Warren Limmer’s Strange Justification for His Anti-Gay Marriage Obsession

Minnesota’s Republicans accomplished one thing during this year’s legislative session at the expense of much else, and what they accomplished isn’t worthy of much admiration.

Their divisive and misguided Minnesota Marriage Amendment — sponsored by Senator Warren Limmer, a paranoid Republican from Maple Grove who seems to see gays and non-residents threatening him from around every corner (he also sponsored the Voter ID legislation to curb the risk of a communist invasion, I suppose) — did little to move Minnesota ahead.  First off, Republicans were going to create jobs.  Of course they have had decades of supposed job-creating cuts to government to prove their point, but this was going to be the year and what do we get?  Based on results it appears that Republicans love a nasty recession.  (It gives them one more thing to complain and cry about.)

So Limmer and his type go off on a tangent and decide this is the year to propose anti-American legislation putting the rights of some Minnesotans up for a vote.  It is legislation that by simple logic that shouldn’t stand up to scrutiny.  Even by Limmer’s own declared standards this legislation is questionable.

MN Senator Warren Limmer, Rep–Maple Grove

In a Minnesota Pulbic Radio broadcast from the State Capitol yesterday, Gary Eichten discussed the Amendment with Warren Limmer and Senator Scott Dibble, a Democrat from Minneapolis and an openly gay member senator who opposes the legislation, like most intelligent people do.

Eichten asked Limmer why Limmer thought now was a good time for legislation of this sort.  Limmer spewed the typical half-truths about courts and marriage and such.  But very interestingly, Limmer said “[marriage] as everyone knows is a very intimate issue that everyone deals with.”  No shit?  So we need a public law to define this intimate issue?

I would imagine that Limmer has some very intimate issues of his own, but I doubt that I want to know anything about them.  What happens in that Great Gazoo dome of his isn’t going to be much more than a source of disgust for me, but I won’t try to legislate it.  He can wallow in his ignorance.

The problem is too many people agree with Limmer.  This idea that we need legislation to protect an intimate issue that has no impact on others beyond the two people directly involved is absurd.  Common sense has been hijacked by fear and bigotry.  And there is the problem.

Reinhold Niebuhr argued that as long as the average citizen were stupid, society would be vulnerable to injustice.  Since the Age of Reason — an age which hatched the wisdom of our Founding Fathers who are so much admired by the right wing, by the way — there has been the hope that reason would overrule ignorance.  But here we see reason pushed aside and ignored for the sake of personal fear and preference.  We claim that our nation’s foundation is in reason and justice, but with the help of the GOP continue to slide further and further away from these roots.

In short, guys like Limmer are wrong.  It is that simple.  You don’t have to disagree with his beliefs to understand this.  He is wrong on the logic of his positions alone.  If he can expect his ideas and values to be protected by our consent to our constitution, then others should expect the same protection.  Instead Limmer and people like him, want protection for people who think like he thinks and makes the argument that if a majority agrees with him we have to submit to the whims of the majority, regardless of its injustice.  This abuse of our constitution is a threat to all of us, including idiots like Limmer.

Ask Limmer and his ilk to explain his fear.  Ask him why an issue he calls an intimate one should be defined in the public sphere, especially when so many people disagree with him.  I have yet to hear any objective answer that seems to square with principles behind our Constitution that’s why they are striving to change it.  But on what grounds is it correct to change our Constitution?  Review the founding principles, it begins with an idea that people are equal and deserve equal protection under its law.

The insecurity of people like Limmer hardly justifies ransacking the very foundation of our consitutional rights, does it?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s