BOB ABERNETHY, host: On November 2, voters in Arizona and South Dakota decide whether to legalize marijuana for medical use, as 14 states and the District of Columbia already have. Meanwhile, in California, where medical marijuana is legal, voters are deciding whether to decriminalize recreational marijuana use. Is marijuana a gateway to harder drugs? Lucky Severson reports from Los Angeles.

BISHOP RON ALLEN (President, International Faith-Based Coalition, speaking in a church): It is because Satan has tried to make us think and have tried to make us believe that it’s nothing. Isn’t that just like the enemy? That it is less harmful than alcohol. Isn’t that how Satan comes in the back door to make you think that one sin is greater than another? You all have to say “amen.”

LUCKY SEVERSON, correspondent: It’s Sunday, so Bishop Ron Allen is guest preaching in church. Any other day of the week and he’ll be preaching the same message to anyone who will listen. Bishop Allen is president of the International Faith-Based Coalition, comprising what he says are over 4000 churches nationwide. His one mission is to teach drug prevention to church leaders, and more urgently to defeat Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana in California.

STEPHEN GUTWILLIG (State Director, Drug Policy Alliance): First, it decriminalizes low-level possession of marijuana of up to an ounce by adults 21 and over, eliminates all penalties for that offense and allows adult 21 and over to cultivate small amounts of marijuana also for their personal use. And then the second thing that it does is it allows local governments to decide for themselves whether to regulate and tax sales of marijuana also for adults 21 and over if they choose to do so.

SEVERSON: Stephen Gutwillig is the California director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a nationwide organization working to change the focus of the war on drugs, especially state and federal laws prohibiting marijuana.

GUTWILLIG: Banning marijuana outright has fueled this enormous black market. It wastes hundreds of millions of dollars of law enforcement resources. It makes criminals of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens. That makes it very, very clear that marijuana prohibition has failed at every single level.

ALLEN (speaking in a church): And today we are in a critical position in the state of California. We have individuals that want to legalize a schedule one drug: marijuana. And what they’re saying to us is that it’s not dangerous. I beseech you. Don’t sit at home November the 2nd. Go down to the polls and vote.

SEVERSON: In 14 states and the District of Columbia, medical marijuana is now legal and available in approved outlets like this. Other states are considering it. But at the same time as arrests for every category of crime have gone down nationwide, recreational marijuana busts are skyrocketing. The FBI says police prosecuted 858,000 individuals for marijuana violations in 2009, and almost nine out of 10 were for possession of an ounce or less. Most arrests are misdemeanors but still result in a permanent drug arrest record.

GUTWILLIG: Every independent body that has been asked to look particularly at what should be done with marijuana, the answer has always been we should probably regulate it the way we do alcohol and tobacco, both because it’s widely available and widely consumed and it’s going to lead to mass arrests. That’s why alcohol prohibition itself was a disaster in the 1920s and ’30s and why it’s regulated today—not because it’s harmless, but because the risks associated with it are only magnified with a prohibition that drives its consumption underground.

ALLEN: When we talk about prohibition of 1920s and 1930s, we cannot relate that to what we’re dealing with today at all.

SEVERSON: Allen says legalizing marijuana would simply add to the destruction drugs and alcohol have already caused in African-American neighborhoods.

ALLEN(speaking in a church): Here’s their mantra: Marijuana is as harmless as alcohol, and so what I’ve been offering them is a rattlesnake or a cobra. Which one is harmless?

SEVERSON: Joining Bishop Allen’s coalition are conservative church leaders; the state’s two Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer; Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina; outgoing Governor Schwarzenegger; and the two candidates who want his job—Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman.

MEG WHITMAN (Republican Candidate for Governor of California, speaking at a debate): I am firmly opposed to Proposition 19, which is the legalization of marijuana. But don’t ask me. Ask law enforcement. Every single law enforcement official is against Proposition 19.

SEVERSON: Not every single law enforcement officer opposes Prop 19. Several former police chiefs and the National Black Police Association support it. So does the California Council of Churches and the California NAACP, where Alice Huffman is president.

ALICE HUFFMAN (President, California NAACP): I would like to see it approved across the country. I believe prohibition has failed us, and it is failing us now.

ALLEN: I have called constantly for the resignation of Alice Huffman as the state president of the NAACP for this one reason. If you want to be a civil rights leader, you have to understand this one thing. What causes the devastation in the colored community? It’s not rocket science, Lucky, we all know it’s drugs.

HUFFMAN: Marijuana should be a different classification of a drug. It should not lead to any criminal arrests. It should not destroy our families.

SEVERSON: There’s another reason the California NAACP supports Prop 19, and it was underscored in a recent study of marijuana possession arrests in California.

GUTWILLIG: Statewide, African Americans are arrested at more than triple the rate of whites, typically double, triple, quadruple in all of the 25 major counties.

SEVERSON: According to the study, if, as a case in point, you lived here in South Central Los Angeles, and you were African American, you were seven times more likely to be arrested and cited for possessing marijuana than if you were white. The gap may be even greater because studies have shown that blacks are less likely to use pot than whites. Bishop Allen says the disparity, in part, is because the police discover marijuana possession while in they are in African-American communities investigating other crimes.

ALLEN: If we can do something about the drug abuse and the crime in these neighborhoods, then maybe the police officers won’t get the call to go and arrest in that particular area.

HUFFMAN: One law enforcement person says yeah, we call your community the pond. We go down to the pond. That’s where we go, I guess, fishing is what he was implying, and that’s exactly what happens. It’s like they target our communities.

SEVERSON: National studies indicate that enforcing marijuana laws costs American taxpayers over $8 billion annually. The costs of pot arrests in California are estimated at over a billion a year.

GUTWILLIG: Police will always deny that there are such a thing as arrest and ticket quotas, but clearly these exist. Arresting, detaining, citing petty marijuana possession offenders are among the safest and easiest ways to meet those quotas.

SEVERSON: The greatest fear of opponents to Prop 19 is that marijuana is a so-called gateway drug, that smoking it will lead to other stronger drugs like crack cocaine or heroin.

ALLEN (speaking to congregation): They said to me that it’s not a gateway drug. I have to disagree with them. I can only talk about Bishop Ron Allen. When I started my seven years of crack cocaine my first experience with drugs was marijuana.

GUTWILLIG: The overwhelming evidence shows that the enormous majority of people who try marijuana or who even smoke marijuana regularly never consume any other illicit substance. It’s actually what’s referred to as a terminus drug. It is the only illicit substance that most people ever try.

SEVERSON: Governor Schwarzenegger recently signed a law reducing the fine for marijuana possession to that of an infraction, like a traffic violation. But Alice Huffman says it won’t do anything about the disparity of arrests, and it won’t stop gangs from running illegal drugs in black neighborhoods.

HUFFMAN: I thought that the war on drugs was going to protect us. I did not realize that the war on drugs was going to destroy my families and destroy my community, and so I am very passionate now that I understand, and I think that this is a great opportunity to raise the awareness in America about a failed drug policy

SEVERSON: Even if California voters approve Prop 19, US Attorney General Eric Holder says the government will continue to enforce federal marijuana laws. But without the help of state and local police that wouldn’t be easy, because they’re the ones who make virtually all marijuana arrests nationwide and in California. For Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, I’m Lucky Severson in Los Angeles.

ABERNETHY: The latest Los Angeles Times/USC poll shows the marijuana proposition trailing among likely voters 51 percent to 39.

Originally broadcast June 19, 2009

SAUL GONZALEZ: At the recent Worship Facilities Conference and Expo held in Long Beach, California, the business of marketing to places of worship was on full display. At this twice-a-year national convention, companies try to sell their products and services to churches and religious institutions.

UNIDENTIFIED SALES REPRESENTATIVE #1 (speaking to conference attendee): Maybe two cameras to cover the minister and the choir?

GONZALEZ: Their wares range from sophisticated video production gear to pews for churches and synagogues.

UNIDENTIFIED SALES REPRESENTATIVE #2: This is the Cadillac. This is our theater seat, a completely wooden theater seat.

GONZALEZ: Banks and credit unions that specialize in lending and financial consulting to houses of worship also attended.

UNIDENTIFIED BANK SALES REPRESENTATIVE (speaking to conference attendee): We don’t necessarily go by loan to value. We’re looking at cash flow.

GONZALEZ: Although there was plenty of hustle and bustle on the convention floor this year, the recession cast a pall over this expo.

STEVE KROH (Architect): In 25 years, it’s never hit us this hard before.

GONZALEZ: Steve Kroh is an architect whose firm specializes in church design. With congregations cutting back on expansion and new construction plans, Kroh is seeing his business plummet.

Mr. KROH: We’re not having to lay off a lot of people yet, but we’re cutting back on hours and just trying to hang in there right now. We are taking a lot smaller projects than we used to just to keep everybody busy.

ERIC KNOWLES (Founder and CEO, Church Brokers, San Diego, CA): The recession is hitting everybody, and it’s affecting churches just as much as it is the mom and pop homeowner.

GONZALEZ: Eric Knowles is the founder and CEO of Church Brokers, a San Diego firm that specializes in church real estate and financing.

Mr. KNOWLES: Right now, most of the churches we’ve been working with, probably the past year or least, they are all pulling the reins in. They’re not spending anything outside of the hard fast debt they have to pay. Salaries are getting cut back. People are getting let go. A lot of churches are letting their staff go or reducing their pay, going to part time. So it’s a challenging time for churches right now.

GONZALEZ: One house of worship struggling to keep its doors open in the down economy is Long Beach’s Immanuel Church, which is part of the United Church of Christ.

Reverend JANE STORMONT GALLOWAY (Pastor, Immanuel Church, Long Beach, CA): Foreclosure is a possibility and something that we are concerned about.

GONZALEZ: And to those out there who think of churches as being foreclosure-proof?

Rev. GALLOWAY: Oh, no. Forget it.

GONZALEZ: With revenues down, Reverend Jane Galloway’s church is struggling to pay off a more than $850,000 mortgage and loans used to pay for repairs of this more than 80-year-old building.

Rev. GALLOWAY (speaking at meeting): Talking with the mortgage — our mortgage broker. . .

GONZALEZ: To stay afloat the church has cut expenses, and Reverend Galloway has volunteered to slash most of her own pay. But despite the belt tightening, every bill that arrives brings a new challenge.

Rev. GALLOWAY: I mean we’re literally at a point where my husband walked in the other day and said this was on the side door, and it was a turn-off notice for the utilities. Now we are at a scary moment, and we know that each month, if we are unable to make our mortgage payment on time, we could be — the default process can be filed and a foreclosure proceeding could begin.

GONZALEZ: Although no single, hard number exists, banks and credit unions that lend to houses of worship report a steady increase in church bankruptcies and foreclosures. One of them is this 1,000-seat church north of San Diego. Built just in 2005, it closed last year after the church defaulted on loans. Even wealthy and powerful megachurches, such as southern California’s Crystal Cathedral, have had to cut staff and put millions of dollars worth of property up for sale to help pay off debts. Whether they’re big or small, many churches’ money troubles stem from s steady decline in giving. According to the Christian research company the Barna Group, American churches got between $3 and $5 billion less in donations than they expected to receive during the last quarter of 2008. That’s about a four to six percent decline.

Reverend PHIL HERRINGTON (Pastor, Pathways Community Church, Santee, CA, addressing congregation: I thank you to so many of you who have given faithfully using this envelope. It really helps us pay the bills and do what we do as a ministry — in helping people and loving God and loving people.

GONZALEZ: Phil Herrington is pastor of Pathways Community Church in Santee, California.

Rev. HARRINGTON: We have a number of people in our church right now that are unemployed, that have lost jobs. People who used to be significant donors in the church have just flat out lost their income. Maybe they can give in a smaller way, but that affects our overall income.

GONZALEZ: In response, Pathways has had to cut staff and fill more positions with volunteers. Houses of worship that face foreclosure and other financial troubles often get into their predicaments for the same reasons that homeowners and consumers do: borrowing and spending too much money when times are good and not being prepared when the economy goes from boom to bust.

Mr. KNOWLES: You know, churches are no different than, literally, business owners or homeowners. We all believed that everything was going continue to appreciate, that there was no turning of the curve, and so everybody was overleveraging, and churches are no different. They were not exempt.

GONZALEZ: Real estate broker Eric Knowles, a devout evangelical Christian, says churches’ financial problems are sometimes made worse by leaders who are unable to face harsh economic realities.

Mr. KNOWLES: There’s that faith, you know, that often we think that the Lord is directing us to go do something. Well, how do you refute that when I deal with a pastor that says that the Lord is calling me to buy this building? And I have many situations where it will not pencil. We run our analysis and we get real involved and detailed. But then the pastors continue to say, well, I believe God is directing me for this. Goodness. So what do you do? What do you do? We give the best counsel we can. We give it to them pragmatically, you know, documented in writing that this is where you are going to be, and often time the pastor will look me in the face and say, well, you know what? I understand what you are saying. I understand by earthly standards this will not work, but God has called me to do it. And that’s the trump card. What do you do? You’re just kind of like, okay.

GONZALEZ: In both good economic times and bad, some churches are supplementing what goes into collection baskets by finding new and creative ways to raise income. For instance, with assistance from investors Pathways Community Church purchased this once dilapidated shopping mall. The church occupies the space that was once a supermarket but rents out the rest of the center to other businesses. The revenue earned helps the church pay operating expenses and mortgage payments that total over $21,000 a month.

Rev. HARRINGTON: Right now it’s helping us survive. If we didn’t have that right now we would have to massively downsize staff and personnel and do a lot less ministry out in the community than we are doing right now. So it has opened up a lot of doors for us.

Rev. GALLOWAY (speaking at meeting): I think it could be shared space, perhaps like a collective office space . . .

GONZALEZ: But as they try to guide their churches through turbulent economic times, the strain is taking a visible toll on some religious leaders such as Reverend Galloway.

Rev. GALLOWAY: I really want this to work, and I feel a sense of responsibility. I’ll let myself be this vulnerable because you are asking me this. I feel a sense of responsibility to the people I am here for. People come here with broken hearts. People come here looking for food — looking for spiritual food, and I hear the kind of despair they are in, and I realize that it’s crazy for me to be this preoccupied with the finances of some place, when I’m here to create a place where people can come and find solace. So I feel a sense of responsibility to the people who come here for that kind of nurturance.

UNIDENTIFIED SALES REPRESENTATIVE #3: We’ve developed what we call our McDonald’s approach to church design. It’s our “church in a box.”

GONZALEZ: At the expo, those attending hoped the recession would soon end, allowing houses of worship to focus not on their money problems, but on their ministries.

For RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY, I’m Saul Gonzalez in Long Beach, California.

LUCKY SEVERSON, correspondent: The middle-aged woman struggling with the weak surf has quite a story to tell, one of heartbreak and despair and then a remarkable transformation. Her name is Mary Setterholm.

MARY SETTERHOLM: You know, I didn’t know that what I was going through was hell, but it was hell.

SEVERSON: There were the beatings, the sexual abuse, the prostitution.  She lost her faith in humanity and God. In 1972 when Mary was 17, she was the US woman’s national surfing champion. Now she owns and operates the Surf Academy in Santa Monica where she and 80 full-time staffers teach hundreds of kids each year how to ride the waves. Some classes for kids from the inner city she offers for free. Sister Sheila McNiff of the Los Angeles diocese met Mary in 2002.

(to Sister Sheila McNiff): What was your first impression?

SISTER SHEILA MCNIFF: Amazement at somebody who had such a tragic story and yet had such a heart for reaching out to other people who were suffering and that was clear right from the beginning.

SEVERSON: Mary’s dad left home when she was a baby—ended up in jail. Her mom, working and getting a law degree, would leave Mary and her five brothers and sisters with a babysitter.

SETTERHOLM: This woman would put us in a backyard dog pen area and just leave us there.

SEVERSON: The babysitter beat the kids, and then her son and his friends gang-raped Mary several times.

SETTERHOM: I would really, really, really fight back some times, and I never won, not once, but I fought. I fought. I never let them just have me.

SEVERSON: She went to a Catholic school, was admittedly a hell-raiser, and says she paid for it with violent thrashings from the nun who was her teacher. She remembers one beating in particular when she was 12.

SETTERHOLM: I fainted in this beating. I mean, my head was like a melon just banging against the wall. And so I look at the cross, there was a big cross, a horrible, bloody cross of Christ up on the wall, and I remember looking at that cross and going, “Save me.” I really experienced, like, a talking back from the cross, and it was, “Yes, this is what you go through. No one comes for you.” And when I heard those words I just fainted, not because of the beating, but because of what I heard—a truth about the cross.

SEVERSON: And then she was sexually abused by a now deceased priest.

SETTERHOLM: You know, they come out with their big robes, and everyone goes and hugs the father, but he would take me off to the side, and he would get busy right away fondling me.

SEVERSON: The ocean became her sanctuary—has been ever since she was six years old. As a teenager, she started hitchhiking to the beach, and that’s when she turned her first trick.

SETTERHOLM: I kind of fell into it, which is how it happens for most women. They don’t really have a cognitive thought, “I’m going to prostitute.”

SEVERSON: She wasn’t much older than some of the kids she coaches when she started turning tricks regularly—says taking money for sex gave her a feeling of control in a world where she had so little. But she’s convinced she almost lost control, almost lost her life to one man who picked her up.

SETTERHOLM: I said, hey, I wanted to go to Newport, I thought you were going to Newport and he just backhanded me. He just started beating me, and while he was doing that I look at the car door, I want to just jump out, and its wired shut. There was no handle. It was a death trap.

SEVERSON: She used her surfboard as a shield and barely managed to jump out of the car. Her run of bad breaks continued after she moved to New York, married a Muslim, and had five kids she is still close to.

SEVERSON: But your husband—

SETTERHOLM: Yes.

SEVERSON: He was abusive, too.

SETTERHOLM: Yes, he was very abusive. I’ve been in two shelters for battered women.

SEVERSON: After her divorce Mary returned to prostitution. She was with a john when she experienced what became a transformational moment.

SETTERHOLM: I look out through a crack in these van curtains, and I see this cross of Christ, and I just felt this stab in my heart, and I got to feel my broken heart in that moment—the broken heart of the cross itself, the broken heart of being where I was, a sense of I don’t know how to stop this, I don’t know how to get out of here, I don’t know how you can even get to me and find me, yet I feel you all around me.

SEVERSON: After hearing all the stories about the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandal, Mary decided she needed to share hers. She contacted Sister Sheila McNiff, the LA diocese’s victims assistance coordinator, told her she wasn’t interested in monetary compensation, she simply wanted to help others like herself. After hearing her story, Sister McNiff asked her if she would tell it directly to Cardinal Roger Mahony.

SISTER SHEILA MCNIFF: Right away it was obvious to me that Mary had the capacity to steal his heart. My impression of Cardinal Mahoney is someone who is very serious, and you don’t get a warm, fuzzy side of him. But Mary found that place in his heart for really speaking her truth and speaking on behalf of other victim survivors.

SEVERSON: The cardinal asked her to become his emissary and tell her story to other victims. She gave the cardinal her surfing trophy, and it reportedly now sits on his desk.

SISTER SHEILA MCNIFF: We were talking and she was saying she’d never finished college, and I was astounded, because clearly this was an articulate woman.

SEVERSON: So Mary went to Loyola Marymount University and got her bachelor’s degree in theology. Professor Jeff Siker is chairman of the theological studies department.

PROFESSOR JEFF SIKER: She speaks her own truth. She speaks from her experience. She speaks from the streets, and she’s determined not to let the academic institution be a purely academic institution. If it’s not going to make a difference in the world, if it’s not going to be engaged in the world, then what use is it?

SEVERSON: Now that Mary is no longer homeless herself, she searches out those who are.

SISTER SHEILA MCNIFF: She finds homeless women in bushes. She’ll take them home and put them in the bathtub and put their clothes in the washing machine and take them down to a shelter. She knows the shelters, she knows the laws, she knows who to ask for help, and she’s just an incredible human being with compassion.

SETTERHOLM (speaking at Serenity Sisters meeting): “We come to believe that a power greater than ourselves could introduce us to our authentic self.”

SEVERSON: She started a support group for women with deep emotional problems and no one to share them with. It’s called Serenity Sisters. First Erica, then Donna:

ERICA: I read once that one in three women is assaulted or sexually abused by the time she’s 18. Where do you take that stuff? Where do you process that stuff?

DONNA: And it’s because of Mary’s nonjudgmental presence we are all welcome. All our stories are welcome.

SETTERHOLM: So the real call to me is to be present alongside “a sinner.” I have hope that they feel the presence of someone loving them. That is my number one objective.

SEVERSON: The Serenity Sisters will continue to meet while Mary moves to New York long enough to earn joint master’s degrees, one in divinity from the Union Theological Seminary, and one in social work from Columbia. She plans to use her education and her experience to help other women and kids escape the misery that was her life. She is going to New York because she knows she can’t study if she’s anywhere close to the surf.

For Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly I’m Lucky Severson in Santa Monica, California.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO (guest anchor): For many people struggling through these hard economic times, the church has been a place to find solace and — for some — a food shelf. However, when it comes to paying the light bill, the phone bill, and the mortgage, some churches are finding themselves as hard-pressed as their congregants. While charitable giving to churches actually went up overall in 2008, many worship communities have been forced to lay off employees. Some even face the threat of foreclosure. Saul Gonzalez has this report from Southern California.

SAUL GONZALEZ: At the recent worship facilities conference and expo held in Long Beach, California, the business of marketing to places of worship was on full display. At this twice-a-year national convention, companies try to sell their products and services to churches and religious institutions.

UNIDENTIFIED SALES REPRESENTATIVE #1 (speaking to conference attendee): Maybe two cameras to cover the minister and the choir?

GONZALEZ: Their wares range from sophisticated video production gear to pews for churches and synagogues.

UNIDENTIFIED SALES REPRESENTATIVE #2: This is the Cadillac. This is our theater seat, a completely wooden theater seat.

GONZALEZ: Banks and credit unions that specialize in lending and financial consulting to houses of worship also attended.

UNIDENTIFIED BANK SALES REPRESENTATIVE (speaking to conference attendee): We don’t necessarily go by loan to value. We’re looking at cash flow.

GONZALEZ: Although there was plenty of hustle and bustle on the convention floor this year, the recession cast a pall over this expo.

STEVE KROH (Architect): In 25 years, it’s never hit us this hard before.

GONZALEZ: Steve Kroh is an architect whose firm specializes in church design. With congregations cutting back on expansion and new construction plans, Kroh is seeing his business plummet.

Mr. KROH: We’re not having to lay off a lot of people yet, but we’re cutting back on hours and just trying to hang in there right now. We are taking a lot smaller projects than we used to just to keep everybody busy.

ERIC KNOWLES (Founder and CEO, Church Brokers, San Diego, CA): The recession is hitting everybody, and it’s affecting churches just as much as it is the mom and pop homeowner.

GONZALEZ: Eric Knowles is the founder and CEO of Church Brokers, a San Diego firm that specializes in church real estate and financing.

Mr. KNOWLES: Right now, most of the churches we’ve been working with, probably the past year or least, they are all pulling the reins in. They’re not spending anything outside of the hard fast debt they have to pay. Salaries are getting cut back. People are getting let go. A lot of churches are letting their staff go or reducing their pay, going to part time. So it’s a challenging time for churches right now.

GONZALEZ: One house of worship struggling to keep its doors open in the down economy is Long Beach’s Immanuel Church, which is part of the United Church of Christ.

Reverend JANE STORMONT GALLOWAY (Pastor, Immanuel Church, Long Beach, CA): Foreclosure is a possibility and something that we are concerned about.

GONZALEZ: And to those out there who think of churches as being foreclosure-proof?

Rev. GALLOWAY: Oh, no. Forget it.

GONZALEZ: With revenues down, Reverend Jane Galloway’s church is struggling to pay off a more than $850,000 mortgage and loans used to pay for repairs of this more than 80-year-old building.

Rev. GALLOWAY (speaking at meeting): Talking with the mortgage — our mortgage broker. . .

GONZALEZ: To stay afloat the church has cut expenses, and Reverend Galloway has volunteered to slash most of her own pay.  But despite the belt tightening, every bill that arrives brings a new challenge.

Rev. GALLOWAY: I mean we’re literally at a point where my husband walked in the other day and said this was on the side door, and it was a turn-off notice for the utilities. Now we are at a scary moment, and we know that each month, if we are unable to make our mortgage payment on time, we could be — the default process can be filed and a foreclosure proceeding could begin.

GONZALEZ: Although no single, hard number exists, banks and credit unions that lend to houses of worship report a steady increase in church bankruptcies and foreclosures. One of them is this 1,000-seat church north of San Diego. Built just in 2005, it closed last year after the church defaulted on loans. Even wealthy and powerful megachurches, such as southern California’s Crystal Cathedral, have had to cut staff and put millions of dollars worth of property up for sale to help pay off debts. Whether they’re big or small, many churches’ money troubles stem from s steady decline in giving. According to the Christian research company the Barna Group, American churches got between $3 and $5 billion less in donations than they expected to receive during the last quarter of 2008. That’s about a four to six percent decline.

Reverend PHIL HERRINGTON (Pastor, Pathways Community Church, Santee, CA, addressing congregation:  I thank you to so many of you who have given faithfully using this envelope.  It really helps us pay the bills and do what we do as a ministry — in helping people and loving God and loving people.

GONZALEZ: Phil Herrington is pastor of Pathways Community Church in Santee, California.

Rev. HARRINGTON: We have a number of people in our church right now that are unemployed, that have lost jobs. People who used to be significant donors in the church have just flat out lost their income. Maybe they can give in a smaller way, but that affects our overall income.

GONZALEZ: In response, Pathways has had to cut staff and fill more positions with volunteers. Houses of worship that face foreclosure and other financial troubles often get into their predicaments for the same reasons that homeowners and consumers do: borrowing and spending too much money when times are good and not being prepared when the economy goes from boom to bust.

Mr. KNOWLES: You know, churches are no different than, literally, business owners or homeowners. We all believed that everything was going continue to appreciate, that there was no turning of the curve, and so everybody was overleveraging, and churches are no different. They were not exempt.

GONZALEZ: Real estate broker Eric Knowles, a devout evangelical Christian, says churches’ financial problems are sometimes made worse by leaders who are unable to face harsh economic realities.

Mr. KNOWLES: There’s that faith, you know, that often we think that the Lord is directing us to go do something. Well, how do you refute that when I deal with a pastor that says that the Lord is calling me to buy this building? And I have many situations where it will not pencil. We run our analysis and we get real involved and detailed.  But then the pastors continue to say, well, I believe God is directing me for this. Goodness. So what do you do? What do you do? We give the best counsel we can. We give it to them pragmatically, you know, documented in writing that this is where you are going to be, and often time the pastor will look me in the face and say, well, you know what? I understand what you are saying. I understand by earthly standards this will not work, but God has called me to do it. And that’s the trump card. What do you do? You’re just kind of like, okay.

GONZALEZ: In both good economic times and bad, some churches are supplementing what goes into collection baskets by finding new and creative ways to raise income.  For instance, with assistance from investors Pathways Community Church purchased this once dilapidated shopping mall. The church occupies the space that was once a supermarket but rents out the rest of the center to other businesses. The revenue earned helps the church pay operating expenses and mortgage payments that total over $21,000 a month.

Rev. HARRINGTON: Right now it’s helping us survive. If we didn’t have that right now we would have to massively downsize staff and personnel and do a lot less ministry out in the community than we are doing right now. So it has opened up a lot of doors for us.

Rev. GALLOWAY (speaking at meeting):  I think it could be shared space, perhaps like a collective office space . . .

GONZALEZ: But as they try to guide their churches through turbulent economic times, the strain is taking a visible toll on some religious leaders such as Reverend Galloway.

Rev. GALLOWAY: I really want this to work, and I feel a sense of responsibility. I’ll let myself be this vulnerable because you are asking me this. I feel a sense of responsibility to the people I am here for. People come here with broken hearts. People come here looking for food — looking for spiritual food, and I hear the kind of despair they are in, and I realize that it’s crazy for me to be this preoccupied with the finances of some place, when I’m here to create a place where people can come and find solace. So I feel a sense of responsibility to the people who come here for that kind of nurturance.

UNIDENTIFIED SALES REPRESENTATIVE #3:  We’ve developed what we call our McDonald’s approach to church design.  It’s our “church in a box.”

GONZALEZ: At the expo, those attending hoped the recession would soon end, allowing houses of worship to focus not on their money problems, but on their ministries.

For RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY, I’m Saul Gonzalez in Long Beach, California.

DEBORAH POTTER, guest anchor: As we mentioned earlier, another presidential nominee is in the spotlight this week, Sonia Sotomayor. The news of her nomination to the Supreme Court has dominated headlines, along with the California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a ban on same-sex marriages. Joining us now to discuss those stories are Dan Gilgoff, senior writer at U.S. News & World Report, and Tod Lindberg, research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Welcome to both of you. Dan, you’ve described the nominee’s record on abortion as “inscrutable.” What do we know about her record on that particular issue?

DAN GILGOFF (Senior Writer, U.S. News & World Report): Not much. She’s ruled on a handful of cases related to abortion, but none of them directly related to Roe v. Wade. The one case that some in the pro-life community are citing as a hopeful sign for their cause is that she ruled against plaintiffs who are seeking to overturn the Mexico City policy, which bans federal funds from going to family-planning providers abroad that either endorse or promote abortion. Other than that she seems to be, you know, a black box on this issue, which is kind of fitting, because David Souter, the justice who she’s replacing, was also promised to be a conservative when George H.W. Bush appointed him to the Court in 1990, then of course voted to uphold Roe v. Wade a couple of years later. And so what’s happening this week is that some abortion rights groups are getting rather nervous. That’s kind of unexpected.

Dan Gilgoff

POTTER: Well, Tod, is this actually good news for conservatives who may have been concerned that the president would nominate a true liberal to the Court?

TOD LINDBERG (Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Washington, DC): Well, I think that it’s still very much up in the air. It’s hard to see at this point. We all know that people who are hoping to be nominated to the Supreme Court are very cautious about what they say in their private lives and in their public writings, apart from what they are doing on the bench with regard to the abortion issue. I know people who aspire to be judges who would tell you, “I would absolutely never discuss that with you” for that precise reason. You want to be opaque, because if you have a position, I mean a discernable position, then you put yourself at substantially greater political risk. It’s kind of kabuki drama in its own way, but it’s one that we’ve been playing in Washington for a long time.

POTTER: And yet Hispanic voters traditionally are sort of much more anti-abortion than the rest of, say, the Democratic electorate. Is that — does that give you any clues, that fact that she’s Hispanic?

Mr. LINDBERG: You know, you’re talking about making a conclusion based on statistical evidence, polling, etc. and applying it to a particular person. It’s just not going to work for us. We’re not going to be able to know that. The test will be once she’s confirmed, and I think everybody assumes that she will be, when the cases arrive.

POTTER: Dan, what do we know about her record on issues of religious freedom, separation of church and state — other issues that really matter to voters of faith groups?

Mr. GILGOFF: Well, we know that she has a record of siding with those who are alleging violations of their religious liberty. And I think that’s been another bright spot for conservatives. It’s interesting in that conservatives came out roundly against her as soon as her nomination was announced this week, and at the same time, I mean, in the analysis that they were releasing before Obama made his choice, she kind of received the warmest treatment. And I think some of that was because of her rulings over the religious liberty cases.

Mr. LINDBERG: I think you’d also have to draw the distinction between the conservative commentary crowd and actually the members of the Senate, who have taken a very cautious view of this. I mean they promised, the Republicans promised full scrutiny, full assessment, but certainly no one has leapt out to be an opposition figure. Certainly no one has said this nominee is unacceptable where it really matters, which is in the Senate.

POTTER: So the presumption at this point is that she will be confirmed?

Tod Lindberg

Mr. LINDBERG: I think the presumption is exactly that, in the absence of some unknown, unexpected revelation or disclosure.

POTTER: And that would leave us with six justices out of the nine being Catholics for the very first time. Is that important? Does that have significance?

