Minnesota Republican who voted for gay marriage retires after party abandonment

[CaseyJones]

http://rare.us/story/minnesota-republican-who-voted-for-gay-marriage-retires-after-party-abandonment/


Minnesota state Rep. David FitzSimmons failed to receive his party’s endorsement after voting in favor of the legalization of gay marriage. The tea-party politician and founder of Republican Liberty Caucus was on a fast track to becoming a darling of the Republican party yet —because of his yay vote — his party chose to back a more traditional candidate.

FitzSimmons lost his party’s endorsement for re-election to his seat following fallout from this vote. Local groups and politicians came out against FitzSimmons saying that he campaigned on a platform to protect family values but later abandoned that ideal.

While FitzSimmons doesn’t personally support gay marriage, he knew thought the law was going to pass in Minnesota regardless of Republican support. Instead of going with his party, FitzSimmons proposed an amendment that would limit gay marriage to civil marriages, and would not force religious institutions to do something they didn’t want to. In other words, knowing that they were going to lose anyway, FitzSimmons acknowledged that civil marriage was happening and did everything he could to protect the religious identifier.

[Icymudpuppy]

This is why the R party needs to go. Libertarian, freedom for all, including gays.

[eduardo89]

The GOP needs to purge those who don't hold strong against the homosexual agenda.

[rpfocus]

http://rare.us/story/minnesota-republican-who-voted-for-gay-marriage-retires-after-party-abandonment/

Those dinosaurs need you more than you need them, FitzSimmons! Hurry up and put an (L) next to your name!

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1004759/thumbs/o-GOP-DINOS-METEOR-DEMOGRAPHICS-CARTOON-570.jpg?6

[phill4paul]

This is why the R party needs to go. Libertarian, freedom for all, including gays.

+rep.

[chudrockz]

This is gonna cause heads to roll in the state GOP I think. The way I read it, the VAST majority of active Minnesota Republicans are incredibly pissed at what happened to Fitz.

[Keith and stuff]

This is gonna cause heads to roll in the state GOP I think. The way I read it, the VAST majority of active Minnesota Republicans are incredibly pissed at what happened to Fitz.

Don't Ron Paul Republicans have a lot of power in MN? This is pretty shocking. In 2012 the majority of Republicans in the NH House voted to keep same sex marriage instead of going back to civil unions that were marriage in all but name only. Not a single head rolled because of that. And no, Ron Paul folks don't control the party in the 603.

Either way, MN is 1 of the more liberal states when it comes to believes in same sex marriage, it is sad that a liberty guy was kicked out because he didn't want people to spit on his grave when he dies.

Thank you OP. I'm going to try to recruit this guy to run for office in New Hampshire. +Rep

[Brett85]

If this guy were a Ron Paul Republican he would've voted against this bill.

[Keith and stuff]

If this guy were a Ron Paul Republican he would've voted against this bill.
Clearly not. Ron Paul Republicans disagree on 1,000s of issues, including this one. I'm not really sure why you made your comment...

[eduardo89]

If this guy were a Ron Paul Republican he would've voted against this bill.

I agree.

[enhanced_deficit]

He should have learnt from master of double speak:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDDbTaWpwoc&feature=player_detailpage#t=235

[chudrockz]

I agree.

Clearly this issue's one that sometimes splits "liberty" folk. I fully disagree that he should've voted against the bill, as do the vast majority of "Ron Paul Republicans" that I've heard from since this fiasco here in Minnesota. (No that's not scientific, but I'll stand by it till a poll comes out.)

Quite frankly, as an athiest and pro-humanity type, I fear that too often being "anti gay marriage" while couching it in freedom language is merely a cover for blatant bigotry. I have gay friends, including two who got married right after they COULD. I care not one BIT about what they (or anyone else) does in the bedroom. This is one of those issues that is just purely NOT MY DAMNED BUSINESS.

And yes, I grant that government should get out of marriage entirely. I could live with that. Just as I think that government should get out of the drug war entirely, but I can live with medical marijuana and "legalization and taxation" as much better than what was.

[surf]

this is just another of those reasons I don't describe myself as a republican.

family f#cking values. that term makes me cringe.

[Cabal]

The GOP needs to purge those who don't hold strong against the homosexual agenda.

I agree. Then we'll finally be rid of the last dangling threads of archaic notions of rigid social conservatism. They'll fade into obscurity and irrelevance after such a purge, thereby removing the yoke of zealotry from around the necks of those of us who would rather be able to focus on things that are of actual significance, absent the divisiveness caused by, and association with the aforementioned archaic notions.

