J.D. Hayworth is an Idiot

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?

Advertisements

, , , , ,

  1. #1 by KansanForSanity on Tue 16 Mar 2010 - 15:09

    Here, here! Save for that part about bashing the Democrats. <_<

  2. #2 by KansanForSanity on Tue 16 Mar 2010 - 15:25

    Actually, let me add a little something- This is really indicative of what we see Conservatives doing in regards to issues with the LGBT civil rights movement. Basically, that there is will-full and deliberate lying. J.D. Hayworth knows damn well that same sex marriage won’t lead to bestiality, he knows that- but he’s saying it because its incendiary and because it gets a rise from people. But when you’re dealing with people who are literally waiting for the End Times so the world and go up in smoke and their deity can come rescue the deserving few- well, what do you expect?

  3. #3 by Josh Ellis on Wed 17 Mar 2010 - 09:39

    Agreed with you 200%! It’s extremely hypocritical to claim to support limited government, but then support legislation aimed at a sector of the population whose lifestyle you disagree with or to be skeptical of the rights of privacy guaranteed by the Constitution.

    That’s why when asked I call myself a capitalist & not a conservative.

  1. Timmy Must Be Fired, Or Obama Must Be Impeached - The Market | RepublicanDaily.info

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: