The Washington Post reported Friday that Richard Cizik resigned his position as spokesman and vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals after he declared he was "shifting" toward supporting civil unions for homosexual couples in a December 2 National Public Radio interview. Post reporter Jacqueline Salmon explained the remark was "anathema to most evangelical Christians, who believe that the Bible permits marriage only between a man and a woman".
This is an example of a reporter avoiding the obvious on the Bible's contents, like saying the public "believes Al Gore’s Earth in the Balance opposes pollution."
Cizik’s become a darling of media liberals over the last few years for insisting that global warming is a bigger issue for religious people than sexual issues like abortion and homosexuality. But Cizik dropped a bunch of bombshells in that interview, declaring he voted for Barack Obama, despite his hard-left social positions; agreeing that younger evangelicals "know gay people" and aren't as "threatened" as their elders; and suggesting Sarah Palin's environmental positions were like burning the Bible. Here’s the civil union passage:
GROSS: Let me ask you, you say you really identify with the concerns and priorities of younger evangelical voters, and one of those priorities is more of an acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage. A couple of years ago when you were on our show, I asked you if you were changing your mind on that. And two years ago, you said you were still opposed to gay marriage. But now, as you identify more and more with the younger voters and their priorities, have you changed on gay marriage?
CIZIK: 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. We have this tension going on in our movement between what is church-building and what is nation-building. And I lean in this spectrum at times, maybe we should concentrate on building our values in our own movement. We have become so absorbed in the quesion of gay rights and the rest that we fail to understand the challenges and threats to marriage itself, heterosexual marriage. Maybe we need to reevaluate this and look at it a little differently.
Gross asked Cizik if he would drop the veil and declare who he voted for, and Cizik declared he voted for Obama, but not necessarily in the general election:
In the Virginia primary, I voted for Barack Obama...I would rather not say in the election general just whom it is that I did vote for, but that's an indication, but it doesn't say definitively. In other words, I don't want anybody to think, because I'm the lobbyist in chief for the National Association of Evangelicals, that because I voted one way or the other, I can't represent their concerns. So, I believe I can. I happen to think in the primary it was the best choice. People disagreed. Evangelicals did in this final election, general election, but I think all of us today believe we want this man to succeed, absolutely. If we don't think that, there's something wrong with us.
He then suggested that younger evangelicals were the wave of the future, and they willing to compromise not only on homosexuality, but on abortion as well:
GROSS: So, how big a split do you see now within the evangelical movement over what direction the movement should head in, and what issues should be emphasized?
CIZIK: It's hard to know, Terry, because even the younger evangelicals, those that went for Obama, they clearly are pro-life. They're conservatives, but they also - well, 32 percent of evangelicals voted for Obama, younger evangelicals, that is. That's twice the number that voted for John Kerry four years ago. And this is a big increase in states like Colorado, Indiana and North Carolina. So, the younger evangelicals are probably the future with that broader palette. And they will determine the future of this huge movement that, well, by some surveys' estimates, if you include children and the rest, a hundred million people, one-third of all Americans.
GROSS: So, in that younger group that you're describing, is gay marriage not a priority issue?
CIZIK: It's not as high, no. In fact, if you look at some figures, these younger evangelicals, they disagree quite strongly with their elders on that subject.
GROSS: Do you think that that's in part because younger people are growing up in an environment where they know gay people? There are so many gay people who are out, and once you know gay people who are out, maybe it's not so threatening.
CIZIK: Absolutely. The influence of their generational peers is clear. Four in ten young evangelicals say they have a close friend or family member who is gay or lesbian. And so, much different than their elders, younger evangelicals they, well, 52 percent favor either same-sex marriage or civil unions. But it's not just on this issue, Terry. For example, fully two-thirds of younger evangelicals say they would still vote for a candidate even if the candidate disagreed with them on the issue of abortion. And that's in spite of the fact that younger evangelicals, they are decidedly pro-life. But they also rank other issues, economic issues, the environment, these other issues are very important to them. In fact, healthcare is just as important to the younger evangelicals as is abortion. And so they have a more pluralistic outlook than older white evangelicals, and they have a decidedly different posture with respect to the role of government here and abroad.
