Robertson: Don’t Attend Son’s Same-Sex Wedding

Pat Robertson, once again displaying his total lack of humanity and compassion, told a viewer who emailed him that she and her husband should refuse to attend their son’s wedding to another man — but of course, they still love him and blah blah blah.

“It’s not heterosexual,” Robertson replied thoughtfully. “You don’t agree with it, you got to stand there and be a witness to it. By your attendance at the ceremony, you are agreeing.”

“We used to say anybody who opposes this, let him speak or forever hold his peace and all that kind of thing,” he continued. “I just wouldn’t go. I would tell your child, ‘I love you, but I cannot condone this. We always love you, but I don’t condone this activity. And so, I’m here if you need me.’”

Oh yes, we love you but we refuse to even attend your wedding because of our bigoted religious beliefs. That just screams love, doesn’t it? You keep using that word…

httpv://youtu.be/q0x6UU97Etc

"No worries, glad to clarify for you. That's kind of shocking to me, and may ..."

OH Gov. Candidate Defends Franken by ..."
"You make me sorry I asked. It sounds to me like you have a whole ..."

Trump’s Blatant Hypocrisy on Sexual Harassment
"How do we know he didn't? There may yet be more to uncover..."

Tony Perkins Covered Up Sexual Assault ..."
"You got something against greasy fingernails and busted knuckles?"

Bakker Declares Victory in Mythical War ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    “You don’t agree with it, you got to stand there and be a witness to it. By your attendance at the ceremony, you are agreeing.”

    Hey, Pat! Does that apply to politicians too? Any “Christian” politician that disagrees with any of the beliefs of other politicians in, say, Congress, should refuse to go there or they are “agreeing” with Catholics, Jews. secularists, Muslim, etc., etc.?

    From your mouth …

  • blf

    That fantastic quote from Robin DesCamp a few weeks back about another set of parents having their panties all in a twist when the son’s wedding plans did not conform to the parent’s alleged beliefs comes to mind:

    Please consult a dictionary and look up the word ‘compromise,’ because it does not mean what you think it means. You are making a unilateral demand under threat of severe retaliation to have things your way and in direct opposition to how your son and his fiancé wish for things to be. That’s not ‘compromise,’ that’s American foreign policy.

  • Sastra

    “I would tell your child, ‘I love you, but I cannot condone this. We always love you, but I don’t condone this activity. And so, I’m here if you need me.’”

    I’m trying to imagine a situation where there is some ceremony which is very important to my child — and they want me there — and yet I feel morally forced to give this sort of answer. I don’t think that politics and religion would provoke it unless we were talking something like his or her becoming a KKK Grand Wizard or pronounced an Apocalyptic Messiah. And yes, if they’re joining ISIS, then I’m also even refusing to give them a lift.

  • Al Dente

    And yes, if they’re joining ISIS, then I’m also even refusing to give them a lift.

    Do you commute to the Middle East frequently?

  • Sastra

    Al Dente #4 wrote:

    Do you commute to the Middle East frequently?

    According to the video I linked to, they’ll pick them up half way. But I’m not Mom’s Taxi Service. Not this time, kid.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    He’s got a point. I wouldn’t go. It’s not a real wedding. It’s not Traditional Marriage. There isn’t even a dowry!

  • regexp

    When my older brother decided to get married in a full catholic ceremony we did what all good midwest families do. We bitched about it in private and put our best face on at the freakishly long wedding that none of us wanted to attend. Because its family.

    (I can think of only one reason to kneel at a wedding and it isn’t for Jesus – unless that’s the name of the cute church grounds keeper)

  • Michael Heath

    Pat Robertson’s advice on what parents should say to their gay child regarding their attending their wedding:

    We always love you, but I don’t condone this activity. And so, I’m here if you need me.’”

    Mr. Robertson, you are demonstrably advocating these parents, not be there for their child.

    This is typical of conservative Christians. They boast about practicing a positive attribute when they remain the primary population that enable, advocate, and practice the opposite of this attribute.

  • Michael Heath

    Pat Robertson’s advice on what parents should say to their gay child regarding their attending their wedding:

    We always love you, but I don’t condone this activity. And so, I’m here if you need me.’”

    Sastra writes:

    I’m trying to imagine a situation where there is some ceremony which is very important to my child — and they want me there — and yet I feel morally forced to give this sort of answer. I don’t think that politics and religion would provoke it unless we were talking something like his or her becoming a KKK Grand Wizard or pronounced an Apocalyptic Messiah. And yes, if they’re joining ISIS, then I’m also even refusing to give them a lift.

    And the non-hypocritical thing to say in this instance is that while you love your child, you most emphatically will not be supporting them in any of the endeavors that Sastra points out. Not dishonestly and hypocritically claim you’re there for them, and then not be, as Pat Robertson advocates.

  • Sastra

    Michael Heath #9 wrote:

    Not dishonestly and hypocritically claim you’re there for them, and then not be, as Pat Robertson advocates.

    I got the impression that being “there for them” meant that they’d still treat him and his spouse as family to the extent of inviting them to family gatherings, helping them out, and so forth. It’s not necessarily hypocritical if they’re not cutting their son off completely.

    This issue reminds me of a similar problem from the atheist side and an advice columnist whose opposite approach bothered me. Years ago someone wrote to Dear Abby (or Ann Landers or some other popular mainstream agony aunt) and talked about a family problem they were having. They were devout Christians and they were having their new baby baptized into their faith at church, followed by a large party at their home.

    A favorite relative was an atheist and told them she was very uncomfortable with the idea and ceremony and wouldn’t attend the church event, but would gladly come to the party with presents and good wishes. Was this right?

    To my surprise the columnist ripped into the atheist and said that no, this relative is a bigot. How dare she skip the ceremony and come to the celebration which wasn’t all focused on inducting the infant into religion! The advice was to tell the relative to stay away.

    I had thought it a reasonable compromise. In fact, if these Christian parents had done the same thing — avoiding the ceremony itself but toasting the happy couple at the reception, I’m guessing the son would have felt more support.

  • kantalope

    Dan Savage in his podcast the Savage Love Cast advocates turning that around. If parents love their child, cutting them off is a sort of punishment. If the parents don’t want to attend the wedding they can skip the reception too and for that matter they don’t need to show up for anything. And when they can stop being bigots they can come by anytime.

  • Trebuchet

    @10, Sastra:

    I got the impression that being “there for them” meant that they’d still treat him and his spouse as family to the extent of inviting them to family gatherings, helping them out, and so forth. It’s not necessarily hypocritical if they’re not cutting their son off completely.

    Disagree. I think by “being there for him” Robinson meant he’d be willing to pray for him to “come to his senses” and would assist him to leave his partner. Nothing more.

  • chirez

    It makes perfect sense to me to not attend a ceremony which conflicts with your beliefs, especially one in which bearing witness is some part of the reason you’re there.

    You just don’t get to do that and then claim that you are in any way still related to your child through anything but blood. Go ahead, disown him. If you’re going to be a horrible person you can at least be honest.

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    While a child may love such horrible parents, inviting them to their wedding amounts to an endorsement of their horribleness. By having such horrible people in their lives at all, aren’t the children tacitly endorsing the parents’ disgusting beliefs?

  • Sastra

    chirez #13 wrote:

    It makes perfect sense to me to not attend a ceremony which conflicts with your beliefs, especially one in which bearing witness is some part of the reason you’re there. You just don’t get to do that and then claim that you are in any way still related to your child through anything but blood.

    What about the situation I described in #10, in which an atheist relative was uncomfortable watching an infant baptism — but was fine with joining in a family celebration which she apparently saw as more about affirming the baby than the Mysteries of Faith? A marriage has both a secular and religious purpose, so I would make a distinction between the cases. What do you think?

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @Sastra in 10

    I just wanted to say thank you. Very insightful.

  • ehmm

    “We used to say anybody who opposes this, let him speak or forever hold his peace and all that kind of thing…”

    For the record, Orthodox Christian wedding ceremonies never included that bit. Just sayin’

  • badgersdaughter

    “I’ll be there for you” is, in my experience, code for “when you are sufficiently ashamed of yourself and prepared to kiss our ass in the way that and for as long as we see fit to demonstrate your remorse, and we also get to use your grievous misconduct as a weapon in any future disagreement, for your own good of course, because you have proven yourself utterly unworthy of trust and completely unable to make decisions on your own”.

  • Canadian Yankee

    @Sastra:

    I got the impression that being “there for them” meant that they’d still treat him and his spouse as family to the extent of inviting them to family gatherings, helping them out, and so forth.

    I’m not so sure. I’ve been in some conservative Christian comment threads talking about what to do with partnered gay kids, and many of them talk about treating their kids’ (hypothetical) partner identically to their kids’ (hypothetical) drug dealer. That is, someone who’s important to the kid but also a significant contributor to the kids’ harmful behavior, and thus not someone they’d invite into their home. In that sense, “being there for them” means, “we’ll certainly talk to you and express love and, most of all, we’ll be there to offer infinite amounts of support when you finally renounce this destructive behavior; but in the meantime, we won’t allow your drug-dealer/cosodomite in our house.”