In regard to Bishop Robinson's comments on Archbishop Williams' "attempts to hold us together as a communion at all costs": folks who are having an otherwise boring weekend may be interested in some thoughts I posted a couple of days ago on my bloggus redivivus,
http://wsjm-curmudgeon.blogspot.com/2010/11/anglican-covenant-or-havent-we-been.html
(Abraham Lincoln and Rowan Williams: compare and contrast.)

(Yes, as a blogger I have no restraint!)

Attn: Aliens, etc.

¨We have seen the pressure put on the liberals to comply with conservative practice and ideals. Where is the pressure on the conservatives to accept the liberals? ¨ Not Abraham Lincoln but Paul Handley/Guardian U.K.

Sex outside the bond of marriage is wrong, and generally accepted as a sin by most progressivies and conservativies.

Why then does Bishop Robinson feel that his open relationship with another of the same sex outside the bonds of marriage should be accepted by the church and the ABC?

What makes his relationship to be acceptable when "Joe Neighbor" has an affair with someone else of the opposite sex?

I've never understood this. Sure the laws prohibit gay marriage in most states, but laws prohibit polygomy in all states.

Dear Walter - Bp Robinson is married to his partner - New Hampshire permits same sex couples to marry -- and polygamy is having multiple partners which he most certainly does not have. He and his wife were divorced before they began to date others.

Well, 'gamy' means 'marriage', it just happens that most polygamy is polygyny ('gyny' being 'women') but the point is that, even aside from the law -- civil and canon, all the conditions of true marriage may exist between two people and the church ought to accept that as a reasonable plea against the accusation of sex "outside of marriage". Marriage is something two people do and the state witnesses and the church blesses, missing one or the other of the latter does not make it less a marriage.

Walter, who says that most "progessivies" consider sex outside of marriage "sin"? I don't think the local priests at any of the "progressive" churches around here care what a person does outside marriage as long as the people involved are willing and agree about whether the relationship is "exclusive" or "open".

F.Harry, would you say then that everyone living with someone is therefore in a "common-law" marriage? It is a legal state in some areas of the U.S.

-- Chris H. - please sign your last name next time ~ed.

One of these days, Walter, +Gene and Mark MAY just forego the Christian charity they've always displayed, and SUE persons who make libelous statements such as yours.

Don't say you weren't warned.

JC Fisher

How offensive. Would Walter consider a straight man in a second marriage, following a divorce, the same way? This is not forbidden in TEC. (I believe there are a number of anti-gay Bishops on their 2nd + marriage).

Bp Robinson is married to his partner Mark, following a divorce from his first wife. he married his partner as soon as it was legal to do so. He is NOT in an "open relationship" and it is a lie to suggest that he is.

if Walter is willing to say the same vile things to any straight man, priest or Bishop who is on a second marriage, then I will apologize.

But to insult Bp Robinson for being faithfully and monogamously committed to his husband in a covenanted partnership, and a legal second marriage is a libel.

How typical of the conservatives; they deny LGBT people the right to marry and then complain that LGBT are not married.

Any scandal here is not in Bp Robinson's estimable relationship with his husband.

--Susan Forsburg

I've seen Walter's hateful posts on the Diocese of Texas website in the past. He's an angry man that is obsessed with homosexuality. I feel rather sorry for him.

Chris Cooper