Speakout: A compromise on protests at funerals

Rep. Michael Merrifield

Friday, April 14, 2006

I couldn't agree more with the headline to the March 23 Rocky Mountain News editorial, "Free speech, even at funerals." The bill I'm sponsoring, House Bill 1382 - which the News criticized - guarantees this.

Freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly are, in many ways, the essence of what it means to be an American. No matter how vile the words or actions of protesters may be, these freedoms must be protected.

At no time is this more important, or tougher to stomach, than when public opinion and common decency scream otherwise.

But the Constitution does not afford protesters a blanket of legal protection. They do not have a right to interfere with the rights of, or harm, the people they are protesting.

And as much as I honor the work of the Patriot Guard Riders, a volunteer group of 20,000 motorcyclists who stand guard outside military funerals, they can't be expected to be on call for every funeral where offensive and disruptive protests are expected.

I've introduced legislation that aims to balance the important rights protesters are entitled to with the rights of families and friends to gather privately and grieve for their lost ones. Funerals and protests can co-exist.

As presented to the House, HB 1382 would prohibit protests within 100 feet of a funeral site from one hour before the scheduled funeral until one hour after its completion. This law enables both sides to peacefully exercise their rights. And all protests would be subject to the same, nondiscriminatory rules.

The intent of my legislation is not to prohibit certain fringe groups from staging protests that almost all Americans consider overtly offensive.

These groups have a constitutional right to do this. But funeral protesters cannot violate the rights of those gathering, privately and peacefully, to mourn. This is happening, though - and not just at funerals for fallen soldiers.

Recently in Denver an anti-abortion group tried to disrupt the funeral of Monte Pascoe, a prominent Colorado lawyer, public servant and public activist.

Groups are catching on that they can push their cause by disrupting - not protesting - funerals under the guise of constitutional protection. Feelings run high at funerals, so the possibility of harmful confrontations increases when one group purposely baits the other. It's time to address this growing problem.

There is legal precedent for such an important law. Similar "buffer zone" laws exist at military installations, polling places and at abortion clinics - and have been upheld in the courts.

In 1993, Colorado legislators passed a law that required protesters to keep an eight-foot buffer, inside 100 feet, when protesting those going in and out of abortion clinics. In 1999 the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the law. One year later, the U.S. Supreme Court did the same (Hill v. Colorado).

Twenty-six states have introduced legislation that places some type of restriction on funeral protests this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Missouri, Oklahoma, Indiana, South Dakota and Wisconsin have enacted bills this year.

HB 1382 would uphold Americans' First Amendment rights while allowing families to grieve for their lost ones.

Democratic Rep. Michael Merrifield represents Manitou Springs in the Colorado General Assembly.