Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 03/15/2010 9:57:33 AM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: animals4romney; arizona; bestiality; culturewar; hayworth; homosexualagenda; jdhayworth; marriage; marriagelaws; mccain; peta; romney; romneymarriage; samesexmarriage; sexpositiveagenda; unbiblicalmarriage; zoophilia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-111 next last
To: Sub-Driver

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


41 posted on 03/15/2010 10:16:09 AM PDT by RexBeach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

How exactly is that “better?”


42 posted on 03/15/2010 10:16:25 AM PDT by Grunthor (Everyone hates the U.S. at least until they need liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

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

However you never know!!!


43 posted on 03/15/2010 10:16:34 AM PDT by Springman (Rest In Peace YaYa123 and Westlander)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
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?
44 posted on 03/15/2010 10:16:54 AM PDT by Dansong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: downtownconservative

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.


45 posted on 03/15/2010 10:17:02 AM PDT by Noumenon ("Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed, that he has grown so great?" - Julius Caesar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Which one?

;o)


46 posted on 03/15/2010 10:17:27 AM PDT by Grunthor (Everyone hates the U.S. at least until they need liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
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.

47 posted on 03/15/2010 10:17:55 AM PDT by exit82 (Democrats are the enemy of freedom. Sarah Palin is our Esther.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"I’d hit it."

ASPCA will get you.

48 posted on 03/15/2010 10:18:20 AM PDT by verity (Obama Lies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

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.


49 posted on 03/15/2010 10:18:28 AM PDT by CajunConservative (Shut Up Mary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ETL

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


50 posted on 03/15/2010 10:18:33 AM PDT by csmusaret (Sarah Palin thinks everyday in America is the 4th of July. Obama thinks it is April 15th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

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


51 posted on 03/15/2010 10:19:25 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: stormer

[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.”

52 posted on 03/15/2010 10:19:28 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." --Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

>>”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.)


53 posted on 03/15/2010 10:20:07 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: pissant

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

Merry-go-Rounds are not PAC’s?


54 posted on 03/15/2010 10:20:33 AM PDT by Grunthor (Everyone hates the U.S. at least until they need liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
Which one?

Which one rhymes with the words "Of course"?

 

 

 

 

 

The woman, who is cleary Norse!

55 posted on 03/15/2010 10:21:46 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Proudly hittin' it without looking at the picture since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

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!”.


56 posted on 03/15/2010 10:21:54 AM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

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


57 posted on 03/15/2010 10:23:23 AM PDT by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

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


58 posted on 03/15/2010 10:24:56 AM PDT by Noumenon ("Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed, that he has grown so great?" - Julius Caesar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: stormer

59 posted on 03/15/2010 10:25:00 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
"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.

60 posted on 03/15/2010 10:26:27 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-111 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson