From here:
Yes. I want it to represent our uniqueness, so we aren’t doing a white wedding. The color scheme is black and purple, and we are both going to wear Converse tennis shoes. He’s wearing jeans and a nice dress shirt. He says he’s not wearing a bow tie, but it’s my wedding and I am saying that he is. My best friend will be my maid of honor and she’ll be dressed in purple. My grandmother and grandfather — my fiancé’s parents — are going to attend and my grandpa will give me away. The tables will have bouquets of trees without leaves to represent our marriage, which will be like a growing tree. My dress will be black.
Having already redefined marriage to mean almost anything – and consequently, almost nothing – how could the Anglican church turn this father daughter couple down? Gene Robinson could come out of retirement and preside at the ceremony. His purple shirt would match the bridesmaid’s: what could be more apt?
When the push for homosexual “marriages” began we raised the alarm that it was the thin edge of the wedge and it would lead to a complete breakdown of marriage, turning marriage into “anything you want it to be”. In response we were told “no, that won’t happen.”
Sometimes I hate it when I end up being right.
I note Gene Robinson wore a purple shirt as if that would make him a Christian. This should certainly be a clear message to all Anglicans that it takes more than a purple shirt and a white collar to make a bishop or even a Christian. One can only ask when are the TEC and the ACoC going to get down to serious business and clean out the apostates within their clergy.