So yes. By all means, alienate yourselves and become obsolete. Out with the old, in with the new.

[Lucille]

According to looktruenorth.com, a local politics site, FitzSimmons did not cast his vote until he was certain the bill would pass. By doing so, he stuck his neck out for religious freedom, while acknowledging the political implications.


In consultation with Republican legal experts, Fitzsimmons crafted an amendment which limited the state’s domain to civil marriage and protected religious institutions and clergy from being forced to perform same-sex weddings or recognize same-sex unions as sacred. Democrats consented to the amendment. However, Fitzsimmons knew that his amendment could be stripped out of the final bill unless he sat on the conference committee which would reconcile the House and Senate versions. To ensure his place on that committee, he would have to vote for final passage.

Surely, he understood the political fallout which would occur in Wright County – likely the most conservative political district in the state – if he voted yes on final passage. He also understood that voting yes was the only way to ensure some protection of his constituents’ religious liberty.

As the vote for final passage took place, Fitzsimmons watched the vote totals to make sure his would not decide the question. Only once it was certain that the bill would pass did Fitzsimmons cast his vote for final passage, securing his place on the conference committee to preserve his amendment.

SMH. I hope the Boomer establishment is happy.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-collapse-of-the-anti-ssm-side/


A major, decisive battle in the culture war is over. The other side won. Soon their efforts will amount to little more than bouncing the rubble.
[...]
According to the PRRI press release, it is hard to overestimate the age/generation factor in opposing same-sex marriage. Opponents of SSM are literally dying off.

[oyarde]

Don't Ron Paul Republicans have a lot of power in MN? This is pretty shocking. In 2012 the majority of Republicans in the NH House voted to keep same sex marriage instead of going back to civil unions that were marriage in all but name only. Not a single head rolled because of that. And no, Ron Paul folks don't control the party in the 603.

Either way, MN is 1 of the more liberal states when it comes to believes in same sex marriage, it is sad that a liberty guy was kicked out because he didn't want people to spit on his grave when he dies.

Thank you OP. I'm going to try to recruit this guy to run for office in New Hampshire. +Rep The Mn house of Rep.'s is controlled by the Democratic Farmer Labor party by about a ten percent margin .

[Michael Landon]

The more I think about this, I think David should run as a Libertarian or even seek the Independence Party nomination to secure ballot access. I'm willing to bet there would be a lot of help coming his way, in regards to donations and volunteering.

- ML

[Brian4Liberty]

He should have stuck it out. This was just one vote, and he had an Amendment to make it better.


Former U.S. Senator Norm Coleman commented on Representative David FitzSimmons:

“I believe in the principles secured and gifted to us by our Founders: our innate rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well as self determination to best use these rights for the benefit of family and community. I am for constitutionally limited government, individual rights especially the respect for life, and a free enterprise economic system that allows us to own and control what we work for.”

Last week David stood before his convention and declined to seek their endorsement. They instead chose another candidate.

David was one of four Republicans who voted in favor of gay marriage rights in the House of Representatives.

Because of this vote, and despite a solid conservative voting record on nearly every single issue that matters to Republicans, he was pilloried, reviled and attacked for this single vote.

And that is wrong. It is a violation of our obligations as a big tent Republican Party. It weakens who we are as a party and it undermines our belief in the courage of one person to have a voice, even if that voice may be different than ours.

I don’t sense any bitterness on David’s part. In fact, he has made it clear that he known he would lose the endorsement of his party because of that vote he would have made the same exact vote.

While I don’t agree with his vote, I do say this: Good for you, David. Good for you.

http://politics.mn/2014/02/26/coleman-on-fitzsimmons-he-was-pilloried-reviled-and-attacked-for-this-single-vote/

[compromise]

If this guy were a Ron Paul Republican he would've voted against this bill.

That doesn't necessarily make it right that the GOP withdrew their endorsement. If he's good on other issues, he's not really a problem. Hope he returns to the Republican Party in the near future.

[Brian4Liberty]

The GOP needs to purge those who don't hold strong against the homosexual agenda.

Says you and Lindsey Graham. What else do you two have in common?

This gay marriage nonsense is so much more important than other issues. :rolleyes:

[COpatriot]

The GOP needs to purge those who don't hold strong against the homosexual agenda.

And everyone on the other side hopes the GOP listens to you. Keep fighting that losing battle and continue to alienate and display yourselves to be out of touch with a portion of the public that grows with each passing year. This will be what seals their fate in irrelevance. And then people will wonder why there is no one left to fight for us on gun rights.

[Keith and stuff]

And everyone on the other side hopes the GOP listens to you. Keep fighting that losing battle and continue to alienate and display yourselves to be out of touch with a portion of the public that grows with each passing year. This will be what seals their fate in irrelevance. And then people will wonder why there is no one left to fight for us on gun rights.

He isn't fighting a battle. He doesn't even live in the US. I have no idea why he even bothers to comment on such things.

[oyarde]

That doesn't necessarily make it right that the GOP withdrew their endorsement. If he's good on other issues, he's not really a problem. Hope he returns to the Republican Party in the near future.

I agree , but probably too late anyway, all of the population in MN is in the Twin Cities and that belongs to the communist party ......

[LibertyEagle]

This is why the R party needs to go. Libertarian, freedom for all, including gays.

You know, it always strikes me as odd when "libertarians" are all about less government, except in *some* cases.

[LibertyEagle]

Clearly not. Ron Paul Republicans disagree on 1,000s of issues, including this one. I'm not really sure why you made your comment...

Uh huh, however some who call themselves Ron Paul Republicans don't agree with Ron Paul, either.

[LibertyEagle]

He isn't fighting a battle. He doesn't even live in the US. I have no idea why he even bothers to comment on such things.

He has more sense than many here.

[Guitarzan]

If this guy were a Ron Paul Republican he would've voted against this bill.


Thank you for clearing that up Almighty Arbiter of all Ron Paul Republicans.

[Cabal]

He has more sense than many here.

An endorsement from you doesn't help his cause.

[LibertyEagle]

An endorsement from you doesn't help his cause.

Opinions vary. :)

And here's a newsflash for you. Eduardo doesn't need permission from you to post his thoughts. If you doubt this, go check out the forum guidelines.

[DamianTV]

The GOP needs to purge those who don't hold strong against the homosexual agenda.

The GOP is purging anyone who doesnt endorse the Status Quo. Theyve cost themselves their own credibility by focusing on opposition to gay rights instead of equal rights for all people. The less they adhere to the principles of the constitution, the more they will alienate more and more people and their support in general. Establishment Republicans endorse fiat currencies, bipartisan bills of surveillance and oppression, and full elimination of the Constitution. The GOP is so divided against itself that it may not survive.

[LibertyEagle]

The GOP is purging anyone who doesnt endorse the Status Quo. Theyve cost themselves their own credibility by focusing on opposition to gay rights instead of equal rights for all people. The less they adhere to the principles of the constitution, the more they will alienate more and more people and their support in general. Establishment Republicans endorse fiat currencies, bipartisan bills of surveillance and oppression, and full elimination of the Constitution. The GOP is so divided against itself that it may not survive.

I'm sorry, but the goal has never been to gather around the lowest common denominator. Government needs to get out of the marriage business. Churches should be able to refuse to marry gays and no one should be forced to do business with someone they don't want to.

People claim that we should all be focusing on the government surveillance, but when there is a gay, tranny, etc. thread posted, it usually gets an enormous number of hits.

[DamianTV]

I'm sorry, but the goal has never been to gather around the lowest common denominator. Government needs to get out of the marriage business. Churches should be able to refuse to marry gays and no one should be forced to do business with someone they don't want to.

People claim that we should all be focusing on the government surveillance, but when their is a gay, tranny, etc. thread posted, it usually gets an enormous number of hits.

Youre right.

Many claim that we simply can not afford the consequences of the actions of the GOP, when maybe we should consider that we can not afford the GOP itself any longer. Or for that matter, the entire militarized police war industrial banking prison education food television complex.

[LibertyEagle]

Youre right.

Many claim that we simply can not afford the consequences of the actions of the GOP, when maybe we should consider that we can not afford the GOP itself any longer. Or for that matter, the entire militarized police war industrial banking prison education food television complex.

The GOP is whomever is in it. It is an inanimate object. If WE are in it and did the work required to fill the offices of the Republican parties in most of the states, we would own it right now. But, no, people refuse to do the work, or run into a tough time and quit. You mean they didn't welcome me? Oh, boo hoo, they are horrible. I am quitting and taking my marbles home and pout about how horrible it all is.

If you got rid of the GOP, you would still have the Democratic Party and whatever new establishment party that would be started.

