Representative Chippendale responded to my thoughts on his comments related to civil unions:

Hi guys, it’s the horse’s mouth here…
I used scripture for 2 reasons. First, I’m a Christian and we use the word of the Lord to help guide us when making decisions. There are guiding principles that are far worse – I can assure you. The General Assembly prays every day before session… God isn’t a four letter word in the State House (yet). And Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I had been receiving a lot of comments from folks who were using scripture to justify their position against the bill… so when I rose to speak (which was not planned, I figured that I would just shut up and vote, but I was compelled to engage) – I was saying (in a ‘between the lines’ sort of way) “I can use scripture too. And I choose to use it to offer a different perspective than what all of us (legislators) have been hearing since January!”
So don’t read too much into the simple verse I used. It is not a Republican v. Democrat issue… it was an issue where everyone in the room had their own reasons and feelings behind their votes…
And as a footnote, I still can sit at the cool-kids table…

Before offering further response on the specific issue at hand, I should address a common misconception about my commentary. When I hear somebody say something that interacts with political philosophy in an interesting way, I point it out. That I think a statement represents an erroneous application of this or that principle does not mean that the speaker is thereby to be pushed into the Crowley category and ostracized. It doesn’t even mean that I take the comment to be an accurate indication of the speakers whole philosophy on life.
In this specific instance, I think Rep. Chippendale’s comment was not only reckless in the view of appropriate governance that it expresses (i.e., that an elected official should not feel empowered to vote a particular way on a legitimate public policy question) but also erroneous in its theology (i.e., in recasting love of fellow human beings as requiring elision of real differences between relationship types).