Rich Cizik and civil unions

Well, I guess Dobson's taken down another NAE leader for not towing the party line. He couldn't get him ousted over his global warming position (as if that had anything to do with sharing the gospel) but he could over the gay marriage issue:

With Cizik's resignation, Dobson and his allies finally claimed victory. "This sends the message that you can't leave the reservations on basic issues of where your constituency lies," says Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. "A number of left-leaning evangelicals had started believing their own press, saying that evangelicals were not concerned with issues of marriage and family. The NAE found out this week that their members do care about those issues."

In an interview with National Public Radio host Terry Gross that aired on December 2, Cizik responded to question about gay marriage by saying, "I'm shifting, I have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say I believe in civil unions. I don't officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don't think."

Even evangelical figures who'd supported Cizik's environmental activism were troubled by the comments. "I don't know what was going on in his head," says Christianity Today Editor David Neff, an NAE board member and a Cizik ally on environmental issues. "When I heard that interview, I said to myself 'Good grief--what are you talking about?' That was not the Richard I knew."

According to a statement posted on the NAE's website Cizik acknowledged that he misspoke during the NPR interview. "Although he has subsequently expressed regret, apologized, and affirmed our values there is a loss of trust in his credibility as a spokesperson among leaders and constituents," NAE President Leith Anderson said in a letter to the organization's board of directors."

I guess this means I'm off the reservation because I think it's reasonable to support civil unions as a compromise position especially given the fact that we live in a post-Christian, pluralistic country. The definition of marriage would be protected and the rights of gays would be protected as well. Good thing I'm not in a position of power, huh? I'd probably be driven out for my views on marriage (since I'm a chick I don't ever have to worry about that :-).

But I'm glad to say I'm not the only one who has come to this conclusion, John H. Armstrong notes that civil unions make sense if you want to protect marriage as a religious union (that should upset the atheists):

As you can readily see "civil unions" has a very broad definitional scope but in almost no case is it seen as (Christian) marriage. The very term "civil" means non-religious. For this reason alone civil unions are not gay marriage. Whether we like it or not civil unions already exist and are not likely to go away. It seems to me that the best place for a Christian to stand in this current cultural milieu and radical change is to protect marriage as an essentially religious union and civil unions as something different. It also seems to me that Cizik was making such a distinction.

And Steve Waldman notes that when he interviewed Rick Warren, he seemed to support civil unions :

Beliefnet: Do you support civil unions or domestic partnerships?

Warren: I don't know if I'd use the term there but I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don't believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles so I fully support equal rights.

Beliefnet: What about partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?

Warren: You know, not a problem with me.

You can watch the whole interview here.

I think it's the only reasonable solution and one that would help resolve the culture war but of course the Christian side has just demonstrated that they aren't giving any ground and if you have an opposing position, you aren't really on their side. Oh well, I'm a follower of Christ, I'm used to being on the outside :-)

ESV Hebrews 13:11 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. 12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. 13 Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. 14 For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come. 15 Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name.

BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with Warren that if we really cared about the sanctity of marriage, we would be supporting it with our actions. Why are the divorce rates in the Christian community as high as the general population if we really believed in the sanctity of marriage? We have no credibility because our actions do not mirror our words. And don't even get me started on the Republicans parroting this phrase!