Reformed Chicks Blabbing

Reformed Chicks Blabbing

Rich Cizik and civil unions

posted by Susan Johnson | 12:04pm Monday December 15, 2008

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!



Previous Posts

The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated
My husband told me that there are rumors that I've died. I'm happy to report that I'm still very much alive. My cancer has gone to stage four but we are controlling it with chemo, the cancer numbers are currently in the normal range. I've stopped blogging to concentrate on my daughters and writing a

posted 7:07:55pm Aug. 23, 2010 | read full post »

An update and a prayer request
Several people have asked about Michele's condition, and have promised to pray for her. On her behalf, I thank you for that. I spoke with her a little while ago, and she asked that I come here and tell you what's going on, and to ask you to pray for her. She isn't able to post here herself right

posted 4:55:36pm Apr. 06, 2010 | read full post »

Rest in peace, Internet Monk.
A man known in the cyber world as The Internet Monk, has died. Michael Spencer lost his battle with cancer tonight. My prayers go out for his family and for all those who loved and will miss him. :(

posted 11:52:00pm Apr. 05, 2010 | read full post »

The peace that passes all understanding, pt. 1
I'm coming out of my normal hiding place to make a few comments. The internet is a strange place. It is often a wonderful place, a helpful place, a unifying place. But it is also alienating, cold, and is the perfect medium in which to depersonalize others. Through it, I have seen people reach out

posted 4:39:08pm Mar. 25, 2010 | read full post »

I had a pretty rough week
As you probably can tell from the lack of content this week, I had a pretty rough week. I was in a lot of pain over the weekend, my stomach was swollen which made it really hard to eat, sleep, walk and breathe. They removed 3.5 liters of fluid from my abdomen this week, so I was able to get on the I

posted 7:58:28pm Mar. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Advertisement
Comments read comments(6)
post a comment
Moonshadow

posted December 15, 2008 at 1:28 pm


(since I’m a chick I don’t ever have to worry about that :-) .
Yup.
“Cizik acknowledged that he misspoke during the NPR interview.”
Eh, that isn’t allowed.



report abuse
 

jestrfyl

posted December 15, 2008 at 2:16 pm


Ah, the actual images of metaphors can be telling. Though Cisik was not TOEing the line (as in standing perfectly in a uniform row with everyone else) he was TOWing the line (your choice of words – as in pulling the line out of place and accidently dragging everything with it behind him). Dobson was surely afraid that anyone who does toe the line will tow the line. For that reason alone I would likely heel the line for him – and then bend over to “tie my shoe”. There’s an image for you. Rude, but illustrative.



report abuse
 

Lefty Attack Hamster

posted December 15, 2008 at 5:18 pm


Nothing for a liberal to attack here (and that’s not meant as an insult to you as a conservative). A very sensible post, Michelle. Lefty Attack Hamster will return another day.



report abuse
 

Connie Coyne

posted December 15, 2008 at 6:15 pm


Rick Warren will change his position and help push towards same sex marriage. He is such a powerful pastor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sLkioKFLEE



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 16, 2008 at 7:36 am


I agree with the hamster? Who would have guessed!
You captured my position exactly, Michelle? While the sacrement of marriage is one man one woman, why blame pagans for doing their job description? (Quoting Hank Hanagraaf).
According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. So is greed, gluttony, drunkenness, lust, divorce, and many other items which are far more distructive to others. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ll get this plank out of my eye before I bother with the speck in yours.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 16, 2008 at 10:56 am


Re your “reasonable” approach …
“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.”
The rights of gays are not “protected” with “civil” unions, Michelle. You well know (or ought to – you’ve been told often enough) that there are 1,176 federal benefits and obligations (aka the “affects” of marriage) that do not accrue to same-sex couples (because of DOMA). In addition, some 30 States have either passed laws or changed their Constitutions to ensure that “civil” unions (or domestic partnerships, or anything else “resembling” marriage) shall not be recognized – ever! Nor shall the affects of marriage be granted to anyone except a heterosexually married couple. Thus, in Michigan, for instance, employers may not give spousal health care benefits to a gay employee (even one who may have been legally married in another jurisdiction) – even if the employer wanted to.
“Good thing I’m not in a position of power, huh?”
Yes, if your ‘understanding’ of this issue is any indication, ,it’s a very good thing.
“John H. Armstrong notes that civil unions make sense if you want to protect marriage as a religious union”
Except you and he bothfail to address the fact that an increasing number of religions do both support and perform same-sex marriages. How is that “protecting” religious unions, apart from the fact that some religious faiths’ unions are recognized by the government while others’ are not? That’s simply, purely unwarranted, UN-Constitutional discriminationn. It also violates the “promise” of freedom of religion for all citizens.
Please, Michele, get a clue.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.

Share this story


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Help

Media Kit

Subscribe

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.