FitzSimmons loses GOP endorsement over same-sex marriage vote

A Republican state legislator has ended his campaign for the Minnesota House, after losing just before delegates decided the GOP endorsement Saturday.

Rep. David FitzSimmons, R-Albertville, lost conceded the endorsement to Eric Lucero in the District 30B contest. Lucero was harshly critical of FitzSimmons’ 2013 vote in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.

FitzSimmons has a long history of working for conservative Republican candidates, including Tom Emmer when he ran for governor in 2010 and Rep. Michele Bachmann when she ran for president in 2012.

Despite his support for  same-sex marriage, which went against the GOP platform, FitzSimmons had the backing of many prominent conservatives including former Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch.

“He’s a fiscal hawk, and it’s a loss to the Minnesota Legislature,” Koch said.

Rep. Pat Garofalo, R-Farmington, also voted for same-sex marriage, but he easily won party endorsement Saturday. Two other House Republicans also voted yes on the marriage bill. Andrea Kieffer of Woodbury isn’t seeking re-election. Eden Prairie Republicans will decide whether to endorse Jenifer Loon next month.

FitzSimmons’ same-sex marriage vote went against the will of his constituents, said Minnesota Family Council Communications Director Autumn Leva.

“They feel disenfranchised. They feel betrayed by how he voted,” Leva said. “That’s what we were hearing from delegates and others at the convention over and over. We didn’t expect this from David. We know David. We thought he was going to stand with us on this issue, and he didn’t.”

Editor’s note: This item has been changed to reflect that FitzSimmons ended his campaign before delegates voted to endorse Eric Lucero.

  • wbgleason

    You’d probably better change this story a little as the GOP operatives are already grousing.

    Mr. Fitzsimmons withdrew from the race. So technically he did not lose. Nonetheless, he was forced out because some in his district wished to retaliate for his vote in favor of same sex marriage. This is sad and doesn’t speak well for the GOP in that neck of the woods.

  • Ron Fresquez

    It is always a GREAT DAY when MN Regressives are at each others throats. With any luck they will shrink the Party to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub.

  • Ron Fresquez

    Eric Lucero is a Regressive? That’s like African Americans joining the KKK. But the Regressive Party is known as the “Big Tent Party” made up of scared, homophobic, xenophobic old, whit males.

  • Vince W.

    It’s nice to see a win for traditional marriage. I’m hopeful we’ll see a lot more this fall in the House races across the state. The Democrats, and, unfortunately, some Republicans, overplayed their hands when they voted for fake marriage last year. Face it. It doesn’t have overwhelming support like its supporters would like you to believe.
    The Constitutional amendment on the ballot lost 52.3% to 47.7%. All that can be said with certainty about those numbers is that 47.7% of the voters wanted marriage between a man and woman constitutionally protected. You can’t say that the 52.3% who “voted” NO wanted fake marriage, though. How many of those left the ballot blank in that space due to time constraints or oversight in which the state voted NO for them? How many of those NO voters supported traditional marriage, but didn’t believe the issue was worthy of a constitutional amendment? How many of those NO voters were traditional marriage supporters who bought the democrat narrative that a constitutional amendment was “overkill” because Minnesota law already protected traditional marriage and this was all just a waste of time by the legislature? What did these people think when, a mere 6 months after the vote, the democrats and some wayward republicans felt they had a mandate to overturn natural, societal and historical law on a whim, waste more of the legislature’s time and ram through a law which overturned an “ironclad” law protecting traditional marriage?

    • David Howe

      The law has changed, both by a vote of the people and by legislation. This fight is over. It’s time for people like you to evolve out of your bigotry and prejudice. Please stop interpreting your restrictions on the rights of others as “protections” for you. It’s not.

      “felt they had a mandate” ??? It’s called elections. Please don’t make it sounds as if you were cheated or treated unfairly. Justice was done and injustice lost.

      • Vince W.

        Actually, this debate was settled millennia ago when it became clear that only heterosexuals could procreate and form nuclear families, children raised by both a mother and father was the ideal situation and these families were the strongest building blocks for society to be built upon. Pretending these homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones by using “marriage” to describe both is ludicrous. Fake marriage is going the way of the “commune” society that was tried during the 60′s and 70′s and shown to be a miserable failure.

        • raven max

          Then by your account any man and woman that gets married and does not procreate is pretending that their “marriage” is a marriage and ludicrous as well.

          • Vince W.

            Actually, for a marriage to be complete, the couple only needs to consummate the marriage. There’s no “procreation threshold” they need to cross. Procreation has never been a requirement for a completed marriage, only consummation is required to complete the marriage.

    • raven max

      If they left the ballot blank that was their fault. If they chose not to vote, again their fault. The majority of the people made their choice and voted, the minority of the people can’t deal with the fact that the majority of the people just don’t care what others do behind closed doors. Maybe you and your minority should take lessons from the majority.

      • Vince W.

        I wonder if the results would have been different if they made clear on the ballot that a “yes” vote meant you wanted the man-woman definition of marriage protected in the constitution and a “no” vote meant you wanted the legislators to spend time in the next session debating fake marriage and you wanted them to pass fake marriage and make it the law of the state where any wedding caterers, bakers, musicians and florists can be forced to serve at the fake wedding against their will by homosexual couples.

        Also, you’re “behind closed doors” is laughable. This is their whole reason for existence, so they taught themselves as “homosexual writers”, “homosexual actors”, “homosexual parents”, “homosexual legislators” etc.