Republican J.D. Hayworth, the former congressman seeking to unseat U.S. Sen. John McCain, presents an entirely new idea about horsing around.
Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) primary challenger, former Arizona congressman J.D. Hayworth, warned this past weekend that the same-sex marriage decision handed down by the Massachusetts Supreme Court is so loose in its logic and wording that it could lead to a man marrying his horse.
Appearing on Orlando, Fla. radio station WORL on Sunday, the Arizona conservative had what could be described as a Rick Santorum “man on dog” moment.
“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,'” Hayworth said. “Now how dangerous is that? 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 — I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse. It’s just the wrong way to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with that federal marriage amendment that I support.”
This article appears in Mar 11-17, 2010.
It’s funny how Republicans bring sex with animals up when gay marriage is mentioned. I suppose if Hayworth really wants to, and gets the horse’s consent, it’s okay. But how can you be sure? “Clop once for your place…” “Clop 4 times for missionary…” “Clop 11 times for the blinders and whip…”
It appears to be the only kind of illicit or offbeat sex that no Republican has got into the tabloids for in the last year. And these family values guys sure aren’t asking their wives’ permisssion: “Hon, how’d ya feel about a four-in-hand?” “Want to join us in the trough? Well okay, the pork barrel then!” I can visualize them frothing at the mouth for it already.
Very interesting that Congressman Hayworth would say such a thing. You see, if we substitute the word “horse” with “slave,” and the word, “same-sex” with “mixed-race,” there is a startling equation to the thinking that once sanctioned slavery. To paraphrase the Congressman, “You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward mixed-race (same-sex) marriage, actually defined marriage — now get this — it defined marriage as simply, ‘the establishment of intimacy,'” Hayworth said. “Now how dangerous is that? 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 — I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your slave (horse – actually very apt since, at one point, both were considered property), I guess you could marry your slave (horse). It’s just the wrong way to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with that federal marriage amendment that I support.”