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 ...
I have to disagree. There was a time when the idea of two people of the same gender getting married would have been considered a "ridiculous argument" and would have "looked stupid". You appear to have accepted some of the mainstream point of view on this topic.
“I’m 100 percent behind Hayworth and his argument here.”
The only people who object are McCain fans and part of the squatter support squad. Amnesty is what this is all about.
J.D., it might be best if you refrain from using the absurd to make a point...stick with facts...what a stupid statement...magritte
Think how far this issue has come since the mid 70’s when homosexuality was a defined mental illness. The saying that the inmates are running the asylum is more true than we realize.
I think you missed his point. Establishment of intimacy is too braod and could be applied to anything, therfore it is bad law.
The criminally insane located in the District of Criminals.
Damn, your right. there is a horse in there.
>>”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.”
>
>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.
Irrelevant. Despite the “legal institution’s” regard for ‘precedence’ it is NOT a logically valid premise. If it was, then Capital Punishment would be unjustifiable because an innocent man was once put to death [Jesus].
>If you’re expecting a liberal court to show judicial restraint based on the 10th, you’re going to be disappointed, every time.
I said nothing about “judicial restraint” I _DID_ however ask for a logical justification.
horse and marriage
horse and marriage
go together like a love and carriage
waitaminnit
The Supreme Court ruling on a matter (education) that, according to the 10th Amendment, should clearly be left to the states, is irrelevant?
If the Supreme Court will strike state laws regarding education (and it has, on numerous occasions), it will strike state law regarding marriage, depending on the makeup of the Court.
Not quite, but I have heard of something similar in Wyoming. Beautiful Wyoming, where the men are men and the women scarce and the sheep are scared.
Maybe that is what he meant.
“I hate it when people make the case against gay marraige with ridiculous arguments like this. It just looks stupid.”
Such things have occurred in open marriage states already. It is not ridiculous because it is real.
Well, “gay marriage” is stupid(at *best*).
Not a stupid argument at all
British Woman Marries Dolphin
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180478,00.html
I agree with Justice Scalia in his dissent of Lawrence v. Texas that the Supreme court has eroded the ability of the government to legislate moral behavior through its expansion of an implied right to privacy.
Left unchecked the “right to privacy”, which legalized abortion and sodomy, will eventually give us gay marriage and polygamy.
Any state (New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.) that legalizes homosexual marriage should immediately be faced with a slew of pro-polygamy lawsuits based on the exact same legal arguments. The fight for traditional marriage would best be fought united rather than incrementally.
I just got my census form today. What a bunch of garbage. For those who don’t have it yet, it is all about RACE and nothing else. And the race questions start by trying to nail down your hispanic connections. Unbelievable.
I thought we are supposed to be a color-blind society. What happened?
Oh yes. They also want to know if my house has a mortgage, or if it is free and clear. THey probably want to know if they can grab it in a Kelo move, thinking that if I own it free and clear I won’t have a bank standing behind me should the govt. want my land.
The whole lot of them need some major anti-psychotic meds, especially the Narcissist in Chief.
In the old days, a good horse was worth a lot more than a good wife... and a good pack mule was worth twice its weight in gold..
or so I hear. ;-)
Go JD!
Young lady, ever think maybe Sarah Jessica Parker doesn't LIKE being kissed on the nose??
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.