Evangelical Christians | Evangelicals | Gene Robinson | Jim Garlow | News | San Diego

Gay Bishop Gene Robinson to Attend 'Gay Marriage Summit' at San Diego Megachurch: VIDEO

A San Diego megachurch is holding a summit on same-sex marriage today in an attempt to ratchet down the rhetoric, the Union Tribune reports:

GarlowPastor Jim Garlow is promising something different as he welcomes several notable figures to his Rancho San Diego megachurch, including Gene Robinson, the first openly gay person to serve as a bishop of a major Christian domination.

“I feel like there’s way too much misunderstanding and way too much name-calling on this issue and not enough civil, respectful dialogue,” Garlow said.

The setting is not exactly neutral territory. Garlow helped spearhead the passage of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that blocked same-sex unions in California. His evangelical church, Skyline, is widely known for its social conservatism.

Robinson applauded Garlow's move: "I think the real goal is not to change other people’s minds, but to show that people with opposing views can have a civil dialogue."

Earlier this year, Garlow warned that gay marriage "may cost us our lives." Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Good luck to Gene Robinson. This event seems to be a bit circular. How is it that Garlow wants to "ratchet down the rhetoric" when his communications seem to be the most "ratcheted up" rhetoric short of the Westboro Baptists? It seems like if he really wants to ratchet it down, more self control is in order. Not a summit.

    Posted by: Rob w. | Jul 29, 2012 12:18:19 PM


  2. I wouldn't go to this thing if I were Gene. Maybe that's why he's who he is, he can deal with such.

    Posted by: Joe B. | Jul 29, 2012 12:20:39 PM


  3. I admire Bishop Robinson, but I think it is a mistake to give the pos Garlow a shred of respectability.

    Posted by: Jay | Jul 29, 2012 12:31:01 PM


  4. Into the lion's den strides Bishop Robinson. I hope it's not a trap because I've no hope it'll be otherwise no matter what Garlow states as his intent. Unfortunately, these homophobic Christofascists have spewed too much anti-GLBT rhetoric to be trusted. There's simply no turning the other cheek with these bigots. Good luck, Gene, but be careful.

    Posted by: HadenoughBS | Jul 29, 2012 12:50:57 PM


  5. Their fake call for "dialogue" is a very transparent attempt in pretending that there are two equally valid sides here and this is simply a disagreement. Especially considering who this is coming from. They are trying to lure people into the same trap journalism already succumbed to. Not every issue has two sides. Sometimes one side is simply wrong.

    Posted by: Steve | Jul 29, 2012 12:54:18 PM


  6. I fail to see what Gene or our community might gain out of this. While it's possible to change some people's minds, I doubt that will happen in Garlow's church. But it does provide coverage to the right-wing under the "let's agree to disagree" mantra. Hopefully Gene's a smarter man that I and knows what he's doing.

    Posted by: Blake | Jul 29, 2012 12:55:26 PM


  7. Danger, Gene Robinson, Danger!

    Posted by: Alex Parrish | Jul 29, 2012 1:31:40 PM


  8. "Earlier this year, Garlow warned that gay marriage 'may cost us our lives.'"

    So much for civil discourse. Mr. Garlow sounds like a charlatan to me.

    Posted by: Keppler | Jul 29, 2012 1:57:42 PM


  9. I'll bet this arsehole wants to "ratchet down" the rhetoric only to preserve a desired level of tithing over the next few years.

    Posted by: agcons | Jul 29, 2012 2:40:19 PM


  10. Why do we care if people "with opposing views" (meaning one denies the other's rights) can have a civil dialogue? I have no interest in that.

    Posted by: Randy | Jul 29, 2012 4:39:51 PM


  11. There is already both civil and uncivil dialog around these issues. So the existence of civil dialog isn't something that needs to be proved or something that needs to be introduced. We just need more civil and less uncivil dialog. Also, since the 'sides' seem to be diametrically opposed, it stands to reason that they can't both be right. Either one side or the other is wrong, or both sides are wrong. Out of four possible options, logic has already eliminated one.

    Posted by: Johnson | Jul 29, 2012 6:56:31 PM


  12. How does one have a "civil dialogue" when you look people in the eye and tell them that they are "intrinsically disordered" (to borrow that Catholic church's words). How do you "ratchet down the rhetoric" when you begin with "your love is an abomination" and you deserve to be a second-class citizen. Sorry, there can never be a civil dialogue because one side's position is inherently uncivil.