You can see why media liberals would surround an evangelical spokesman like this, hoping he could become an "even Christian," as in "even Christians don't think abortion and homosexuality are a big deal." This is just like the "even Republicans," who abandon traditional GOP positions and allow reporters to dilute the appeal of core principles.
By the way, Cizik’s liberalism really came through when he suggested Sarah Palin’s support for oil drilling resembles Bible-burning – to be precise, that her environmental positions are contrary to God, "like claiming to be a fan of Shakespeare and then burn his plays." He found Obama to be much more God-friendly in his humility:
GROSS: I imagine you didn't agree with Sarah Palin on environmental issues. For example, her emphasis on drill, baby, drill, and also the fact that she said she wasn't sure if human behavior contributed to climate change. Now, climate change and the environment are issues you're trying to put much more toward the top of the evangelical agenda.
CIZIK: Yeah, I couldn't - you're right. I couldn't have disagreed with her more. Just a year ago, we found out from climate scientists that the melt in the Arctic had turned into a rout. It was happening so fast it was as if your hair turned gray overnight. Now, I have a receding hairline, but I don't have my hair turning gray overnight. Well, that's what happened with the environment. An area the size of Colorado was disappearing every week, and the Northwest Passage was staying wide open all September for the first time in history. And so, to look at this and not see what's happening, I think is, well, it was sort of the ignorance is strength idea. Well, not. It's not strength. Look, strength is knowing what's happening to the world around us, and moreover, as a Christian, we can't claim to love the Creator and abuse the world in which we live. To do so is like claiming to be a fan of Shakespeare and then burn his plays.
GROSS: So, is there a big debate in evangelical circles now about what the future of Sarah Palin should be in the Republican Party, whether she is the future or whether she is a problem?
CIZIK: Oh, I think there certainly is a certain amount of that debate going on, but I think people are sort of content to let Alaskans decide that. Before she becomes a national candidate again, she has to run for reelection, right?
GROSS: So, you're thinking maybe Alaskans will vote her out of office thus ending her political career?
CIZIK: Maybe, we don't know. But I don't think that you can humbly walk into the future and not understand that we don't know all the answers. And if you don't have a little bit of self-awareness about that, well, I don't think you can embody the Christian values of humility and justice and walking humbly with your Lord. There was something missing there that I just didn't see, and you're sensing it here. In other words, a certain humility about it all. I like that. I like -- look forward to seeing that demonstrated in Barack Obama’s policies.
Doesn’t that sound like a man who voted for Obama in November?
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Cizik: Government Should Provide Contraceptives
December 12, 2008 - 07:32 ET by Tim GrahamCizik also sounded more liberal as he said he would assist Obama in seeking to reduce the number of abortions:
GROSS: Now, is that controversial within the evangelical movement?
CIZIK: For some, yes. I've already been called one of the devil's minions for taking this position, but it's an acknowledgement...
GROSS: Because it's seen as compromising?
CIZIK: Yes, it's seen as compromising. But that's, again, that winner-take-all mentality that you have to have it all. In politics, I've learned over many years, less is more. I think finding those who are in trouble, in crisis, helping them through this, and if need be, even supplying what government presently doesn't do, namely, contraception, is an answer to reducing, you see, unintended pregnancies.
GROSS: Wait, wait. I think I heard you say government supplying contraception?
CIZIK: Yes.
GROSS: That's got to be controversial among evangelicals.
CIZIK: Among some it would be, but I don't think so. We are not, as I have said previously, we're not Catholics who oppose contraception per se. And let's face it. What do you want? Do you want an unintended pregnancy that results in abortion, or do you want to meet a woman's needs in crisis, who frankly would, by better contraception avoid that choice, avoid that abortion that we all recognize as morally repugnant, at least it is to me.
I agree...Cizik is a
December 12, 2008 - 08:20 ET by motherbeltI agree...Cizik is a typical liberal "theologian" who considers abortion and homosexuality as "wedge issues" while the real "moral" issues of our time are global warming, health care and welfare.
When principles are lost
December 12, 2008 - 10:05 ET by KC MulvilleIt's a telling moment when you advocate a policy change that's based on popularity (rising or falling) -- it reveals that your policy isn't based on principle. If you believe something is wrong, based on a principle or philosophy, then the popularity of other positions shouldn't change your commitment. If you thought it was wrong yesterday, then it's wrong today.
You should change your mind when a better argument comes along, not when a new bandwagon comes along.
So let's examine the argument (according to this interview) for why young people are more receptive to gay marriage: they know more gay people. Wow - is that hubris, or what?
This is like trying to argue the question as to why gay marriage threatens your mariage, which is a rhetorical trap. If you fall for the idea that opposition to gay marriage is based on feeling threatened, then you've already lost the argument. As it is, opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with feelings.
This is "spaghetti" logic. (Programmers hate "spaghetti code" - something so tangled that you get lost following the strands.)
Cizik's View of God is Wanting
December 12, 2008 - 08:18 ET by The Smokin FrogFirst of all, no one is 'threatened' by homosexuality. The assumption that if we were not afraid of it, we would be for, it is nonsense. Many people know many people that engage in many outward sins. That doesn't mean that the sin is accepted or that the person is rejected because of it. The Bible clearly teaches that all are sinners. This is not our past state of affairs, but our present, which is why we need a Savior, for a sinful nature. But to say nothing is extreme hatred to the person engaging in outward sin, not love. Tolerance of sin is hatred of our fellow man. Would we say something if someone was walking on the edge of a cliff? Of course we would. We must warn them of the danger they are in, by engaging in unrepentant sin. But if we present ourselves to them as sinless we are the same as them, in grave eternal danger. No one is sinless.
As far as abortion is concerned it is murder no matter how you slice it. If young people are not finding that important any longer, God help us.
And besides that, Al Gore is whacked. He is a purveyor of junk science.
Cizik's views on Sarah Palin amount to the typical liberal bomb throwers. Cizik like Al Gore, and many others on their side, think mankind is far more powerful than it is. It is all part of a Godless philosophy. He spoke of walking humbly with the Lord but voted for someone who considers a pregnancy a punishment. As he said, 'something is missing here'.
Great Example
December 12, 2008 - 08:25 ET by neripowellI have a great deal of respect for Cizik. He stands his ground and resigns from an organization whose policies and goals he can no longer support. Excellent. I wish more Catholic dissidents among the clergy, religious, laity, and in the academy would follow his example. If you can no longer support the institution, then man-up and get the hell out. The rest of us want to get on with the job we signed on to do. Following you around cleaning up your dissenting puke is not part of the job description! And yea, I've had too much coffee! :-)
Fr. Philip, OP
http://www.hancaquam...
Fr. Philip
December 12, 2008 - 08:43 ET by botgexactly why i left the episcopal church i was raised in. I could not support the apostate views allowed.
----- Radical Liberal
Get with the times
December 12, 2008 - 09:35 ET by AJBI thought religion was now based on how the congregation FEELS about issues, not dictates from the Devine!! What kind of reglion would THAT be if we couldn't pick and choose our sins? We have a very long tradition of starting new religions when you can't get the one you're in to go along with the new-think and progressive ideas. Well, if we had to listen to dictates of God, then we couldn't lie, cheat, steal, kill our unborn, or have sex with any-ol-hole we stumble across. What kind of world would THAT be? Oh, yeah... the one promised in the Bible.
Forced to resign
December 13, 2008 - 17:44 ET by iiiireaderI don't think he resigned willingly - he was told to resign or be fired. That isn't maning up - that's crawling out. He finally crossed the line of no return - he had to go. So - no admiration is due this doofus.
Obama voters want 'More and More'
December 12, 2008 - 08:34 ET by Retired Geek"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."
Barack Obama, July, 2008 Speech at Planned Parenthood Conference
What is FOCA or Freedom of Choice Act?
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion and the Federal BAIPA law.
Besides making abortion on demand a 'fundamental right' throughout the United States, FOCA would effectively nullify informed consent laws, waiting periods, health safety regulations for abortion clinics, etc.
Furthermore, medical professionals and institutions that refused abortions also would lose legal protections. FOCA would expose individuals, organizations, and governments - including federal, state, and local government agencies - to costly civil actions for purported violations of the act.
---------------------------------------------
Barack Obama is against Parental notification.
----------------------------------------------
Transporting Minors Across State Lines to Obtain Abortions While serving in the United States Senate, Obama voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (S.403), a bill designed to prevent minors from being taken across state lines without the consent of the parents to have an abortion in circumvention of the laws of 45 states which require parental consent or notification in order for a minor to have an abortion.
-Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (S.403); vote number 2006-216 on July 25, 2006
Take Liberty and Let them have sex
December 12, 2008 - 08:36 ET by Retired Geek“As political and economic freedom diminishes” said Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, “sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.”
This fits perfectly with Huntford’s description:
------------------------
"The state strips away your personal, economic and political freedom, yet grants you sexual freedom in return, boldly hailing itself as your liberator."
bad thought
December 12, 2008 - 10:09 ET by AJBif so, then boy those Iranians must be really going at each other...
one point to note
December 12, 2008 - 08:39 ET by botg32 percent of evangelicals voted for Obama, younger evangelicals, that is.
doesn't that mean that 68% DIDN'T vote for Obama?? Yet he represents like the 32% is the majority voice?
Let's not even get into his misrepresentation of the agw issue.
"Let each man GIVE as he purposes in his heart....." seems Cizik supports the lets just take position.
----- Radical Liberal
In other words, a certain
December 12, 2008 - 08:54 ET by motherbeltIn other words, a certain humility about it all. I like that. I like -- look forward to seeing that demonstrated in Barack Obama’s policies.
Oh, that's right...he keeps saying "It's not about me".
It's about what I can do for you!!
Obama's policies......humility?????
<Chris Matthews imitation> HA!!!
mb
December 12, 2008 - 09:04 ET by botgit's the new smug and swamy humility
----- Radical Liberal
I'm lost...
December 12, 2008 - 09:09 ET by Saint ZeroThis guy said he represented Christians? His theology is like none I've heard of.
His theology is old school
December 12, 2008 - 09:39 ET by Spinningplates2He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The biggest scandal is that Christian leaders do not challenge him more. Even in my conservitive church many do not want to "judge" ANYONE!
Judging others...
December 12, 2008 - 10:01 ET by vrwc13That's the problem with "one line" Bible quoting.
In general we, as believers, are not to judge those "outside" as they are already judged (by God).
But, we are called to constantly test the spirits, or examine all those who claim to be believers, as there will be "wolves in sheeps clothing". Scripture even gives us a Biblical process for addressing another in the faith who appears to be "off course".
v
the Bible is not a " Smörgåsbord" where you pick and choose...
vrwc
December 12, 2008 - 10:59 ET by botgit goes deeper than that, from Matt 7:
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
how do you know the 'dogs' and 'pigs'??
----- Radical Liberal
how do you know the 'dogs' and 'pigs'??
December 12, 2008 - 11:51 ET by vrwc13...are they the same as pagans and tax collectors?
A Brother Who Sins Against You
15"If your brother sins against you,[b] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'[c] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Matthew 18
v
"dogs" and "pigs"
December 12, 2008 - 11:59 ET by botg"dogs" and "pigs" can only be discerned by making judgements, thus the injunction is not against making judgements, rather it is against judging based inadequate, superficial or improper criteria.
----- Radical Liberal
and...to judge or not to judge...
December 12, 2008 - 12:03 ET by vrwc13God judges in the temporal arena, and the eternal. In this life God will judge a person's actions, but always (except when the person has irrevocably rejected Him) holds out the chance for turning back and repenting. Only on the Last Day, at the great white throne judgment will God pronounce eternal judgment on a person, forever determining his or her destinies. From this judgment, there is no appeal or second chance.
