Saying what you mean, Meaning what you say

This is late coming, but in case you didn’t know, Richard Cizik, Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is no longer affiliated with the NAE. The NAE is anchored in 60 denominations with about 45,000 churches, representing millions of Evangelicals and Mr. Cizik is a long-time lobbyist and media spokesman on a variety of Evangelical issues. He was selected by TIME magazine in 2007 as one of America’s top 100 thinkers. That being the case, I’m not sure what Mr. Cizik was thinking in December 2008 during his interview on PBS.

On gay marriage: “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.”

On having the government supply contraceptives to reduce unwanted pregnancies: "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 unintended pregnancies.”

The interviewer was notably surprised by this response: "Wait, wait. I think I heard you say government supplying contraception. That's got to be controversial." "Among some it may be," Mr. Cizik replied, "but I don't think so. We are not, as I have said previously, we are not Catholics who oppose contraception per se."

That was Cizik in December 2008. Very (very) shortly thereafter, he “apologized.” His brand new post-PBS stand on gay marriage and civil unions? "I categorically oppose 'gay marriage' and see now that my thoughts about 'civil unions' were misunderstood and misplaced. I am now and always have been committed to work to pass laws that protect and foster family life, and to work against government attempts to interfere with the integrity of the family, including same-sex 'marriage' and civil unions."

Talk about an about-face. That’s almost like invasion of the body-snatchers. I mean, did he suffer from some momentary bout of peer pressure while appearing on PBS and say what he thought might sound hip and retro to the interviewer, only to realize when he got back to the office that it really wasn't too cool with the vast majority of Evangelicals?

Of course not, but I think I would have more respect for him if he just stuck to his guns, even though I disagree with his positions. Or former positions.