J.D. Hayworth: 'You could marry your horse'

Politico ^

[Sub-Driver]

J.D. Hayworth: 'You could marry your horse'

By ANDY BARR | 3/15/10 12:07 PM EDT

Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) said Sunday that the expansion of state laws allowing gay marriage could lead to people marrying horses.

Hayworth, during an interview with an Orlando, Fla., radio station explained: "You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage - now get this - it defined marriage as simply, 'the establishment of intimacy.'"

"Now how dangerous is that?" asked Hayworth, who is challenging Sen. John McCain from the right in Arizona's GOP Senate primary.

"I mean, I don't mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point," he continued. "I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse."

The former Republican congressman then insisted that the "only way" to prevent men from marrying horses is to create a federal marriage amendment. Hayworth noted that he supports such an amendment.

[RexBeach]

OK, so which horse would it be?

Trigger, Champion, Topper, Buttermilk, Flicka, Fury, Mr. Ed?

I vote for “Mr. Ed”. At least that way, you could have some kind of conversation.

Beyond that, forget it.

-Rex

[Grunthor]

How exactly is that “better?”

[Springman]

Fred don’t like horses, just sheep w/pretty eyes!!!

However you never know!!!

[Dansong]

I agree; a more serious argument could be made for “marrying” a widowed sister, say, to get medical or other benefits, two roommates of the same sex “marrying” to get beni’s, or even the whole polygamy thing - if it's good for gays it's good for them, no?

[Noumenon]

Heh. That Canadian breed has a rep for being ‘easy keepers’. We figure the horse budget at $3K per horse per year. That’s hay, supplements, misc tack, vet bills and the occasional horse show.

[Grunthor]

Which one?

;o)

[exit82]

I hate it when people make the case against gay marraige with ridiculous arguments like this. It just looks stupid.

It is not stupid nor ridiculous.

This is exactly where this is headed.

When the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is discarded, then no one can legally define what marriage is.

ANY restriction on marriage would simply be litigated out of existence, as being none of the state's business.

Hayworth has this one right. Without God's definition of marriage, marriage will cease to have any definition.

The collapse of society is the end result.

[verity]

"I’d hit it."

ASPCA will get you.

[CajunConservative]

But it is the truth. Once everyone accepts gay marriage as normal the bar will be lowered to push for other abhorrent lifestyles being allowed to legally marry.

[csmusaret]

Vereen complained that he was real fond of Sugar, but he got tired running back and forth to kiss her.

[pissant]

Horses tend not to lobby to indoctrinate children with buggering lessons.

[Diogenesis]

[Mr. Ed, horse, registered by ACORN as four people]:
“Say what you will, I only got married because of Mitt Romney,
and have now two homes courtesy of Barney Frank and ACORN,
with my colts going to Harvard Law School fully paid,
courtesy of Patrick Deval.”

[OneWingedShark]

>>”I hate it when people make the case against gay marraige with ridiculous arguments like this. It just looks stupid.”
>
>That was a ridiculous statement. People should focus on polygamy. If a man can marry another man, then why can’t a man marry two men?
>
>If marriage isn’t defined as one man with one woman, it can (and will) be defined as just about anything. If homosexual marriage takes root, polygamy and other polyamorous relationships will become legal codified.

Not in my state; our State Constitution states:
Article 21, Sec. 1. [Religious toleration; polygamy.]
Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship. Polygamous or plural marriages and polygamous cohabitation are forever prohibited. (As amended September 15, 1953.)

[Grunthor]

“Horses tend not to lobby to indoctrinate children with buggering lessons.”

Merry-go-Rounds are not PAC’s?

[Lazamataz]

Which one?

Which one rhymes with the words "Of course"?

 

 

 

 

 

The woman, who is cleary Norse!

[PzLdr]

A Prussian cavalryman was convicted of having sex with his horse, and sentenced to death. When he reviewed the case, Frederick the Great commuted the death sentence and wrote in the margin, “Transfer him to the Infantry. That will be punishment enough!”.

[Oratam]

If “happiness” is the sole criterion for marriage then anything goes.

[Noumenon]

Let’s see - how does that go? Throw the wife some hay and kiss the horse goodnight?

[AngelesCrestHighway]

[OldDeckHand]

"Not in my state; our State Constitution states:"

Not if that particular portion of your state's Constitution is struck by the US Supreme Court. There are plenty of states with Constitutions that define marriage as a contract between one man and one woman, California comes to mind immediately.

But, there's a number of cases working themselves through the federal judiciary that will challenge that state constitutional provision. If the makeup on the Supreme Court ever reaches a point that it finds a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, polygamy won't be very far behind.

Obama has already appointed one young justice. There's a VERY good chance he'll appoint two more very young justices in the next 24 months (or sooner). If something should happen to Thomas, Scalia, Alito or Roberts, gay marriage in America would quickly become the law of the land, and DOMA would be struck down. That's why it's so important to beat Obama in 2012.