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 ...
You haven't seen our compost pile...
Even worse, you could marry your neighbor’s horse and make it your horse. Now we have private property issues going on. Then again, a horse is a horse of course, of course...
I am Mr. Ed...
“ACORN registered me to vote, too.
Got to vote more than 20 times.
Got that house, too. But free health insurance.
Wowwwie. We are going to Massachusetts.”
1. One man, one woman
2. Of a certain age
3. Not of a certain familial relation
("Human" is not specifically mentioned but implied in the "man/woman" context.)
You are also correct that the problem lies with the courts getting involved. However, I disagree that the horse comment is an absurd analogy to make because that is the path that the courts are taking us in making marriage to whoever you feel emotionally attached to a civil right. If requiring one man/one woman is a violation of a civil right, then why wouldn't the other restrictions also violate that civil right? Talk about a slippery slope. I think the gay marriage proponents realize that and the goal is not "gay marriage" but an end to marriage altogether.
It DOES look stupid, and it is VERY DANGEROUS!!
>Not if that particular portion of your state’s Constitution is struck by the US Supreme Court.
And how, pray tell, could they legitimately strike down a portion of a STATE Constitution when their jurisdiction is a Federal Constitution stating that all the powers NOT expressly delegated to the Federal Government are either the state’s or the people’s power? (See amendments 9 & 10.)
PS — Marriage is not delegated to the federal government in Federal Constitution, therefore it must be either the state’s or the people’s power.
The acceptance of one form of sexual perversion (homosexuality) most certainly lead the acceptance of another even if idea of marriage between species is stretch.
Also, show me a past civilization where the sexual perversion of homosexual sex was widely accepted, and I’ll show you the same civilization where bestiality was also widely accepted—it really is a valid slippery-slope argument.
The ancient peoples of Canaan in the bible come to mind. They worshipped brother/sister AND husband/wife gods (yes, the same pair) and lived the same way. Homosexuality, incest and infanticide (call it ancient “abortion”) were a regular part of their lives, along with bestiality, and other disgusting practices. Open the door, and all these evils will come in...
Read Leviticus 18 which lists the sins of the Canaanites—as the list of immoralities which God’s people should never do....
The “lifestyle” of the Canaanites was the reason God commanded that their entire society should be wiped out.
Glad I don’t have to smell it either! I used to clean horse stables for spending money when I was in high school. It paid pretty good in those days.
Education is not delegated to the federal government in the US Constitution, either. But, I do recall some decisions with names like Brown v. Board of Education.
If you're expecting a liberal court to show judicial restraint based on the 10th, you're going to be disappointed, every time.
Getting married...Enumclaw style!
Please, educate us as to the ‘proper’ way to make the argument.
<><><><
Well, since JD has made hay (pun intended) of his religious beliefs, he could have just made the Biblical argument and left it at that.
Good question. It’s been quite some time, it seems to me.
Once homosexual marriage is legalized then it does open the door to marriage with children, your car, your horse, polygamy and polyandry, and every other demented and perverted form of it.
And who suffers the most? Women and children.
“Well, since JD has made hay (pun intended) of his religious beliefs, he could have just made the Biblical argument and left it at that.”
And if he had, someone would bitch about that.
Not sure how tall many Arizona cowboys are in order to ‘marry’ their horse....
But I would suggest that the sheep are no longer safe.
Would you prefer "You could marry your Mother (or Father)"?
I think his argument makes perfect sense. If all ‘marriage’ is is the establishment of intimacy, the perfect question for us to ask, is with what? They actually have been pushing this concept that you can marry ‘stuff’ that you like and enjoy. It’s seriously screwed up.
I’m 100 percent behind Hayworth and his argument here.
That smile looks exactly like Whoopi Goldberg’s smile (especially in ‘The Color Purple’) Yeah I know it’s off topic but...
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.