Were we ever given a reason why this was rejected?
I completely understand the notion that CC is not life and things come up. This is why I have no problem with players getting deferred armies (but really, really prefer the way it is now). There is, however, one major part of the life > CC argument that gets missed.
CC isn't only not the end all be all for those who are stuck in a game with a person who continually misses turns, it is also not the end all be all for the offending player. In other words, losing a game because you couldn't manage to take your turn often enough is not the end of the world. So your life got in the way of being able to honor the game you entered. That's OK. That game will not end up any differently for you than any of the other games (likely more than 1/2 you've played) that you lost. Bummer.
So, on one side, you have several players who are just trying to have a game, on the other, you have somebody who is continuing to hold it up. I don't see why we owe it to the person who's obviously got more important stuff going on to keep waiting.
Now, think about what is being asked. It is pretty damned easy to miss your turn once. Two in a row, however, is pretty tough considering that, unless you're in a 2-3 player game or everyone else is completely on it and takes their turns right away after you miss your first one, you're likely looking at a full 72 hours where you were not able to log on. When you consider that, if you know you're going to have troubles making your turn you can go to the game chat and ask everyone to slow play a bit so your turn doesn't come up more than 24 hours before you're going to be able to play (I've done this several times and people are always happy to oblige).
Has anyone suggested some ratio? What about missing 3 out of 5 turns, 4 out of 9, 5 of 12. Something like that? It would also seem fair to have some max turns missed regardless of how long the game goes on.