A Walk on the Vile Side: The Bigotry of Margaret Sitte (Part One)

If you’ve been diligently following along with the current North Dakota legislative session, (You’re not a lobbyist, right?) you’re probably already very familiar with Sen. Margaret Sitte, a Republican representing the fine citizens of Bismarck. She’s put a spotlight on herself during the current session by sponsoring an ultra-right-wing laundry list of dream legislation and with her remarkably bigoted, uninformed and idiotic statements on the record.

Margaret has anointed herself the Moral Overseer of North Dakota and, in her opinion, she knows what’s best for you. She knows what you should be doing in your bedroom, at your doctor visits and with your children’s lives and futures. Her moral opinion should be applied to all North Dakotans.

After recent votes on a floor bill that would have extended rights to LGBT citizens, her comments and votes brought a protest outside her Bismarck home. A few of the usual conservative suspects have penned letters in her defense to area papers (

Picketing at home was wrong and Sexual activists and discrimination

) in opposition to the protests. Their argument is that people should instead use the available means of publicly opposing her actions – left out of their argument was that most of the more high-profile bills have been “hog-housed” by the Republicans, bypassing public discussion of the legislation.

While Sen. Sitte’s votes and comments on the floor seem to have been written by Michele Bachmann’s speech writer, her comments in committee are completely off the bat-poop crazy chart. Take for instance her comments on her opposition to SB 2252:

“I don’t want to include any more validity to this lifestyle… I don’t condone the action and I don’t think medical professionals condone the action.”

[mp3j track="http://dogwagger.liberalplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2013/02/Sitte-HIV-Judiciary-Senate-2-12-2013.mp3"]

Keep in mind that the bill before the committee was legislation which would have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace, housing, government and public services. The bill didn’t ask Sen. Sitte to make a moral comment or to validate anyone’s lifestyle. Her psuedo-Christian lifestyle is offensive to me, but I don’t want to take away her rights because of my feelings about it. She applied her own morality to her vote, but her JOB is to vote on behalf of the citizens in her district. Ignoring her inability to separate facts from statistical anomalies often cherry-picking data that suits her own narrative, she wasn’t voting on a morality bill – it was civil rights legislation.