Now He Tells Us: Rick Warren Bails on Proposition 8

This is really cute:

California mega-church pastor and author of The Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren says he apologized to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of California’s Proposition 8, and now claims he “never once even gave an endorsement” of the marriage amendment.

Monday night on CNN’s Larry King Live, Pastor Rick Warren apologized for his support of Prop. 8, California’s voter-approved marriage protection amendment, saying he has “never been and never will be” an “anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist.”

“During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never — never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going,” Warren claimed.

The referenced article shows, however, that he certainly did endorse it.

The more I follow Rick Warren, the less admiration I have for him.  And this is only the last nail in the coffin.

Perhaps he and others who were behind Proposition 8 could have avoided their present debacle if they had taken heed to the following, on this blog in August 2007:

Before Christians in California go off and begin a quest for a constitutional amendment, they need to think about a few things.

First, without going into a long theological dissertation, marriage for the Christian is an institution of God.  Allowing the state to dictate the terms and conditions of that institution as blithely as American Christians do is a mistake.  We’ve already seen that many of those terms and conditions have been changed at law.  The opinions of both the Governor and Jr. Brown confirm the obvious: with marriage, what the state gives, the state can take away.  (The phrase “rational legislative purpose” is absurd; legislatures do all kind of things for all kinds of reasons, rational and irrational.)  The “rights” of civil marriage are in reality very ephemeral, which makes one wonder why some are fighting so hard to obtain them.

Second, in order for a constitutional amendment to be meaningful, it would have to enumerate each and every one of the rights that its proponents wish to preserve, which would make quite an amendment to write, let alone get through the referendum process.

Third, preserving the rights at the state level doesn’t do anything at the federal level.  What I specifically have in mind are the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, which have the stability of Burnham Wood.  An example of this is the back and forth on estate and gift taxes, documented here.

Finally, ending civil marriage ends the quest for same-sex civil marriage.  This is why proponents of same generally oppose the abolition of civil marriage.  It will be interesting to see how advocates of same-sex civil marriage react to this.

But they didn’t, and Warren should have the courage of his convictions to stick to his guns on this.

One of the core problems with Evangelicalism in this country today is that it’s led by bourgeois, short-sighted chickens, and Warren is obviouly Exhibit A to demonstrate that this is so.

Leave a Reply