If J.D. Hayworth weren’t such a pontificating blowhard, I might be more sympathetic of his campaign for the U.S. Senate.
Now, I certainly agree with him that it’s not for courts to define marriage and that while intimacy is a major part of a serious marriage, it is not its defining aspect. So, now, we’ve got him saying that if state courts deciding marriage, it could lead to people marrying 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.”
Yeah, I know what he’s getting at. Trying to show the slippery slop onto which such court decisions put us. So, why not simply remove marriage from the jurisdiction of courts and make it instead (as it should be) the province of legislatures? Instead, he wants the constitution to define marriage via a federal marriage amendment.
This pompous man’s pontificating shows he’s more interesting in getting attention than making a serious argument on a serious issue. If he were serious about the slippery slope, he would favor a less draconian solution than the federal marriage amendment he backs.