Mr. GILGOFF: I think that it really speaks to the diversity ideologically of the Catholic community in this country. I mean, you talk as though, or people talk as though there’s a Catholic voting bloc, for instance. But Catholics really have voted for every winning president going back to Richard Nixon, and so it’s hard to see them — you know, they’re conservative Catholics and liberal Catholics — as a distinct bloc. But so far on the Court they’ve supplied the conservative side — the [five] Catholics are voting with the conservatives on the Court. So what I think this will do is kind of reflect more broadly the Catholic diversity that exists in the country on the Court. I also think it tells us something important about the administration politically in that they’ve taken the Catholic community very seriously. This is really a nod — Sotomayor — to the new Latino complexion of the United States. I mean, the Catholic Church is losing, you know, four Catholics for every person that’s signing up for the Church, and if it wasn’t for this huge infusion of immigration, the Church would have a real problem on its hands, and I think they’re really acknowledging that in this pick.

Mr. LINDBERG: I think the conclusion that we have to draw from this six-out-of-nine thing is that Catholic is always a plus in terms of your political calculation of who you are going to put on the Court.

POTTER: Now, let’s talk a little bit about the ruling in California that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage there.The Republicans, I gather, put out some talking points this week on Sotomayor, and one of their talking points was that she could impose a federal right to same-sex marriage. Does that have the chance of holding water, that argument, or no?

Mr. GILGOFF: I don’t think so, and I also think that the timing of this is actually very serendipitous for the White House. There was even some speculation that the White House expedited the announcement of Sotomayor to get ahead of the California Supreme Court ruling, because had the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 8 you would have had this conservative uproar, largely directed at the Court, saying this is really the threat. The threat is that there will be Court-imposed same-sex marriage.

POTTER: Activist judges?

Mr. GILGOFF: Exactly. And so I think that the California Supreme Court ruling was really a lucky break for the Obama Administration in getting, you know, in sort of clearing a path for Sotomayor.

POTTER: What do you make of the next steps for the opponents of same-sex marriage? What do they do now? Where is their next step?

Mr. LINDBERG: Well, you know, I think there will be a continuation of initiative kind of processes. It is also interesting to look at what, you know, the next steps for the proponents are going to be. I think there’s a pretty strong indication that they do not want this matter, really, in the federal courts at this point. They would rather spend some time building up a case both politically and in terms of kind of the state court rulings that they’re able to obtain with the hope that California is more of an outlier than an indication of the trend, and take that then eventually into the federal courts. So I think, you know, conservatives will be looking to try to win in state courts where possible to show, however strongly, you know, the emotions run on this issue, that there is a principled case for defense of marriage as between a man and a woman, and that that is where most of the American people are.

POTTER: Are the statutes in the 29 states that have already banned same-sex marriage basically safe, because you’d have to go after them through some kind of referendum process, which is really hard to do?

Mr. LINDBERG: Well, safe is — no. I mean, I think if there’s ever a majority on the Supreme Court that wants to change the law on this then those statutes are precisely not safe, and I think that everybody’s aware of that and what the stakes are. But, you know, what I don’t see is a quick resolution of this issue. I think it’s one that unfolds over possibly ten years or maybe longer.

POTTER: Alright, thank you both very much. Thank you to Tod and thank you to Dan for joining us for that conversation.

MARY ALICE WILLIAMS, guest anchor: California’s gay marriage law remains in legal limbo. The state’s Supreme Court judges have less than two weeks to either uphold or strike down the gay marriage ban known as Proposition 8. Prop 8 passed last Election Day, in large part because Mormon churches mobilized for it. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints withstood blistering criticism from outside the faith. Now resentments are festering inside the Mormon community. Lucky Severson reports.

LUCKY SEVERSON: Dr. Pam Chan is an OB/GYN and a lifelong Mormon living in San Francisco. She found herself deeply conflicted when she got the message that her church was going all out in support of Proposition 8 banning gay marriage in California.

Dr. PAM CHAN (Member, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints): There would be little announcements made here and there, announcements about how we might be able to volunteer our time to, you know, go door-to-door, to hand out flyers, to stand on street corners with signs, and these little announcements, you know, I’d hear and I’d look around and wonder, “Is everyone okay with this? Does anyone besides me see a problem with this?”

Pam Chan

SEVERSON: Ron Packard is a lawyer, a former Mormon bishop and former mayor of Los Altos, California. He is now a councilman who supported Proposition 8 and says it’s extremely rare for the church to get involved in ballot issues.

RON PACKARD (Former Mormon Bishop): I think that they made an exception to their general policy of not getting involved because they have a core concern about the protection of families and the possible disintegration of families in modern society.

SEVERSON: The church’s official position is that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for his children. Mormons believe they are led by a modern-day prophet who receives revelations from God, and when the prophet speaks members usually follow. But with this issue Dr. Chan discovered that other active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were also strongly opposed to the church’s position on gay marriage.

Dr. CHAN: Our church is the church of Jesus Christ, first and foremost, and my understanding of the Gospel of Christ is that it’s a Gospel of love and acceptance. So it seems like a policy that’s about discrimination, which often goes hand in hand with fear and hatred, not about love and acceptance, and that for me is really troublesome.

SEVERSON: Bob Rees is a retired professor of literature at UCLA, a former Mormon bishop and a church scholar.

BOB REES (Former Mormon Bishop): In reality, this is an issue which has divided our society. It’s divided churches. It’s divided families, and some individuals are divided within themselves.

LISA FAHEY (Member, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints): So during the rallies I had some signs that said “Straight and Active Mormon for Marriage Equality” because I wanted to let people know, and I got a lot of attention for that. People came up and shook my hand and hugged me and told me, “Thank you very much.”

SEVERSON: Lisa Fahey and Kim McCall are also active Mormons, also conflicted.

Ms. FAHEY: That’s my whole point for speaking out — letting other people know that you can vote “no” or you can be for gay marriage and still be an active Mormon.

Ron Packard

Mr. PACKARD: The church has a long tradition of encouraging thinking members to not be afraid to speak up — beginning with Brigham Young. He said doesn’t want blind allegiance. He wants people to pray about it, think about it, and come to their own conclusions.

SEVERSON: In the year 2000, a majority of California voters approved a proposition stating that only a marriage between a man and a woman was valid. Eight years later, the California Supreme Court ruled that the ban on gay marriage violated the state’s constitution, and that’s when the drive began to amend the constitution with Proposition 8, and that’s when church leaders sent out a letter to its members calling on them to donate their time and money to an unequivocal moral cause. Although many churches and a majority of Californian’s supported Proposition 8, Mormons were probably the most organized and donated almost half the $19 million generated for the campaign.

Mr. REES: And I think there’s no question that the church’s involvement in this was determinative. Many people were unprepared for the effectiveness of the church in doing what it does. I think the church was probably unprepared for such a strong negative response to its involvement.

