The Politico carries the sad tale of Republican J.D. Hayworth, former Arizona Representative and current challenger to John McCain’s senate seat, who is apparently suffering a severe case of rhetorical idiocy.
Hayworth seems to think that the best way to support limited government and respect the limits of the Constitution is to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. His argument for increasing federal control over institutional constitutionally assigned to the states? People might marry their 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.
So, if we don’t launch a national movement to amend the constitution in a way that expands federal interference in the lives of people — against the stated conservative political goal of limited government — and prevent gay marriages throughout the United States, people will marry their horses.
What a moron.
Well, it turns out that he wasn’t even right about what the Massachusetts Supreme Court said.
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.”
Why, that doesn’t even allow for polygamy! What kind of godless heathens are they up there is they can’t even get their policies to match Hayworth’s straw man?
Look, I realize that there are many Republicans and conservatives out there that think that homosexuality is a sin, and that gay people getting married is an affront to God. Fine, you can think that all you want. But here’s what it really comes down to: if you truly support limited government, how can you justify such an intrusion into the lives of others? How can you justify wanting to keep government out of health care because it’s none of their business, but at the same time force the government into other people’s sexual and familial arrangements? If two people want to get married, and their friends and families support them, why should you use the powers of government to deny them that? Because it’s against your religion?
I really think that conservatives could better focus their energy on matters that are more important, and don’t involve using one person’s religion to justify restricting the actions of another. Like, maybe standing against that massive socialist seizure of the health care system, and trying to stop the Democrats from racking up a multi-trillion dollar debt?