    Posted by: Jim | Jul 29, 2012 9:13:57 PM


  13. This sounds like a psy-op, lots of anxiety imagery (two locomotives on the same track moving at high speed), could lose our lives? I don't hear anything in the news or on the internet about Christians being targeted by gays, getting carved on, lit on fire, beaten, etc.,. NO accountability being taken for their words driving these actions. They are the first group to point out that video games drive violent behavior but not their hate speech? I get why Robinson might feel he has to attend - to decline would further the rift - but this video shows Garlow ratcheting up not down. I don't expect a happy outcome or even civil behavior from Garlow's flock. Special foreshadowing when he says you cannot have both gays and religion in the same country at the same time. Since he knows we're not moving out, where do you think that leaves us? Certainly not on a foundation for civil discussion.

    One last note: To Garlow, Dan Cathy, and all the other Christianists (people claiming to be christian and don't act like it): We're not shaking our fists at God, we're shaking our fists at you and your claim as an authority on God. Your kind always seems to confuse the two and we're really tired of it. Notice we're "Shaking" fists and not throwing them, not carving on christians, not setting them on fire, not beating them to death. You could take a lesson from us on that.

    Posted by: Devin | Jul 30, 2012 2:22:56 AM


  14. LIVE FROM SAN DIEGO! I just got back from Skyline Church. Everbody was wonderful, and the HUGE church was packed. The moderators kept things in the zone of "interesting" without letting anybody run away with their opinions. Garlow talked about how during a recent 40 day fast, he felt a calling to be more empathetic towards same-sex attracted people. "Didn't know he had any hostility towards them," (!) but felt the call to focus on the issue, hence he invited folks to the debate. Dr. Gagnon naturally trotted out his polygamy / incest parallels; Robinson went for emotion with his testimony about how "Scripture" had saved his life. But apparently it was ONLY ONE SCRIPTURE, the "Beloved Son" bit from Jesus' Baptism, that he had in mind. Morse was very kid-focused: all characterization of marriage, all the rights and responsibilities pertaining thereto, flow from the society's interest in the well-being of children. The debate ran over 3 hours, but time flew by. I approached Dr. G after and told him how much I was looking forward to the rest of his rebuttal of Nardelli's attack on BHP, which brought a twinkle to his eye. Well worth the trip!

    Posted by: Didaskalos | Jul 30, 2012 4:56:29 AM


  15. All religion is myth including the gay friendly myths. Trash it all and follow reason and science.

    Posted by: andrew | Jul 30, 2012 6:59:03 AM


  16. I was there Sunday night. No minds were changed. Gene and John Corvelli spoke about loving relationships; the fundies spoke about "what the bible clearly teaches." They twisted scripture like an old mop. Garlow was anything but neutral. The woman from the Ruth Institute wants everyone to follow the traditional Roman Catholic views on divorce. She said it was sinful and remarriage after divorce was adultery. There was no love or humanity in either of them. I was with a large group of Episcopalians--we were all sitting on the left side of the auditorium. It thought that was appropriate. At one point Garlow asked each one of the panelists a specific question. The fundies were asked general, theological questions. Gene and John were asked deeply personal questions. Garlow seemed to imply that Gene had been unfaithful to his wife and then just walked out on her and their daughters. He set him straight.
    I always get hives when I'm around too many fundies. I soaked in calamine lotion that night.

    Posted by: billydee4 | Jul 31, 2012 12:25:36 PM


  17. I was there Sunday night. No minds were changed. Gene and John Corvelli spoke about loving relationships; the fundies spoke about "what the bible clearly teaches." They twisted scripture like an old mop. Garlow was anything but neutral. The woman from the Ruth Institute wants everyone to follow the traditional Roman Catholic views on divorce. She said it was sinful and remarriage after divorce was adultery. There was no love or humanity in either of them. I was with a large group of Episcopalians--we were all sitting on the left side of the auditorium. It thought that was appropriate. At one point Garlow asked each one of the panelists a specific question. The fundies were asked general, theological questions. Gene and John were asked deeply personal questions. Garlow seemed to imply that Gene had been unfaithful to his wife and then just walked out on her and their daughters. He set him straight.
    I always get hives when I'm around too many fundies. I soaked in calamine lotion that night.

    Posted by: billydee4 | Jul 31, 2012 12:25:38 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Washington D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray Calls Chick-fil-A 'Hate Chicken'« «