The Christian, on the other hand, is never given the right or the responsibility of eternally judging anyone (unless they have clearly rejected Christ permanently). Christians cannot correctly weigh action, motives, opportunities, nor know all things about any individual: God alone is capable to do so.
However, Christians are to make decisions (appraisals, discernments, and even take corrective actions). But even judging in this aspect is intended to be remedial, and leaves the door open to the person for repentance and reconciliation. Any judging on the part of a Christian which does not, is a false aspect of Christian judgment. We are called upon to ''judge righteous judgment'' (John 7:24) and failure to do so is to be negligent in a crucial aspect of our Christian calling.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j14.html
Well, what does God have to say on this subject? Is it true that Christians are told not to judge? The simple answer is no. In fact, according to Scripture those who do not judge are more likely to be led astray by false doctrines and are less effective witnesses for Christ.
http://www.jesuscult.org/judge.htm
v
John 7:24 (New International Version)
24"Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." Jesus
Is this so hard to understand?
December 12, 2008 - 09:16 ET by JaykeRomans 1:24-28 (New International Version)
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity
for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They
exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created
things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and
were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts
with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God,
he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
Cizik says that global
December 12, 2008 - 09:58 ET by misterbee241Cizik says that global warming should be a big issue for religious people. For religious people, maybe. But I have a relationship, not a religion. As an evangelical christian, I will be a good steward of my home planet, but I will not worship it as Cizik and the other preachers of the green gospel do. And I will not put the planet ahead of my family or my country. I will not be a part of the global warming scam. I will preach against it in every pulpit I stand in.
Paul says they traded the truth for a lie and worhip the creature instead of the Creator. He's so right.
And another thing - why do liberals like Cizik say that when people like me oppose the sin of homosexuality, we are threatened by homosexuals? The only thing I feel theatened by is scheming, conniving politicians. God did not give me a spirit of fear, but of one of power, love and a sound mind (1 Timothy 1:17).
Sounds like teh
December 12, 2008 - 10:03 ET by Dan The Man 2Sounds like teh Evangelicals have Pahroh representing thier interests. We need a Moses.
And this is laughable, the Northwest Passage was staying wide open all September for the first time in history, the man has bought into the AGW fantasy lock stock and barrel. The first time in history, far reaching.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I just opened my natural gas bill
December 12, 2008 - 13:28 ET by choselife3xAnd it had a neat little graph that showed this month's usage compared to the same time last year, as well as the average daily temperature. FOUR DEGREES COOLER THAN LAST YEAR. Hmmm........
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Gay Marriage, Abortion are Negotiable???
December 12, 2008 - 10:36 ET by Ole_SargeOnly to the Hedionists, not to a Christian.
Love the sinner, but there are actions that really go against the grain.
Gay Unions are fine -- don't call them a "marriage"
And abortions are NEVER fine, acceptable or healthy, to the infant, to the mother, to those that do the procedures or to society.
We either "embrace life, at all stages" or we are embracing death, including the death that kills the soul.
What really irks me is that
December 12, 2008 - 13:03 ET by Old EuropeWhat really irks me is that so many of my fellow evangelical friends fell for Obama hook, line and sinker! The notion that they call themselves Christians but vote for a guy with the most extreme pro abortion and infanticide stance leaves me speechless. How can anybody call themselves Christian and vote for abortion?! But many of them never heard of his pro abortion views because the media never told them. All they see is this compassionate socialist and they mix up compassion with socialism. The former is commendable and does help those people who you deem in need whilst the latter is all about more power to the state, more money for the state to squander and with no control over who gets what. It goes to show that many christians still fall for Satan's lies. Over 50% of Catholics voted for Anti-Christian Obama! So many Christians incl Cizik vote for the arch enemy, the Democrat party who want to ban God from schools and campuses and the public in general! How can this be?! I'm so mad at my fellow Christians. God help us all!
Ro 12:2 And do not be
December 12, 2008 - 13:24 ET by not afraid to tell the truthRo 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
There is no compromise for the "true" believer! All others will be seen compromising when ever it suits them!
