A TV ad in support of Proposition 8 prominently displays the headline of my July 2 column, “Anti-gay clergy should fear backlash.”

If Proposition 8 strategists are so desperate they need to refer to something I wrote to bolster their cause, start celebrating now!

The back story is that in July, I noted the clergy is aggressively involved in political campaigning and risks having the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) strip churches of their tax-exempt status.

That’s nothing new. Since 1954, the IRS has been doing exactly that. But, apparently, my column struck a chord, because the right-wing Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) knows the anti-gay clergy has gone too far. Regardless of who’s elected president, there’s going to be a real Justice Department again. So when the IRS does move, and it will, the ADF would like to blame it on the usual scapegoats.

The truth is that soon after my July column appeared, the ADF encouraged dozens of clergy to defy federal law and endorse Proposition 8 from the pulpit, which they did. The ADF said it would send copies of the sermons to the IRS, essentially demanding that it revoke the clergy’s tax-exempt status. Why? So that the ADF could defend the clergy by claiming that tax law restricts political advocacy and thus violates the First Amendment.

Unfortunately for the ADF, the Supreme Court has held that Congress may restrict the use of federal money and tax subsidies. Indeed, the ADF often defends this practice, for example when Congress revokes federal funds to medical clinics if doctors tell a pregnant teen about abortion, or when the Supreme Court holds that colleges that receive federal funds must allow military recruiters or lose federal money.

Also unfortunate for the ADF is the recent California Supreme Court ruling, which held that medical professionals do not have the right to withhold services based on their religious beliefs. The court reasoned California’s medical doctors can lobby all they want against abortion, for example, on their own time, but cannot use their medical practice to further their own objectives at the expense of their patients.

Consequently, regardless of what I write in my column, any challenge the ADF brings with regard to tax law restricting First Amendment rights will fail. Church groups will lose their tax-exempt status, since, like medical doctors, clergy must not use the pulpit to persuade congregations of their political views, although they are free to espouse such when not acting in a professional capacity.

But the ADF wants to blame the “gay agenda” for pressuring the IRS (as if anyone pressures the IRS) into revoking the churches’ tax-exempt status. This is despite the fact the IRS announced last year a vigorous investigation of political groups masquerading as “religious,” scrutinizing a “liberal” Los Angeles pastor who spoke from the pulpit against the Iraq war and issuing a definitive ruling to all churches that outlined in specific detail those situations in which it would revoke the tax-exempt status of religious officials/groups involved in blatant political activity.

Remarkably, the ADF told clergy to do exactly what the IRS said the law prohibited. But attorneys can’t tell clients to violate federal tax law; they face disbarment and likely criminal charges if they do. The only appropriate way to challenge a law is to sue in federal court and seek a court order invalidating it.

Oh, but that wouldn’t generate media attention. It wouldn’t fan the fires of self-righteousness like, let’s say, a sexual harassment suit brought by firefighters claiming to have been sexually harassed in a Pride parade. So, instead, the ADF tells church officials to risk their tax-exempt status and promises to defend them.

What’s the end result for the churches? The IRS wins; the churches lose their tax-exempt status. Donations plummet, and the group goes bankrupt. Then the ADF blames the “gay agenda.”

The tragedy, of course, is that the flock will believe it, never realizing the misjudgment of their lawyers caused their church to disband.