Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) said Sunday that the expansion of state laws allowing gay marriage could lead to people marrying horses.Mr. Hayworth appears to be wrestling w/ his desires, however. He may realize that it'll be difficult to have his horse (By the way, J. D., is the object of your affection a mare or a stallion?) on stage next to him when he's accepting the nomination.
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.'"
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.Talk about a fucking nanny state! (We also note that Mr. Hayworth aparently denies agency to wimmen-folk. Couldn't a woman marry a horse too?)
And now, the facts;
In fact, the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling striking down a ban on gay marriage defined marriage as "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."J. D. Hayworth: Stupid, or a liar? Either way, he doesn't seem to understand much about contract law.
I am utterly unsurprised that a Republican can't grasp such issues as consent, and common sense for that matter.
ReplyDeleteCaptcha says I should perform a stindsob, which sounds painful but appropriate.
Equine Editor Types:
ReplyDeleteWell, you don't really need consent from a horse, just adequate restraints.
And the horse already has the "horse sense."