Make no mistake, the unGodly media and powers that be in this country did their best to keep quiet the abortion, terrorist, and taxing evils of this president elect! That tells you what kind of country we now live in and what we can expect to see in the future. God help America!
JUST FOR 2009, CALL IT SS
December 12, 2008 - 17:20 ET by reelman46CALL IT SECULAR SOCIALISM (not liberalism!)
Have done my best to send a message to the online world…MODERN LIBERALISM is actually in fact SECULAR SOCIALISM…
until we all realize that calling it anything else is not only inaccurate, it gives the secular socialists too much credit.
In order to change a society (say, USA from 1960) it must first be
drained of two things (moral aspects)…those are shame and respect.
Did we not lose these in them 1960s? I think yes.
Then the secularism creeps in more and more whereby mainstream
religions are attacked (along with the normal moral family concept).
The secularists are experts at tearing down both traditional religions
and the family.
How many TV programs must you see that trash adults (kids are
smarter of course) and the family unit to realize this intentional
“liberal” pattern?
Its secularism on the march year after year. The husband-father is too
dumb to tie his shoes time after time. Go back to that shame and
respect thing…how many Simpson-like shows does it take?
How many shows where the gal whips up on guys does it take? How many little girls believe that bull?
When the virus of secularism has sufficiently weakened a culture it
is ripe for the dependency of socialism. How many reports of liberals
in grade school teaching secular socialism does it take?
If within my power, all conservatives (we are labeled at will with
neo-con, wingnuts, etc) should, from this moment forward, do two things…
become a lot more aggressive in defending conservatism and refer to
modern liberalism as secular socialism…let’s set the rules for a big
change.
There are NO liberals, there are NO secular progressives, there are NO progressives…they are ALL secular socialists.
Use it in all posts…go on offense with accurate truth!
If I can, we call can…and should.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Gay marriage and abortion
December 12, 2008 - 18:27 ET by HockeyKidGay marriage and abortion are just as negotiable as the condition of your soul. As we are willing to negotiate the former (by adopting hubris), so we are bound to negotiate the latter (by rejecting grace).
Like all of us, Chizik must make his own choice.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
wow! God does democracy now!
December 12, 2008 - 19:12 ET by UndercoverConservativeSo it's not God's Will, set forth at Creation, but it's what the people want that God is setting forth now? Does He take votes over the phone, or by prayer numbers? Or are sins and commandments voted on at the tithe box?
What's good and evil are changed by amendment procedure?
This sounds really f**king insane. The opposite of religion.
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"
He Resigned Over The Issue Of Civil Unions, NOT Marriage...
December 12, 2008 - 23:25 ET by The7SticksIt's pretty clear from the actual report that he was in favor of permitting civil unions, which is completely different from permitting so-called gay marriage. In fact, that's the main reason why Arizona didn't pass a proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman in 2006. (By the way, it's not a gay marriage ban, as you can look up in Michael Medved's new book The Ten Big Lies About America.) The language in the 2006 Arizona proposition would essentially ban gay civil unions in addition to defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which is why it was defeated by a comfortable majority. It is also why the 2008 proposition that defined marriage as traditional was passed, because it eliminated the wording of banning civil unions, which conservatives like Medved support (and believe me, he is as staunch a conservative as you can get, especially when he badmouths Jimmy Carter in the most hostile ways.) That was the issue at hand, and it seems a little ridiculous for him to resign over that. It would be different if he was endorsing gay marriage against the will of his parishioners, but that was not the case.
If civil unions are apparently "counterfeit marriage" from what I am getting the gest of, then so be it because civil unions are legal in several states and don't infringe on the rights of religious believers. It's not a concession, it's a privilege that has been passed in many states for gay couples to use responsibly. And if I hear another person quote a Bible verse to score a political point, I will stir-fry you with my wok, like a pinch to the neck from Mr. Spock. That, or I'll just bang my head against the PC monitor repeatedly, like those Gregorian monks did in Monty Python & The Holy Grail.
-"Pi ey lesu dominae..." (Bonk!) "Dona eis requiem..." (Bonk!)