Churches have right of free speech

By Pastor B.G. Stumberg - Your turn - 08/22/08
I was disappointed by your question of the week both because of its bias and because of its failure to capture the real issue at stake in Montana by the state’s “incidental political committee” laws.Churches and community groups should not be made political committees simply for speaking on an issue that is fundamental to the group’s faith and/or convictions. I speak regularly from the pulpit on the importance of defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and encouraged my congregation to support our state’s marriage amendment in 2004 — the same amendment that has now been passed overwhelmingly in 27 states, “blue” and “red” alike and was passed here by a landslide. My church is not “anti-gay”— it’s pro-marriage as it has been defined from the beginning of time across every culture and religion. My church is anti-sin, whether that sin is homosexual or heterosexual. We’re against adultery just as we stand against homosexual acts.But the complaint that was filed against my church by an out-of-state professional political organizer was not about same-sex “marriage.” It is about an effort by special interest groups to squelch the free speech of community groups and churches in Montana. In the example of my church, it was aimed at squelching the free speech of conservative churches that spoke in favor of the marriage amendment. The same out-of-state professional political organizer that filed the complaint also organized the mass distribution of letters to hundreds of churches across the state threatening that if they supported the amendment, they’d have to become political committees and would put their tax exempt status at risk. The letters had their intended effect and many groups simply chose not to discuss the issue. That’s because the laws’ burdens are difficult for small churches like mine — especially considering that any failure to follow them to the T can result in a civil and criminal prosecution.Last time around the intimidation effort was against conservative community members like my church. Next time it might be against liberal community members. My opposition to these laws is the same in both instances. When important issues come up for a vote in Montana, they deserve robust discussion from diverse viewpoints. Requiring community groups to become political committees because they speak on a important social issues inhibits free speech, hurts democratic government, and violates the First Amendment.Ironically, the law exempts newspapers from any obligations to become a political committee for supporting a ballot issue. So when the IR writes editorials against the marriage amendment or any other ballot issue, it does not have to become a political committee or make any other report to the state. But if any other group or church did the same thing, it would have to register as a political committee. That fact has been lost in IR’s coverage of this case. So perhaps next week’s question of the week can be this: “Should newspapers like the IR be forced to become a political committee for running an editorial advocating defeat of a pro-marriage ballot issue, just like other community groups are required to?”My vote is that neither the IR nor any other community group should be penalized or subject to rigorous state burdens simply for voicing opinion on an important issue under debate in our state. Indeed, it’s what the First Amendment encourages and protects, regardless of whether the speech is considered liberal, conservative, “anti-gay” or “anti-marriage.” It’s disappointing that the IR would hide behind its own special exemption under the law, but fail to defend the exercise of the same constitutional rights by community groups like my church.
B.G. Stumberg is pastor at the Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church in East Helena.