This isn't about parties. I thought you knew that.

[DamianTV]

They may very well be ready to give up on the two party paradigm because its no longer working, but we'll see, there are still a lot of people that do fall for it and contribute nothing. Ive been a State Delegate myself in one of the handfuls of states that Ron Paul won in the last election. Id say thats getting involved.

[Queer_Libertarian_Radical]

Clearly this issue's one that sometimes splits "liberty" folk. I fully disagree that he should've voted against the bill, as do the vast majority of "Ron Paul Republicans" that I've heard from since this fiasco here in Minnesota. (No that's not scientific, but I'll stand by it till a poll comes out.)

Quite frankly, as an athiest and pro-humanity type, I fear that too often being "anti gay marriage" while couching it in freedom language is merely a cover for blatant bigotry. I have gay friends, including two who got married right after they COULD. I care not one BIT about what they (or anyone else) does in the bedroom. This is one of those issues that is just purely NOT MY DAMNED BUSINESS.

And yes, I grant that government should get out of marriage entirely. I could live with that. Just as I think that government should get out of the drug war entirely, but I can live with medical marijuana and "legalization and taxation" as much better than what was.

Many people on here don't realize that state level marriage can also hinder adoption rights.

For example in Utah there is a law against non-married couples from adopting.

Utah tells judges to reject adoption petitions filed by same-sex couples

http://fox13now.com/2014/02/27/utah-tells-judges-to-reject-adoption-petitions-filed-by-same-sex-couples/

While most of us, including me, want to see marriage privatized eventually that doesn't deal with the here and now.

[Queer_Libertarian_Radical]

If WE are in it and did the work required to fill the offices of the Republican parties in most of the states, we would own it right now.

Although I'm not a Demo-Republicrat, in Pennsylvania the GOP here is VERY hostile to libertarianism. PA Governor Tom Corbett is a huge statist monster and the most unpopular governor in the entire United States.

Problem is that you can't get liberty candidates in primaries due to massive corporate and banker spending in those primaries. So I've lost almost all faith in electoral politics.

[eduardo89]

For example in Utah there is a law against non-married couples from adopting.

That's a very good law.

[fr33]

I'm sorry, but the goal has never been to gather around the lowest common denominator. Government needs to get out of the marriage business. Churches should be able to refuse to marry gays and no one should be forced to do business with someone they don't want to.

People claim that we should all be focusing on the government surveillance, but when there is a gay, tranny, etc. thread posted, it usually gets an enormous number of hits.
But most republicans don't want to get the government out of marriage. There has been almost no effort to do so. There has however been efforts to define marriage at a federal level that was popular among republicans. The GOP will lose on this issue and run people out of the party by doing it.

[Keith and stuff]

Uh huh, however some who call themselves Ron Paul Republicans don't agree with Ron Paul, either.

Sure, there only person that agrees with Ron Paul on every issue, every time is Ron Paul. And that's not even always true since he changes his mind. A well known example (to us) is him changing his mind from being in favor of the government death penalty to being opposed to the government death penalty. He will likely continue to change his mind on issues.

[LibertyEagle]

They may very well be ready to give up on the two party paradigm because its no longer working, but we'll see, there are still a lot of people that do fall for it and contribute nothing. Ive been a State Delegate myself in one of the handfuls of states that Ron Paul won in the last election. Id say thats getting involved.

Who is "they"? The establishment is not ready to give up on them, because political parties have been very useful to them and will continue to be until people stop whining and get in there and take them over.

[LibertyEagle]

Many people on here don't realize that state level marriage can also hinder adoption rights.

For example in Utah there is a law against non-married couples from adopting.

Utah tells judges to reject adoption petitions filed by same-sex couples

http://fox13now.com/2014/02/27/utah-tells-judges-to-reject-adoption-petitions-filed-by-same-sex-couples/

While most of us, including me, want to see marriage privatized eventually that doesn't deal with the here and now.

It is my belief that if there was a choice between adopting to a husband and wife vs. an unmarried person, or even a gay couple, all other things remaining the same, I would opt for the husband and wife. However, I do believe that a person should be able to choose who raises their child and if they choose someone other than a husband/wife to do it, the government should have no say in it.

[compromise]

I agree , but probably too late anyway, all of the population in MN is in the Twin Cities and that belongs to the communist party ......

I think the GOP still has a chance of winning at the state level. In nearby Wisconsin, Republicans control both houses of the legislature and the executive branch. Ditto in Michigan.