t need a st gene and we don’t need for someone to act in God’s place in administering justice

[36] Posted by ewart-touzot on 04-29-2008 at 04:41 PM • top

Loose Canon (#35) - I suspect with this same rational Martin Luther King Jr.‘s cause would be considered unjust in God’s sight since he was not silent in his suffering, and I suspect he did not offer it up to God, alone.  If we apply this same way of thinking to all the people who have fought for civil rights or against the oppression of Pol Pot and other brutal despots or perhaps even the Christians who are terribly persecuted in foreign lands, they should have back then and now simply shut-up and trust(ed) in God.

I don’t think this is a good way to perceive what Robinson should or shouldn’t be doing or saying, regardless of what one might think about him.

[37] Posted by Bob G+ on 04-29-2008 at 04:43 PM • top

The homosexuals in the US were relatively quiet and peaceful until recently when they found that they could use the church as their bully pulpit.  Since then they haven’t shut up.  And comparisons of the injustices suffered by the blacks in this country and the oppressed under Pol Pot and the other Christians throughout history,are ridiculous. 

Of all the oppressed people in this world, lets face it, the homosexuals are pretty much at the bottom of the list, despite their continuous whining, which by the way is beginning to wear real thin.

[38] Posted by The Templar on 04-29-2008 at 07:28 PM • top

[comment deleted—off topic]

[39] Posted by witness on 04-29-2008 at 08:11 PM • top

Gene is always playing the political card. Such actions serve his activism, but do they serve God?

[40] Posted by Alice Linsley on 04-29-2008 at 08:16 PM • top

[comment deleted—off topic]

[41] Posted by witness on 04-29-2008 at 08:16 PM • top

I sense a Braxton’s Lear coming on. Dr. Mabuse, you’re needed!....

[42] Posted by Andrewesman on 04-29-2008 at 08:18 PM • top

Gene Robinson has been invited to a Roman Catholic bookseller’s convention. “Oh woe is me. I was a terrible priest. I am terrible bishop. But let’s talk about my victimness!” See story here. (And check out the comment in the comment section.)

Probably the most effective thing to do is to contact the sponsors of the event:
Spring Arbor Distributors
The Word Among Us Press
The Pilgrim Press
Catholic Book Publishing Company
Oxford University Press
Bluebridge and Wm B. Eerdmans
The Crossroad Publishing Company.
Church Publishing Group and Handcrafted Pewter
Loyola Press
Orbis Books
HeartBeat Records
Paraclete Press

I will work on getting contact info for these organizations. Also, Mark Forrest, a Christian singer and pro-life advocate will be performing at the convention. He probably would like a carbon copy of the emails. His email is [irishtenor -at-]. I am sure that Mr Forrest would be interested in Gene Robinson’s comment to the folks at Planned Parenthood:

I know, in the end, that I’m going to heaven, and so are you, You and I can do this work no matter how hard it gets, because we know we’re going home.

This and other comments may be found here.

[43] Posted by robroy on 04-29-2008 at 08:55 PM • top

Are not these attacks by witness just a little much for the happy zone here at Standfirm…wasn’t Father Don’s post simply to say in a war everyone is apt to be hurt—so the quesiton then becomes: who started it?

[44] Posted by Dr Crestwood on 04-29-2008 at 09:12 PM • top

I think “witness” has some unresolved issues…

[45] Posted by CarolynP on 04-29-2008 at 09:17 PM • top

[comment deleted—responds to off-topic comments by another commenter]

[46] Posted by Don Armstrong on 04-29-2008 at 09:18 PM • top

[comment deleted—off topic]

[47] Posted by witness on 04-29-2008 at 09:39 PM • top

[comment deleted—responds to off-topic comments by another commenter]

[48] Posted by Don Armstrong on 04-29-2008 at 09:57 PM • top

I’m puzzled by the whole thing, the whole agenda. Gay marriage, publicly active gays ordained, being consecrated bishop, etc. Back when I knew lots of gay people (before AIDS), not one of them was fired up about marriage, etc. A few of them even talked freely about celibacy. I truly believe the marriage quest was cooked up by radical/liberal strategists and foisted off on the gay population as “the way to equality” or some such nonsense. It doesn’t ring true as a genuine desideratum gays even now. It’s odd, so many folks seeking a similitude of something that simply can’t be, like sunlight at night. VGR’s antics appear to me (as to many commenting here) to be the enjoyments of a person much addicted to publicity.

[49] Posted by ears2hear on 04-29-2008 at 10:07 PM • top

Hi Witness,

I’m assuming that you are new to the blog and do not know about the comment policies.  Please don’t bring up off-topic comments.  You are welcome to comment about the topic of the post and were we to post a story about the topics that you seem to wish to discuss you would be welcome to post on that thread as well.


[50] Posted by Sarah on 04-29-2008 at 10:13 PM • top

I’m puzzled by the whole thing, the whole agenda. Gay marriage, publicly active gays ordained, being consecrated bishop, etc. Back when I knew lots of gay people (before AIDS), not one of them was fired up about marriage, etc. A few of them even talked freely about celibacy. I truly believe the marriage quest was cooked up by radical/liberal strategists and foisted off on the gay population as “the way to equality” or some such nonsense. It doesn’t ring true as a genuine desideratum of gays even now. It’s odd, so many folks seeking a similitude of something that simply can’t be, like sunlight at night. VGR’s antics appear to me (as to many commenting here) to be the acts of a person much addicted to public attention, an easy temptation for those with “magnetic” personalities to fall prey to.