SEVERSON: The church may also have been unprepared for the number of members who opposed the church’s proclamation. Members who are still active like Laura Compton, a church organist and mother of two, who operates a Web site called Mormonsformarriage.com. She says the site still gets lots of attention and in the run-up to Proposition 8 was getting thousands of hits a day.

LAURA COMPTON (Mormonsformarriage.com): The comments that we have gotten are a lot of members who say, “Thank you so much for creating this community. I felt so alone.” A lot who said, “Because you have this site, I’m able to continue going to church.” A lot of people who have called us to repentance for what we have been doing, and a lot of outside people who’ve said, “Thank you for showing us that not all Mormons, you know, want to take away our rights to marriage.”

Ms. FAHEY: It’s been really difficult to be a member of the church during this time. I’ve had a lot of people tell me that possibly I should be excommunicated, and that’s really hurt me, because I feel like I’m really a very loving, forgiving person.

Kim McCall and Lisa Fahey

Mr. REES: The most unfortunate thing for me in all of this thing that happened over Proposition 8 was the divisiveness, the acrimony. Each side began in some sense emotionally and spiritually dis-fellowshipping or excommunicating the other side.

SEVERSON: Ron Packard says the most fierce opposition has come from gay rights advocates that have rallied against the church around the nation. He’s says he on a blacklist because he supported Proposition 8.

Mr. PACKARD: There’s some people who’ve lost their jobs because they supported Proposition 8.

SEVERSON (to Mr. Packard): Really?

Mr. PACKARD: Yeah.

KIM MCCALL (Member, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints): So one of the dynamics of the church over the last hundred years is to move more and more mainstream. Okay, we looked very sort of un-American. You know, Brigham Young was opposed to the Pledge of Allegiance [Editor's Note: Mr. McCall's statement about Brigham Young is in error. Brigham Young died in 1877. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892], and we looked really outside the mainstream, and there’s been a, you know, more American than thou now we’re the most patriotic people. Okay, we weren’t very monogamous. Now we’re more monogamous than everybody else. You know, we’ve got to be. You know, we’re so worried about polygamy in our history and how odd it makes us look that maybe we need to overreact.

Mr. REES: I think there is little question that a from a public relations point of view the church has suffered over its involvement in Proposition 8, and I know of people who have had second thoughts about joining the church over this issue. I know some of our missionaries have had a difficult time finding open doors and open hearts because of this.

Mr. PACKARD: A majority of the people of the United States don’t want same-sex marriages. So for the majority we may have, instead of getting a hit we get a halo. Whenever any organization gets involved in the political process, there’s going to be some who consider it a hit and others who feel that they’re a hero.

SEVERSON: Ron Packard says the church does not discriminate against gays, that his niece and some of his friends are gay, and that the church does not have a policy of denying the sacrament to homosexual members. But Lisa Fahey says there are still members who don’t understand what it means to be gay.

Laura Compton

Ms. FAHEY: I even had some friends say that they still think that homosexuality is a choice. I don’t think the church leadership feels that way but members — some members feel that way, wrongly of course.

SEVERSON: Bob Rees says as a bishop he counseled gay and lesbian members who felt they were not wanted in the church.

Mr. REES: We have congregations who are not inclusive of the homosexual members of their congregations. We have families in which brothers and sisters don’t speak to one another over these issues, and I as a Christian, I can’t understand that. It breaks my heart.

SEVERSON: Laura Compton says since Proposition 8 the church leadership has become more flexible, making it known that members can still be in good standing even if they oppose the church’s position.

Ms. COMPTON: This has not challenged my faith, no. My faith is independent of the morality or the politics of gay marriage. It’s deeper. My faith is in a Christ who loves everybody and wants everyone to come to him, and a God that loves the world no matter whether they are Mormon or Muslim or Jewish or Catholic, and wants all of us to be there and all of us to treat each other like we’re brothers and sisters and not like we’re them and us.

Mr. REES: The function of faith communities is to make a home a for us, and I think that many of our Latter-day Saint brothers and sisters feel homeless, because we haven’t created a home for them. But I see that changing. I think there is much more understanding.

SEVERSON: As other states take up the issue of gay marriage, Mormon church leaders this time around have not asked members to get involved. Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court is once again considering the constitutionality of the ban on gay marriage. Their decision is expected soon.

For RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY, I’m Lucky Severson in San Francisco.

Rev. Bear Ride: The church is our home. I was born into the church, baptized into the church, and raised into the church, and went on to be ordained and served the church. So the church is my home, and I can’t imagine where else I’d want to be to get married.

Rev. Sally Craig: I’m delighted that it’s become a civil right that all people in this state can have equally. But I’m even more delighted to be able to be in a church like All Saints (Episcopal Church in Pasadena) that is progressive, Gospel-based, inclusive of all of us and that we can have a church ceremony with our friends and family and church family. It means everything to be here under the watchful eyes of God and the saints above the community all around us in this special community for us.

Rev. Ride: For us, the marriage is–it’s important that it’s a civil contract between two people, and that, of course, is the groundbreaking aspect of this. But it’s also, in our tradition, a covenant between two people who love each other and promise to spend the rest of their lives together caring for each other and being a supportive community one to each other under the eyes of God, you know, in the grace of a caring community. So it’s both things, and that’s why it makes so much sense for us, and it makes perfect sense for us to be married in a church that can be, at the same time, an agent of the state in signing off on the legal contract aspect of it and blessing the covenantal relationship as well.

Rev. Craig: I’m thinking of marriage as a calling or a vocation that invites us to live into all that we are meant to be within community, where others who are in marriages or loving relationships will be reminded of the vows that they have made to each other, and they’ll call us into account as well, and it’s a community-binding, community creating experience.

Rev. Ride: And, additionally, we did have a wonderful commitment service about seven years ago or so at our house that was a house blessing and a commitment service for our relationship. And that was, as I said earlier, was the covenant part of the celebration. We do want to underscore the legal part, because that’s the justice issue. That’s what we’ve been working for, what the community has been working for, what this church has been working for, as a peace and justice church. So this is really significant to us, that our family will be legally recognized and protected just like any other family. There is a great deal of debate, naturally, within the Presbyterian Church and other denominations about the status of marriage. In fact, the General Assembly in the Presbyterian Church will be, again, debating the nature of marriage. At this point it would be a chargeable offense for a Presbyterian minister to officiate at our wedding, a legal wedding, because in the church’s constitution a marriage is a civil contract, it says, between a man and a woman and a covenant between two people who love each other. That’s archaic language now in California, so that’ll be a very fascinating conversation for them to have. We have many Presbyterian friends who are going to be here to celebrate with us–clergy and friends. This congregation is our home now, and we feel very much we’re solidarity members of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena. And these people are our pastors and our family. And it feels, it makes perfect sense for us to be in a place where it is completely celebrated and embraced.

