Rich cizik, the vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, was asked to resign because he publically supproted civil unions for gays.
For me, this begs a few questions: did NAE criticize President Bush, Sarah Palin or John McCain for supporting civil unions for gays?
And, even more interestingly, how will they feel about this exchange I had with Rick Warren (full interview to be published later today):
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. The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage.
Will they ask Warren to leave the National Association of Evangelicals?
I'm guessing that what really happened here was the NAE has been looking for a reason to axe Cizik for a long time and thought this would do.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Richard Cizik should resign, he presents the Church and he is condoning sin against human nature. We are all sinners and fall short of the mark, but we should always and ever strive to follow Jesus. Richard Cizik was putting greater value on the Environment that on God's precious children. Does he not understand that Barack Obama supports abortion and the unbelievable practice of Partial Birth Abortion and there is more, he defended the law to deny care to an infant who would survive an abortion. SHAME ON RICHARD CIZIK. When I read what he had said, I felt so sad that one who claims to follow our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ could be so far off the narrow road that leads to Heaven. He wandered in the woods of the World. He is not George W Bush(as good as he is), he was protecting them as people, but Richard Cizik should be advising them about salvation.
>>> Beliefnet -- What about partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?
>>> Warren -- You know, not a problem with me. The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage.
Whose ‘definition’ is this Mr. Warren using? Over the past 100 years within America the definition of marriage has undergone numerous changes. Heck, even the bible uses the word ‘marriage’ in regard to polygamous relationships, and according to these people that is Divine scripture.
But I’m going to put that soapbox back in my truck for a moment and address a point that I think people like Mr. Warren miss entirely.
Mr. Warren said that same-sex couples having hospital visitation rights is not a problem for him. Fine. Good. However, without the legal ability (like a federally [ie. nationally] recognized civil marriage certificate) hospital visitation can be a problem to anti-gay parents of gay offspring, even adult offspring and their decades-long partners.
Even living-wills are no grantee of a person’s wishes being fulfilled. Blood-relatives can easily contest these documents and often win.
There have been cases of same-sex couples who’ve been together for decades, and who have not seen or spoken with their blood relatives the whole time, who are denied hospital visitation by relatives that are contacted by hospital officials upon an emergency. And the stories only get more chilling from there-on-out.
If Evangelicals aren't theocrats -- and most of them tell me they're not -- then one wonders why they feel compelled to politically militate about issues that aren't matters of public health and welfare or safety but matters that simply concern them theologically. Civil unions in no way affect heterosexuals; and the protections they provide couples add to social welfare and stability. Evangelicals seem to want to use the arm of the civil law to punish perceived moral/theological "sinners," instead of to maintain civil law and order; and to impose the dictates of their own version of Christianity upon everyone else. As Paul notes in his epistles, the rules of the Christian community are for that community, not for the "pagans" outside the community. To which I'd add: My partner and I are Christians active in our own faith community. If we need theological or moral correction we have a pastor, a church council and bishop to do that, thanks. Evangelicals -- kindly stay out of our lives. If you don't want members of your own faith communities to enter into civil unions, then that's your own faith community's business; deal with it; leave the rest of us alone.
Amen, LutheranChik,
Your post makes points that are proven by Your Name December 12, 2008 5:06 PM.
Well past time for Evangelicals to get their theology out of the nation's secular laws.
Oh, to answer the thread's question, Steve, you could refer to (almost any of) the other very similar threads where you will find comments to the effect that 'all religious conservative leaders agree that gay Americans deserve equal rights'.
Even if that claim is patently untrue, it's what a lot of folk on the 'right' are saying.
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.