[51] Posted by ears2hear on 04-29-2008 at 10:13 PM • top

Darn Sarah:

Can’t you delete the comments AFTER I read them?

It’s like getting your cake and not having a spork by which to eat it by.

In sad comment isolation…


[52] Posted by Eclipse on 04-29-2008 at 10:18 PM • top

DJ [#40] If you were referencing my comment #39, I wasn’t comparing the suffering Gene Robinson has experienced (or gay people in general) with the suffering people under Pol Pot experienced or what truly persecuted Christians (not what we in the U.S. think we’ve “suffered” as Christians), I was referring to rational used by Alice concerning whether Gene’s suffering is legitimate and what as a Christian he should do with it before God.

I did make a really big mistake in my original comment, however.  I was referencing Alice’s comment #36, not Loose Canon’s comment #35.  My comment makes a lot more sense if I reference the correct comment.

And, by the way, homosexuals were certainly not quite before those homosexuals in this Church began to make themselves heard.  You may have been in a place were they were relatively quiet (for whatever reason) or you may have simply ignored them, but they were not been quiet in the U.S. until the found a “bully pulpit” in the Church.

[53] Posted by Bob G+ on 04-30-2008 at 04:03 AM • top

Eclipse . . . those comments began at 9:11 p.m.  So my quick mind tells me that . . . [drum roll] . . . .you were not on this blog for close to two hours.

This is clearly an outrage.  The thought that any of our commenters could miss two hours of this blog, as we post breaking news on a minute by minute basis, is of deep concern.

What precisely were you doing?  A shower takes perhaps in toto half an hour.  Supper—same thing.  Workouts—an hour perhaps.

To my mind the least that someone should be checking in on this blog is every half hour, stretching it perhaps to an hour for something really really important like a longer trail run.

; > )

[54] Posted by Sarah on 04-30-2008 at 07:36 AM • top

In reference to the deleted posts…Witness proved the point in reference to Gene Robinson feeling under attack that liberals do make similar attacks on people as well…to which Don Armstrong replied by sharing a letter he wrote his congregation articulating the power of praying for our enemies and God’s purging of enemity from our hearts…Witness did take the thread off topic from Robinson to a personal attack on Armstrong…sort of like the Muslims who try to prove they are peaceful people by blowing up a cafe…

[55] Posted by Dr Crestwood on 04-30-2008 at 08:29 AM • top

Maybe some, idiot did threaten him,which of course is wrong and incredibly stupid (as it plays right into his hands and those who are using him); but it seems to me that despite what he says, he is a media hound and does seem to have sense of drama. He imagines himself some sort trail blazer hero, a sort of Ecclessiastical GLBT Rosa Parks. What I see is a tragic,sad,deluded,broken little man in Gene Robinson. I kinda of actually feel sorry for him. The worse thing , is that Episcopal church instead of helping him, enables and celebrates his brokeness, as a great good. How is tragic is that?  The very people who should care for him and confront him in love, are helping and enabling his destruction. The whole Gene Robinson thing is sad, tragic and horrible spectacle.

[56] Posted by Anglo-Catholic-Jihadi on 04-30-2008 at 10:26 AM • top

As Bishop Salmon says: TEC is the only church that blesses that which needs treatment…

[57] Posted by Don Armstrong on 04-30-2008 at 10:37 AM • top

Just when You thought you read everything about Robinson, check this link to ‘the latest’

[58] Posted by JP on 04-30-2008 at 10:55 AM • top

To be fair, the article from EWTN states, “The Episcopalian Bishop of New Hampshire, Robinson was ordained a bishop despite his leaving his wife to live in a homosexual relationship.”  This is not accurate.

[59] Posted by Bob G+ on 04-30-2008 at 10:59 AM • top

This is were I go to purge TEC and Vicki Gene from my heart and mind…it works almost as well as prayer…

[60] Posted by Don Armstrong on 04-30-2008 at 12:14 PM • top

Thanks for the correction there. 

My reason for the post was NOW the RC’s seem to be collaborating w/TEC people in offering him a stage!

[61] Posted by JP on 04-30-2008 at 12:50 PM • top

#58 - well said - VGR IS a broken man who is living in total SLAVERY to alcoholism and homosexuality.  He is believing lies about the current state of his soul and very salvation.  Only Jesus can save him from his sins.  We all need to pray for him.

And we want to BLESS this evil stuff with Jesus’ church…PLEASE…

[62] Posted by B. Hunter on 04-30-2008 at 04:32 PM • top

Dear Sarah- I apologize for going so off-topic last night. But it is so aggravating when a post starts off on topic, then becomes a shameless self-promotion based on arguable facts. I challenge the facts, and get called a muslim terrorist by Dr Crestwood. Thats not very helpful. BTW, love the site and have been here many times and will return, many times, I’m sure

[63] Posted by witness on 04-30-2008 at 09:36 PM • top

To be fair, the article from EWTN states, “The Episcopalian Bishop of New Hampshire, Robinson was ordained a bishop despite his leaving his wife to live in a homosexual relationship.” This is not accurate.

We’ve discussed this before.  No, VGR didn’t leave his wife for that man, specifically.  But he left her with the intent to pursue a homosexual lifestyle, which he has since done.  So “leaving his wife to live in a homosexual relationship” is an accurate statement.

[64] Posted by st. anonymous on 05-01-2008 at 08:59 AM • top

He left his wife for the class of homosexual relationships, not for any particular instance of the class.

But so what?

[65] Posted by Ed the Roman on 05-01-2008 at 09:07 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.