Cizik even said "civil unions." That left open that maybe such CUs shouldn't or wouldn't have to be called "marriage" as a sort of concession to the semantics of the cultural magisterium. Even then, it was too much for the conservatives. And why should the faithful despise global warming warnings - to the extent it's an objective process, it doesn't challenge whatever "rights" we imagine our "dominion" gives us in principle anyway, only their application. As the more-tolerant and sci/tech-savvy younger generation moves on up, the theocons will have less and less political capital.

The idea that not believing in global warming has anything to do with evangelical Christianity shows just how much the faith has been corrupted by politics.

Mike

The important thing for us liberals to remember is that Cizik remains a Christian evangelical. We must not confuse the membership with the leadership.

Faith has always been corrupted by politics.

What's surprising, however, is the level of hate, hubris, and hypocrisy required to maintain evangelical cred anymore. You aren't allowed to support live and let live, aren't allowed to support endangered species, aren't allowed to expect clean are, aren't allowed to want good will towards people, and especially aren't allowed to be tolerant of Creed, Religion, or Race.

It's just crazytown.

I heard that interview, and I thought he sounded like the sort of Christian one could talk with. I'm sorry to hear that there is one fewer of those -- as opposed to the climate-change-denying fag-haters -- at the head of prominent religious organizations.

The problem with this discussion is that it conflates two different meanings of the word "marriage".

One meaning of "marriage" is a religious sacrament -- actually, a multitude of different religious sacraments, as instituted and practiced by various different religions and churches.

The other meaning of "marriage" is a legal agreement between individuals, which establishes their legal rights and responsibilities to each other. This meaning of "marriage" is what is referred to as "civil union". Legal marriage, or civil union, as opposed to sacramental marriage, is the ONLY kind of marriage where government has any role.

With regard to the religious sacrament(s) called "marriage", under the Constitutional protection of freedom of religion, the government has -- and can have -- absolutely nothing to say whatsoever. The government may make no law whatsoever saying who may, or may not, be "married" by churches or other religious organizations or communities. On the other hand, government may not grant any particular status or legal rights to those who are "married" according to some religious sacrament; government is prohibited by the Constitution from even recognizing such sacramental "marriages" under law.

With regard to legal contracts called "marriage", which typically establish rights and responsibilities relating to joint property ownership, child custody and other matters, the government by definition has the role of regulating and enforcing such contracts, just as with any other legal contract -- that's what makes them "legal". However, under the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under law, the government cannot deny or prohibit individuals from entering into legally binding and enforceable contracts with each other on some irrelevant basis such as gender or sexual orientation.

The fundamentalists, and anyone else for that matter, are free to perform whatever sacramental "marriages" they wish, or bar from sacramental "marriage" anyone they wish -- in their churches. And the government has absolutely nothing to say about it.

Similarly, if some group establishes a church which performs same-sex sacramental marriages, they are free to do so, and the government likewise has absolutely nothing to say about it -- and most certainly cannot prohibit churches from doing so.

On the other hand, under our Constitution everyone has an equal right to enter into legally binding contracts with other individuals, and the government is obligated to provide equal rights, responsibilities, and protections under law to all such individuals, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation or other irrelevant factors.

Stewardship of the earth, love for your fellow human beings, doing unto others, equality before the eyes of God, forgiveness... I am just speed balling here but I seem to remember this stuff as being a big part of Christianity.

I guess some of these folks are the same people who consider Bush 43 and Reagan good Christian presidents even though they have not been regular churchgoers in their lifetimes and lied throughout their presidencies but consider Bill Clinton beyond the pale because when he made mistakes he (eventually) admitted them and he and his wife found comfort in their faith and sought to work through their problems and stay together. I am so sick of the American Evangelical Community giving Christianity a bad name. Thankfully I am not a Christian or I might be really ticked off.

I'm fascinated how quickly the GOP is fragmenting into polarized camps, with different factions either clinging more desperately than ever onto discredited positions - global warming denial and insane no-tax pledges - while the "adults" plead with the deadenders not to take the GOP brand over the cliff into utter irrelevance (Dick Cheney pleading with senate republicans not to be the "new Hoovers" - what has the world come to?) David Frum was on NPR this morning waxing serious on how his new blog is going to help the republicans advance incremental changes that will bring them storming back into power. The idea is to get away from things like offering tax cuts as a viable solution to the health care crisis, or outright denial of empirical fact (global warming). He doesn't seem to notice that crucial components of the right coalition have a cult-like adherence to crazy notions. Immigration, taxes and gay-hate are non-negotiable. Watch what happens in California over the next few months. Failing a multi-billion dollar bailout from the Obama administration, the GOP minority in the California legislature is going to force the state into default on its bonds. Schools, universities, parks and everything will have to shut down. There's this giddy anticipation among the GOP out here that some kind of Norquistian apocalypse is on the horizon, from which the new Owners Paradise can arise. Going to be interesting.

What does it mean when Evangelicals say same-sex marriage "threatens" heterosexual marriage?

I'm willing to bet that heterosexual infidelity, alcohol and gambling cause a lot more heterosexual marriages to break up than homosexuality does. In fact, homosexuality is probably way down the list of causes for divorce.

Granted that a number of heterosexual marriages don't occur because of homosexuality, but these marriages probably would not have occurred anyway, or if they did occur they shouldn't have.

So, where's this "threat?" Really, where is it? Why do we even accept the Evangelicals' use of the term? Why is heterosexual marriage an "institution" and gay marriage a "threat?" The use of the term "threat" is nonsense and it should be challenged whenever it is used.

The real threat, it seems, comes from the bigots' mis-use of the English language. Gay marriage is a "commitment", a "practice" or maybe a "phenomena," not a "threat."

Wow, we have such a long way to go. Did anyone see the Moyers piece: "Is God Green?" about the rising numbers of young evangelicals now participating in green related issues?

Between this and that writer you mentioned the other day that indicated the GOP needs to change it's thrust and was subsequently fired (?) or was she only chastised(?)..it's all quite sad.

I mean, here we are, 2008.

Oh well, at least we got the black guy with the Muslim sounding name.

The dinosaurs didn't see the comet coming, and couldn't have done anything about it had they seen it. So the blinkered leadership of the Christianists don't understand how much of an endangered species they already are. The comet destroyed the dinosaurs almost instantly, but the gay-hating bigots in the funamentalist churches will die a longer, far more lingering death.

Unfortunately, for all the rhetoric about separation of church and state, the U.S. is not nearly separated enough despite the Constitution's brave words. By allowing clerics to perform 'marriage' ceremonies recognized by the state as legal it is vitually impossible to separate the sacred from the secular. The final sentence in many of these ceremonies goes something like this, "And by the power vested in me by the State of (fill in the name), I now pronounce you..." etc. That power has to be stripped from the clerics of all religions.

Government has to get out of the marriage business, and recognize only civil unions as legal contracts between individuals. Religious marriage should be left to the churches, and be an option, as it is in France, for the couple who wish to join together. Clerics should not be allowed to perform legally binding unions.

Such a change will be difficult politically, but until we drive the bible thumpers out of the halls of government this ridiculous discussion will continue to divide us.

Teh Gay is Teh Evil because it's convenient. Think about it. You're a preacher. You want to send a message that attracts people- and therefore money- to your church. You need fire and brimstone, but you can't use anything that will piss off members and potential members. Divorce? Out, lots of evangelicals are divorced. Not giving to the poor? Out. Not turning the other cheek? Out. Gay? Check.

Nobody in your church will admit to being gay, and if they do, they will be kicked out. Preaching against Teh Gay will make you popular, and bind your church together in hate.

Makes perfect sense. Totally at odds with what Jesus actually said, but who cares about that anyway.

The Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land said Cizik's global warming concerns put "some distance" between him and the evangelical community

Just fucking insane. The SBC is the largest Protestant denomination in the country. Land leads them. It's FUCKING INSANE that we accord this drooling moron any respect at all -- he's actively hurting the country by letting his flock remain totally ignorant of something like global warning. He's a menace who either cynically uses something like 'empirical reality' as something to rile up his rubes — or is really willing to believe that "God" will "solve" this through divine intervention. Again, this isn't a crackpot screaming on a corner. This is the leader of the largest Protestant denomination in the country speaking on behalf of the even-larger "evangelical community".

"but this is a whole different order of magnitude for his constituency on the gay-marriage issues -- it's a mega-issue."

And he's an asshole.

As a result, I would propose that Southern Baptists can still marry, but cannot reproduce. How's that? Fair?

The only difference is, of course, that I don't really believe in something so cruel and hateful. But Christians do.

Give Cizik credit for the ability to see into the not too distant future. As with Civil Rights, gay marriage is coming sooner or later. Cizik wants to be remembered as something less that an asshole bigot. Plenty of people supported Bull Connor back when; hardly anyone admits to now.

These "christians" don't even support civil unions. Any acknowledgement of gay people as actual human beings with human rights and emotions and families undermines the religious wrong's entire reason for existing. Why their absolute obsession with gay sex and demonization of LGBT people? Can someone please explain it to me?

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2743

With regard to the "Marriage Protection Amendment," which would constitutionally ban same-sex civil marriage at the federal level:

“This amendment is a hollow gesture when it comes to protecting marriage,� said TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon. “It does not ‘fully protect marriage’ but it amends the Constitution to allow civil unions and other forms of counterfeit marriage in all 50 states.�

“I am disappointed in the White House, but I am even more disappointed in those social conservative leaders who have misled the American people into believing that the Marriage Protection Amendment will stop homosexual marriage. Promoting a civil unions amendment disguised as a marriage protection amendment is shameful.

“No reasonable person will deny marriage to homosexuals once a Constitutional right to a ‘civil union’ is established. And this amendment is not compassionate conservatism, this is unprincipled relativism.

“President Bush deserves the support of the American people, but the White House is wrong when they claim that the amendment would ‘fully protect marriage from being redefined.’

“But another disappointment in all of this is the group of prominent religious conservatives who traded civil unions for some empty marriage protections, knowing very well that this civil unions amendment will fast track homosexual marriage across America.

I actually had the opportunity to speak with Rev. Cizik this year, after a talk he gave to an interfaith creation care (environmental)group.

He brought up, without any prompting, how the NAE, under his leadership, had worked with gay groups to pass legislation. There was no need for him to do so since the talk was about global warming.

He seemed genuinely interested in hearing the stories of gay people and other minorities and we exchanged a number of e-mails.

In combination with the number of evangelical Christians I've met who believe, unlike their leadership, that gay rights are the next civil rights movement - and remember the key role that Christians played in the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's - 70's. There's need for leadership for these reasonable and rational evangelicals on the national level. At the present they're scattered. A few people like Brian McLaren are making the effort. Perhaps Rich Cizik can assume a leadership role. He's got the credentials and experience to do so, and a list of prominent evangelical leaders who are in alignment with him.

Together they would be a powerful force for evangelicalism to become a force that expands its membership by example. Evangelicals who are motivated by fear will always remain but many others are ready to embrace hope, love, and reason.

D Pecan,

How is Jim Wallis on gay marriage?

I occurs...

the evangelical organizations are the new KKK.

The leaders of the "evangelical" movement are starting to sound quite a bit like the leaders of that other movement - the one that lost the last election.
Any Constitutional amendment concerning marriage should be one that limits legally recognized marriages only to those performed by civil authorities. For anyone interested in what that would take, I suggest you read Shirer's "The Collapse of the Third Republic" - talk about cultural wars!