Rev. Craig: There are different structures within our denominations that are really worth talking about. But here it is not only welcomed, marriages are not only welcomed, but welcomed also joyfully. The vestry went on stand, I think the day after the state did it, and said we will treat all couples that we believe qualified to marry, marry here. Nothing like that has happened in our denomination

Rev. Ride: I believe that God created us in God’s own image, and that God created us to be in a relationship, and I don’t think that language is prescriptive of who, you know, we should march lock-step with. But, rather, God has created us with love and for love to be with another, to be cherished. You know, I think I really don’t understand the folks who talk about the biblical concept of marriage, because if you look at the Bible there are all sorts of different types of marriage. You know, it’s very common to have multiple wives, or concubines are fine, or a levirate marriage, in which case the wife would be required to marry the man’s brother. You know, I mean that was the law of marriage. So I’m not sure–I think we’re picking and choosing the biblical concept of marriage.

Rev. Craig: I think we don’t feel that there’s a rich conversation at this time about how to read the Bible or how to understand the fundamental meanings of love and justice and relationship and community. It’s better to go forward in faith sure and smiling, I think, than to sit and battle biblical verses. I think something happens when people who love each other walk into the room. You can tell if it’s a good and just and ethical and faithful marriage. You can tell that it was meant to be. We don’t even have to speak, but us and the others that were married yesterday and tomorrow and the day after and the day after will just be living witnesses, to use faith language.

Rev. Ride: I trust that this is a hopeful moment as well as a joyful moment and that people will realize that, you know, like any basic, fundamental human right we can now celebrate this as well, that marriage is, you know, marriage is a human right, and we claim that.

*************************

Rev. Mary Holder Naegeli (San Francisco Presbytery): It’s been a hard and difficult decision [not to perform same sex weddings] on one hand because of the population of the Bay Area, but I have decided not to conduct same sex weddings for several reasons. The first reason really starts with the Bible. It is the book that is our primary authority and speaks for God and speaks God’s will to us, and starting in the garden, the very beginning of the Bible story, we have the account of God creating man and woman, and at the end of that wonderful account, beautiful account of Adam and Eve being created, God says a man shall leave his father and his mother and he shall cleave to his wife and the two will become one flesh. Jesus quotes that verse in Matthew 19 in the Gospel and says the creator said this, which for Jesus to say that means this is direct from God, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. And then the Apostle Paul in his letters also quotes that same passage, which puts tremendous weight on it to define marriage that way. And then on the other hand the scripture negatively says that homosexual behavior cannot express the design of God that was made known at creation, and we have several instances from beginning to end of scripture that make that point. There isn’t any wiggle room, there’s no any softening of that position anywhere. So putting the positive case together with the negative case, I can participate only in marriages between a man and a woman.

The Book of Order speaks to this issue particularly in the Directory for Worship, in the definition of marriage in a description of a marriage ceremony and that aspect of the worship life of the church. So there, of course, it says that we understand marriage to be covenant between a man and woman, and no other arrangement is accommodated for in the Book of Order.

The institution of marriage, in theological terms, really revolves around the concept of covenant, which is a rich biblical word to describe first of all the relationship that God established with those he created — a commitment, a love, a regard for. And when we talk about marriage as a covenant we are talking about two people making that kind of commitment to each other. It’s sort of like there’s a special hold in trapeze that trapeze artists use. They don’t hold hands swinging on a trapeze just like this, because if one lets go the grip is gone, but they make a special kind of grip where each grabs the wrist of the other so that if one lets go there is still a bond. And that’s a really nice picture, I think, of the covenant of marriage.

The Bible says positively about marriage that it is, first of all, created by God, and that’s the verse that I hold very dear, this one in the end of chapter 2 of Genesis, “For a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” Then, and because that’s a reiterated, repeated statement in the scripture two more times, that pretty much is the biblical basis for our understanding of marriage. There are instructions in Paul’s letter about specifics, about roles, whether or not they exist, and the mutuality of marriage, the fact that a person, a married person belongs to his or her spouse. That’s a completely mutual thing. That’s very important in our understanding, biblical understanding, of marriage.

Is gay marriage a sin? Well, we have to take a step back and say that homosexual practice is not God’s design for humanity. Not being God’s design for humanity, having these clear prohibitions in the Scripture make homosexual practice a sin. Homosexual marriage makes permanent a situation that God wants to redeem. That’s one of the big reasons, by the way, why I don’t conduct marriage ceremonies for gay and lesbian people, because why would I, a representative of God, help people make permanent with a vow — I take marriage vows very seriously — but with a vow to make permanent then, seal something that God wouldn’t agree with? God wouldn’t bless that. That’s my basic conscience problem with the whole issue.

The situation that now has been created in the state of California is going to be confusing. Sociologically, there is going to be more and more pressure to not only accept or tolerate, let’s say, something that is not of God’s design, but to promote it and make it normative in the life of Californians, which when you hold a biblical position like I do it makes life really uncomfortable. There are all sorts of issues related to parenthood and adoption, and I can’t even imagine, now this is all pretty new, but that’s going to require a lot of untangling of something that’s gotten confused now.

The Presbyterian Church has business before this assembly to reword the definition of marriage in our Book of Order. It’s possible that the wording could be changed at this assembly but it would have to be ratified by the majority of presbyteries in our country. So nothing can happen that’s instantaneously applicable at this assembly in this regard if it’s a Book of Order change. It’s just like if you were to change the constitution of the United States you’d have to have a majority of states, or probably more than that, actually ratify that. [it is the] same thing in the denomination. I think that there is going to be a vigorous debate. I don’t have a sense at this point of what the folks here are going to do and we’ll find out later in the week. The committee takes it on, has open hearings, listens to a debate, and then later in the week they make a recommendation to the full assembly, which debates it again. So there is a two-phase process here, and anything can happen.

There are three positions I think that clergy hold on the matter of gay marriage. There are people like me, who for biblical reasons, theological constitutional reasons, who are not open to conducting gay marriage. There are people who are all for conducting gay marriages and will do so regardless of what the Presbyterian Church says, and then there are people whose personal feelings may be positive toward conducting gay marriages but wont because it’s unconstitutional in our denomination, and that group of people is in a particularly uncomfortable place, I think. I feel for them because of this, their own personal feeling, it being legal in the state but not legal in the denomination to do so. So there are really three clergy groups I think, and I’m of the first one I mentioned, that I’m not conflicted about it at this time because my beliefs align with what the Book of Order and the confessions say about marriage, and gay marriage is prohibited.