What's happened to Tony Campolo?

Recently, apparently also marching under the banner of being a "red letter Christian", I heard Tony Campolo talk about marriage. He assures us he's against gay marriage, but then he then offered an outline for a political agenda which seemed to have the same ultimate effect.

How odd.

Tony's views rested on two claims: #1 marriage is a religious institution (thus the term "marriage" should be a private matter, not one recognized by government), and #2 gays were entitled to their "civil rights" (apparently meaning Tony wants civil unions which have all the benefits of marriage).

I was astonished to hear such doublespeak.

Concerning #1, I have one question for Tony: Where do civil rights come from? Are they God-endowed, or do they come from human governments, to be granted as those governing wish (or not)?

The American view is that God created inalieanable rights, and gave them to people, and that all governments can do is recognize and protect what God has already given. (I'm not making this up: I'm simply quoting the Declaration of Independence.)

Likewise Tony believes it is God who institutes marriage. Yet government shouldn't recognize "marriage", because Tony believes it also came from God? Will Tony be applying the same logic to human rights, then? -- that because we believe they are from God, they are thus a religious idea, and thus the government has no business in recognizing or protecting them?

Second, if "marriage" is truly and only a religious institution, as Tony seems to believe, then he's also implying atheists aren't married. I doubt they'd buy into that, and I doubt Tony would admit the implication either.

Finally, concerning #2, if Tony believes male/female marriage was created by God, then what is the basis of this "civil right" Tony finds and promotes? If that right doesn't proceed from God, then (a) where does he imagine this new right is coming from, and (b) on what does he base his belief in other human rights, if not a creator?

"Marriage" is not a right, Tony tells us: it is a private matter. But civil unions? Of course that's a "right." Whatever confused goals or motivations are driving him, the effect of Tony's recommendations would be that a male/male "union" would have the exact same legal footing as a male/female "union", including in adoption laws. Likewise, no law or governmental institution, if adopting Tony's argument, could refer to or recognize a heterosexual "marriage" since, as Tony tells us, that's a religious practice -- and thus the state would have no business there.