Ceding Ground Is Not Leadership

On Thursday, the Minnesota House passed the homosexual marriage bill, one that turned out to be bipartisan thanks in part to the actions of Rep. David Fitzsimmons of Albertville, who inexplicably offered an amendment to add the word “civil” in front of the word “marriage” throughout the original bill.

His stated reason for doing so was to provide future protection for churches who might refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples.  On Friday’s Davis and Emmer radio program, Fitzsimmons argued that the bill was going to pass no matter what and therefore he might as well make it better.

davis__emmer_510_-_8am_0_1368181889 (skip to 20:00 mark to hear the interview)

The practical effect of this move, however, was to provide political cover for any non-metro area Democrat whose vote might be needed for passage, but who would otherwise be voting for homosexual marriage in a district where in November his constituents voted against it (Amendment 1).  I suppose the cover extended to moderate Republicans as well, like Fitzsimmons, who believe or pretend that they are doing something good.  Fitzsimmons seems very confident that his tactic was a clever way to protect religious freedom, and perhaps time will prove him correct.

But for now, the only certainty is the David Fitzsimmons voted to legalize homosexual marriage.  What’s that old line again?  “With friends like these….”

 

 

 

 

4 comments

  1. Timshel says:

    Could he have successfully amended the bill, then voted against it? Or because he got the amendment through, was he somehow obligated to support the bill in the final vote? My civics brain is a little rusty on this one…but if he could have, he should have, unless he really was in favor of the bill.

    The Strib ran an article over the weekend basically asserting that the DFL dropped the gun control issue for this session in order to get this done instead. While I’m not a big proponent of their gun laws nor do I think they’ll make anyone measurable safer, it’s interesting to see the order of their priorities…

    Also, the Strib article touches on the “wrong side of history” argument that’s out there, positioning this alongside racial and ethnic equality. Wrong side of history; right side of eternity…

    • Spaniard says:

      I believe he could have voted no, but I am looking to confirm this. I’m just thinking that it makes sense esp in the event of multiple amendments… I will check this out.

  2. Didymus says:

    Whether his intentions were pure or not, and whether or not he believes that this is in fact less damaging legislation than what would otherwise have been, he violated the moral axiom that one may not do evil in order that good may come of it. In addition, any subtlety in language is lost on the masses – what they “know” is that “gay marriage” passed and was supported by some Republican legislators. The damage is done, and the Republicans are becoming the new Lost Boys – not fully alive (morally) but not quite dead. Sleeping when they should be on guard, and sacrificing purity and truth (oh, so reluctantly) when “practical politics” demands. Seems like our future choice may be between voting for a spiritual corpse or a spiritual vampire.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.