The Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop has married his long-term partner.
Vicki Gene Robinson, whose ordination as Bishop of New Hampshire in 
2003 hailed a still-continuing worldwide division in the Anglican Church, entered into a civil union with Mark Andrew on Saturday. “I always wanted to be a June bride,” the Bishop once remarked.
Congratulations and best wishes from XGW to Gene and Mark.
I know the bishop was trying to be humorous, but why continue to promote the stereotype that gay men are effeminate or secretly want to be a woman?
Anyway, best wishes to him and his partner!
I agree, Mark. I feel the same way when I say leatherhead and S&M floats in the gay pride parade, and buff men in nothing but their speedos. I can’t take “Pride” in something that reinforces stereotype.
But I absolutely wish Bishop Robinson the best. He DESERVES to fulfill his wish to be a “June Bride” after all he’s been through.
Mark, Emily, can’t that just be the way he chooses to express himself?
Like it or not, feminine gay men and leather/S&M folks are part of the gay community. Stereotypes come from somewhere, they come from observing a pattern. What makes them wrong is when they are applied to all people, or set up as some sort of defining rule.
He’s a person, and he gets to be happy. And if calling himself a “june bride” (perhaps ironically) makes him happy, then Geez, can’t that just be enough?
Some men like to shoot things. Some women like to cook. Some black people like watermelon. Some white people can’t dance. Some asians are smart. If you happen to be one of these people, what, are you not allowed to like what you like for fear of enforcing stereotypes? Must every public figure hide their stereotypical features in a special closet?
I also don’t like it when I see so many Jewish names in media companies – e.g., Metro Goldwyn Mayer. Or Zuckerman from NBC. Leslie Moonves of CBS. Michael Eisner of ABC. I think that covers the “big 3” of TV – should I go on? It only provides fodder for “jew watch” websites and Mel Gibson. But it happens. IMHO, we Jews have been drawn to such professions because historically, so many limitations have been placed on Jews legally and more subtly with discrimination. So we get ahead by being smart and using our brains. It levels the playing field. EVERYBODY has a brain.
People can live in leather, practice daily S&M, or wear hats with giant pink phalluses on them every evening when they go out to circuit parties. More power to them. That doesn’t mean I think it’s good for the community. I think stereotypes can also come from those parts of the community that happen to be the “loudest” – the most different, the most noticeable. There are cheap Jews. Pushy Jews. Super smart Jews with their own media conglomerates. I cannot take pride in those things.
emily, I honestly don’t see how that’s any different than people thinking gays, in general, aren’t good for the community. Let’s play wordswap with your sentences:
“Gays can live together, practice daily sexual activity, or wear wedding rings on their fingers every evening when they go out to dinner. More power to them. That doesn’t mean I think it’s good for the community.”
My second point is that there is a tendency for what I call “Lazy gays” to point to the out, proud, noticed group and say “this is your fault” rather than taking responsibility for how they passively contribute to the “problem”.
The reason we don’t have any non-flamey gay celebrities is because non have had the balls to come out of the closet. If you ever go to Pride Parades, the “wacky” outfits and “loud” people make up about 10-20%, and it is NOT their fault that the media focuses on them. If you have a problem with them being the most exposed, talk to the media.
I used to have this fight left and right at straightacting.com. If someone has a problem with “gay stereotypes” then they need to step up to the plate and be an object lesson in diversity, if they are too busy, or don’t feel like stepping up, they have only themselves to blame.
And you don’t like it when you see too many jewish names in media conglomerates? That’s one that just about made my jaw fall off. Wow. I don’t think I have anything else I can say to that other than, wow.
No, I don’t. I don’t like it when I see fellow Jews fulfilling our own stereotypes. The same thing goes for “ambulance chasing” lawyers that appear in those schlocky TV commercials.
I also don’t like it when I see so many Jewish names in media companies – e.g., Metro Goldwyn Mayer. Or Zuckerman from NBC. Leslie Moonves of CBS. Michael Eisner of ABC. I think that covers the “big 3″ of TV – should I go on?
What are you seriously suggesting here? That Jewish people should avoid the entertainment industry altogether in order to avoid looking like a stereotype? That they should just “hold themselves back” and not be as successful in that industry in order to avoid providing fodder for the anti-Jewish conspiracy theorists? Sounds like a pretty big price to pay. And it ultimately just sounds like another form of bondage to the stereotype. It’s still dictating people’s choices.
And that’s my issue in general when people start complaining about those who “fit” stereotypes. It’s bound to happen. Because people are diverse like that. True freedom is being true to oneself and being open about it, regardless of whether you break the stereotypes or fit them.
Of course I would never expect any Jews to “hold themselves back.” Really the only remedy I feel to this situation is education of those who see Jewish involvement in the entertainment industry, banking, and law. That it isn’t because of some conspiracy, but a calling of profession and a personal passion.
The problem is, I find myself tongue-tied when confronted with the blind statement that “jews control the media.” We ARE extremely successful in that area. I don’t believe we “control” it but I believe we are very prominent in it. Some believe bigots should just be “ignored” but I feel a duty to speak out and respond and defend.
Believe me, I can totally appreciate your desire to speak out in response and defense. Though I have to admit that I’ve also grown cynical, as it’s my exeprience that far too many people’s bigotry tends to be based on not mere ignorance (which can be combatted with education), but willful ignorance. And unfortunately, in those cases, there’s no real chance to change minds.
Emily,
I find your statements puzzling, and well, unconvincing on this issue.
You said:
“I also don’t like it when I see so many Jewish names in media companies – e.g., Metro Goldwyn Mayer. Or Zuckerman from NBC. Leslie Moonves of CBS. Michael Eisner of ABC. I think that covers the “big 3″ of TV – should I go on? It only provides fodder for “jew watch” websites and Mel Gibson.”
This indicates you think the problem is that these Jews are passively helping bigotry by reinforcing stereotypes. You make the comparison between gay stereotypes and Jew stereotypes. Use of this comparison is basically saying “I feel exactly the same way about these two issues.”
So, about gays you say:
Which, considering it is in the same posting, means you feel that Jews in entertainment, and gays practicing daily S&M, are things that you don’t think are “good for the community”.
When I confronted you about this you repeated:
So, at this point, we can determine you feel that gays who practice S&M, or wear hats with giant pink phalluses on them, or happy gay bishop’s calling themselves june brides, Jews in media conglomerates, and ambulance chasing lawyers — are all in the same boat. Bad for the community.
But, when Jarred confronts you, suddenly you shift your position:
So, these Jews who are bad for the Community, well they suffer from the ignorance of others. So, are they not bad for the community? And what about S&M, Pink Phallus-hat, and Gene Robinson? Do they suffer from the ignorance of others?
You started off with a sort of “blame the victim” mentality, but when confronted, you shifted to “well ignorance is the problem”. Which has been my point all along. Gays are not responsible for the discrimination and bias against them, even if they are June Brides. Ignorance is the problem.
The simple fact is, those who can be moved to change, will, those who can’t, won’t. Someone who has an open mind can meet a drag queen, a leather daddy, a club kid, and after spending some time realize ‘this is a person”. Those who’s minds are closed off, however, will see a leather daddy and a suit-and-tie gay as the exact same thing: a monster to be avoided and or defeated. Visually sanitizing the gay community won’t win the hard to reach, it will just make certain gays miserable for no reason.
I’ll agree with this. Speaking from my own experience, I think I can also understand the defensive reaction to those things which might be seen by some as stereotypical. It’s a sort of “walking on eggs” syndrome, where I know that people are out there who will lump us all together and make it a slur, instead of recognizing the individual as Jason said. I don’t think it’s healthy, and I have to stop now and then and realize that such people and their thoughtlessness shouldn’t affect how I see others. This is just one of the ways that prejudice and bigotry hurt – there are all kinds of ramifications.
Lighten up! +Gene let this slip out during one of his zillion interviews, and immediately acknowledged that he made a blunder. Bishops apparently are not allowed to have a sense of humor in public. I think he has held up amazingly well to the constant interviews, being adulated by some, being blamed for splitting the Anglican Communion, getting death threats from nutcases – I think better of him for having a sense of humor in the face of all this.
Being a priest or minister has never been known as a particularly manly occupation.
Jason, I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth. Saying someone reinforces a stereotype that makes me personally squeamish and view it as not being good for the community and then calling the person specifically “bad for the community” is a leap. I don’t think that it helps our community when stereotypes are reinforced by people. But that doesn’t make that person inherently “bad for the community.” Maybe that same leather-wearing person volunteers on weekends at a shelter for homeless gay teens. Saying a person is “bad,” let alone “bad for the community,” is an extreme generalization that I try to avoid. I believe what I believe and I made those beliefs, although complex, clear. And whether or not you’re comfortable with them is not my concern, and shouldn’t be your concern either.
Someone could call this my own version of “love the sinner hate the sin” but just because I disagree with someone’s behavior doesn’t mean I think a part of themselves should be “hated.” I CAN disapprove and dislike that part of themselves while still liking who they are and other things they do. Just like many people cannot always love everything about me or every aspect of my personality and my behavior.
I used to sarcastically retort to my mother in arguments that I was “sorry, I’m a bad person, I know it already.” She would harshly rebuke me for using such a broad, negative term so blithely. I don’t have anything more to say on the subject, so the readers can pick apart my response and ultimately conclude I’m some sort of self-hater. I don’t have time to keep responding and it’s not my job to “convince” anyone of anything.