Montana Church Defended Against Enforcement of 'Vague' Election Law
by Bill Fancher and Jody Brown
June 15, 2004
(AgapePress) - An effort to silence the Church in the same-sex marriage debate has led to one state being taken to court.
When homosexual advocates and Planned Parenthood filed a complaint against a Montana church that started a petition drive for a Constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council stepped in.
"Working with our allies at the Alliance Defense Fund, we're making sure the pastors know that if they take a stand on these issues, that they can do so without fear of being intimidated by homosexuals or pro-abortionists or whomever -- and that they have every right [to take a stand] and they must speak out on these issues that are so critical."
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state statute used by the coalition against Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church. According to an ADF press statement, the church event included a sermon about marriage, a religious video broadcast about marriage, and an opportunity for individuals in the congregation to sign a petition authorizing that a pro-marriage amendment be put on the state's next general election ballot.
Perkins notes that there was no political action taken by Canyon Ferry Road Baptist. He has joined with the ADF in telling those Christians and members of other churches that they need not fear intimidation. "The Alliance Defense Fund has filed suit against the state law in Montana that really is clearly unconstitutional in that it restricts the free speech of churches to address issues," he says.
Perkins says the homosexual movement wants to silence the Church because it fears the Church's message of morality and judgment.
ADF says the law in question requires any organization "not specifically organized or maintained for the primary purpose of influencing elections" to register with the state and file an organizational statement within five days after it makes an expenditure or authorizes another person to make an expenditure on its behalf. The Arizona-based legal group says Linda Vaughey, Montana's commissioner of political practices, interprets "expenditure" to include "just about anything a political committee spends in support of or in opposition to a candidate or ballot issue."
Like Perkins, the ADF's Benjamin Bull says the law is clearly unconstitutional. "It imposes onerous reporting and registration requirements and even the risk of fines simply because the church spoke out in favor of marriage," Bull states, adding that the law is sufficiently "vague" and "ambiguous" that the state can enforce it "in whatever way it sees fit."
