The 'I' of the Storm [Updated]

Once again, the high priest of narcissism simply must be swept to the center of attention.

Critical to Gene Robinson's psyche is playing the victim, so in 2003 he went to great pains to ensure that everyone knew that at his consecration he wore the ultimate vestment of victimhood--a bulletproof undergarment. He claimed--without ever producing an iota of evidence--that there were credible death threats against him. Of course many public figures have threats made against them, but few don Kevlar so proudly and publicly as Gene did. (And of course if he were seriously threatened, the last thing he would have done was announce what sort of countermeasures he takes to protect himself.) His claims of death threats were never scrutinized by the media, nor was he ever called upon to provide details. And somehow when the consecration was over, he no longer saw a need to wear a bulletproof vest--even though there was also no evidence any threat had been neutralized.

But now he's at it again. He's apparently claiming that his life is again at risk as he travels his Via Dolorosa to Lambeth martyrdom this summer. Reports the New York Times: "He planned his civil union for June, he said, because he wanted to provide some legal protection to his partner and his children before he left for England for the conference. Bishop Robinson has received death threats, and he wore a bulletproof vest under his vestments at his consecration in 2003."

It's pretty plain to most observers exactly why Gene so wanted to be a "June bride," as he described himself in his first attempt to explain the provocative timing of his nuptials. The point all along was to insult the majority of the world's Anglican bishops as they gathered weeks after in Lambeth. Of course his plan was that he'd be there, pseudo-spouse in tow, just to make all the orthodox unhappy, and force Her Majesty the Queen, among others, to acknowledge him. While that part of his honeymoon didn't work out as he had hoped, he'll of course still be there, in the bazaar for those peddling their causes and wares. (He said he would not do that--but of course couldn't pass up the attention, so reversed himself.) He still aims to offend--and he will. He still aims to bring attention to himself (for he can do no other)--and he will. He's still offered no reasonable alternative explanation for his timing--because he can't.

But while his first explanation was supposed to be cute in a gay kind of way, his new explanation is at best disingenuous. That's not just because there's been no evidence offered for these supposed death threats. It's because there is nothing legally that his New Hampshire civil union will accomplish for him or his children that could not be accomplished easier through very simple estate planning, assuming he is bravely heading into harm's way and in need of putting his affairs in order. This is just another statement designed to bring attention to himself, to inflate his importance, to secure his victimhood, and to provide some sort of explanation for his timing.

Gene Robinson can't shut up, but at least he needs to put up. What are these death threats he claims to have received? Exactly what "legal protections" is he talking about providing his consort and children that requires a civil union before he travels? Since the New Hampshire civil union law was in effect in January, why if he needs these protections is he willing to wait until June to get them, if there really is a death threat against him? If this really is the reason for his timing, does that mean he was lying when he earlier said it was all only about having a June wedding?

-----------------

UPDATE (27th April): In case anyone thinks I have overstated Robinson's connecting the timing of his civil union with death threats, listen to his BBC interview this morning [starting at 36:40]. Radio Four's Sunday program interviewer Roger Bolton challenged Robinson about his saying, on the one hand, that homosexuality was being given more attention than it should have, while then inserting himself so provocatively into Lambeth. Listen to the whole interview, if you want to hear a case study in megalomania. But here is a transcript of the remarks pertaining to Robinson's martyrdom complex:

Bolton: And of course there's one other thing you'll be doing this summer, I understand, in June. You are going to go through a civil union with your partner. Do you think when you do that you will be in God's eyes "marrying" your partner?

Robinson: No, this is not marriage. The civil authorities here have passed a civil union law, and frankly when I head to Lambeth and really put my, not just my spiritual life but my physical life in danger, I am unwilling to attend and put myself in danger without at least some of the protections that are provided to me and my family are in place by virtue of this civil union law. I think that's what any husband or wife would do for their spouse, and I can do no less for my partner of 20 years.

Bolton: Does that mean, Bishop, that you fear for your life?

Robinson: One of the great things about being a believer in Jesus Christ is that we need not fear death. On the other hand, I'm not stupid, and I need to provide for my family just as anyone would want to provide for their family. And so, while I am not fearful--I do not think about that very often--at the same time I need to be prudent.

Interesting how he says it's not marriage, but then asserts he's acting as "any husband or wife would do." Pity that Mr. Bolton, as tough an interviewer as he is, did not press Robinson about exactly what "protections" he is referring to; why if he needs these protections, he's willing to wait until June to get them; and why he's just now offering this (different) story about why he is having his civil union just before heading to Lambeth. Someone needs to call Robinson on what appears to be a rather transparent and contrived falsehood that depends on others not pressing him for details.

For a fellow says he doesn't think of being killed very often, he sure talks about it a whole lot, doesn't he?