J.D. Hayworth, Senator John McCain’s primary challenger in the United State’s upcoming senate elections, is trying to ban same-sex marriage nationwide. Rather than offering any reasons why gay marriage is bad (they are awfully hard to come by, after all), he had this explanation:
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.” […] 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.
Hayworth is essentially declaring that if marriage is all about love, then it is impossible to legally deny marrying other “lovable” things—like horses.
The problem here—as if such an argument deserves any dissection—is that marriages aren’t one-way; they involve two people that love each other. Does a horse have the capacity to consent to such a partnership? Can it sign the necessary state documents? Can it uphold its legal responsibilities involving property, decision-making, taxes, etcetera?
The answer, of course, is neigh.
And with that, have a great Wednesday, kids!
- J.D. Hayworth: Gay Marriage Law Could Produce Man-Horse Nuptials [The Huffington Post]