LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) - Bishop Gene Robinson, the Nation’s openly practicing homosexual Episcopal Bishop, spoke to a crowd of over 200 people on November 27, 2007 at Nova Southeastern University’s Shephard Law Center. He told them of his upcoming planned ‘marriage’ to his paramour saying with pride, "I always wanted to be a June bride."

The activist Bishop continued:

"It may take many years for religious institutions to add their blessing for same-sex marriages and no church, mosque or synagogue should be forced to do so. But that should not slow down progress for the full civil right to marry," Robinson said. "Because New Hampshire will have legal unions beginning in January, my partner of 20 years and I will enter into such a legal union next June."

Dressed in his clerical collar and wearing his pectoral cross, the symbol of his ecclesial office in the Episcopal church, he castigated the “religious right”, a term by which he refers to all orthodox Christians who support the unbroken teaching of Christianity on the sanctity of authentic marriage:

"The greatest single hindrance to achievement of full rights for gays and lesbians can be laid at the doorstep of the three Abrahamic faiths-- Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It’s going to take people of faith to end discrimination," said Robinson, who was invested as the ninth bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire in 2004.... [emphasis added]

The Bishop is on the forefront of the ongoing schism within the Anglican Communion. He is also a part of a cultural revolution being led by activist, practicing homosexuals who not only want to live their lifestyle but force the State and the Church to give them equal status to marriage.

I remember the day that Gene Robinson was consecrated as a bishop in the Episcopal Church in Durham, New Hampshire. With the eyes of the whole world watching, a married Episcopal priest, he divorced his wife and abandoned his children. Later, he chose to engage in an active homosexual relationship and was consecrated as a Bishop of the Episcopal Church. So many Christians grieved, for him, his wife and children and, for the Church.

It was clear then, and it is even clearer now, that this man thinks he is a revolutionary, somehow bringing about a new day when Christianity will be re-fashioned in his perceived new version. He claimed that his “consecration” was a sign that, in his own words, “God is doing something new.” In short, he claims that God has changed his mind. He is wrong. Robinson simply rejects the unbroken teaching of the Christian Church for two thousand years. He seeks to substitute a new interpretation of the plan of God in “creating them male and female” and calling human persons, created for love as the gift of self to another for life, to the communion of marriage.

It was the ancient Prophet Isaiah who warned: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who change darkness into light and light into darkness, who change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own sight, and prudent in their own esteem” (Isaiah 5: 20 and 21). Robinsons’ message does just that. He calls “evil good, and good evil”. However, the facts and the unbroken witness of revelation, tradition and history still remain. Christianity has always proclaimed that marriage is a special state, reserved only for a man and a woman, ordered toward both the communion of persons and the gift of new life in children.

Robinson proclaims to the world not only that God has changed His mind, but further, that so should the Christian Church. By his open and active homosexual lifestyle he rejects the clear Christian teaching concerning human sexuality and its purposes. For two thousand years the Christian Church has taught with uniformity that conjugal love is to be sexually expressed only within a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, open to new life.

Robinson wants to substitute his “new thing” for the classical, orthodox Christian claim that sexual expression is a gift reserved only for spouses within authentic marriage. He wants to do so by redefining words in some kind of misguided new effort at alchemy. He will not succeed. There is an ‘ontology’ to marriage, it simply is what it is. He rejects the unbroken teaching of two millennia, confirmed by all social science, human reason and experience, that the two parent heterosexual family is the safest place for children to be raised and where they can best flourish as human persons. He wants to replace it all now with a new revolutionary ideology.

He presents his claims in pseudo-theological sounding language, contexts them in errant appeals to revisionist history and frames them in pop psychology. He then projects them with a countenance that is apparently kind and even endearing. That is what makes it all even more disturbing ...