Hayworth: Absurd laws deserve absurd response

JD Hayworth for US Senate

For Immediate Release: Monday, March 15, 2010

“Leftist media attacks can’t mask the absurdity of Massachusetts’s action”

Phoenix, AZ—When the Massachusetts Supreme Court handed down a decision defining marriage as “the establishment of intimacy,” millions of Americans read of the news with disbelief. Among them was conservative Arizona U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth, who accurately defined the ruling as “absurd”.

In response, former Congressman Hayworth offered an interpretation of the Massachusetts ruling. In it, Hayworth said, “I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point: If you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse. But it’s just the wrong way to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with the federal marriage amendment that I support.”

“But sadly, the liberal media, intent on defending the ultra-leftist, progressive politicians in Massachusetts, are attacking me for standing up once again for family values and for rejecting this absurd court ruling,” said Hayworth. “But they don’t intimidate me at all. I know right from wrong and as a staunch defender of the institution of marriage, I know I can count on millions of supporters across America to stand with me when our values are under attack – and when I am under attack for standing up to defend those values.”

# # #


Comments

  1. Well, if you’re going to get caught saying something as absurd as gay marriage could lead to the worst production of “Equus” ever, might as well own it.

    He should probably not take strategy lessons from Rick Santorum though.

  2. JD should worry more about getting a new PR firm than spouting nonsense. Of course, that firm should not expect to get paid.

  3. The MA law is poorly legislated, right? I agree with him on those ends…

  4. Locke,

    Except “intimacy” implies “consent”.

    Rapists aren’t “intimate” with their victims. Child molesters aren’t “intimate” with their victims. People who violate animals aren’t “intimate”.

    That’s the difference. And there’s a serious problem when JD doesn’t understand that difference.

  5. Actually it goes even further, Klute. The MA ruling actually defines marriage as “”the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.” So, Hayworth is just making stuff up.

  6. I don’t think he clearly articulated his point. He is not saying it is like bestiality he is trying to argue that the courts did a bad job defining marriage. This leads to him explaining why we need a Federal Marriage Amendment. I agree that the courts, as someone who just went over this unit, has done a terrible job trying to define marriage. I agree a federal marriage amendment would be a good thing, although I would rather government stay out of marriage altogether but since that is not happening the amendent is the way to go.

    jeez…what a terrible analogy though. He will not get too many more gaffs, not with national outlets picking the story up.

  7. Locke,

    “I don’t think he clearly articulated his point.”

    You ain’t lyin:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34432.html

    The first rat leaves the sinking ship. I mean – JASON ROSE????

    And the best part is, JD can’t bail on the race now. He’s invested too much capital in it. He has firmly tied the Gordian Knot around his next and it’s not coming undone until McCain slices his head off.

  8. JD Hayworth…. Prescription Drug Benefit=Federal health care subsidy…Homeland security, and no child left behind… bureaucracy. How does JD suddenly become the anti-progressive candidate? He grew the Federal Government.

    Is Jim Deakin still in the race? Haven’t heard anything from him.

  9. Stephen Kohut says

    Jim is in and running.

    MA is representative of the mess that’s make by activist courts legislating from the bench creating whole legal cloth out of thin air. This activist insanity is fixable in most states by ballot props as occured in CA. Unfortunately we are usually stuck at a federal level without such a read ocrrection.

    For all the issues JD may have McCain will have to hide from $700B TARP, pro-amnesty McCain-Kennedy, pro cap and tax, anti-first amendment McCain-Feingold, anti-second amendmant, Keating five, “I was for passing healthcare reform before I was against it”, … Other than his once every 6 year crab walk to the right for 6 months, he legislates like Joe Liberman’s which is not a constitutional conservative.

    This race will play out to be a primary blood bath and we won’t know which way its headed until we are through a number of debates and have good polling close to the start of early voting about 4 months from now.

  10. Gaffs are gaffs and usually are dismissed as unimportant. What one is interested in is the substance. How important is this comment in context of the subject and the subject’s relative importance versus a public comment like this one from not a candidate, but from the POTUS: “I don’t know the facts, but the police acted stupidly.”

  11. Massachusetts? Who gives a crap what Massachusetts does to itself? Maybe JD should run for Scott Brown’s now vacant Massachusetts state Senate seat…

  12. The term “the establishment of intimacy” is largely used in the context of same-sex research and debate. Take care not to miss the glaring problem with that ruling, at least JD didn’t! It’s beyond absurd that the Mass. court would define marriage using language homosexuals adopted for their own purposes. JD got it! Too bad, our senior Senator doesn’t get it. Too bad no other Arizona candidate got it. The choice of rhetoric couldn’t be more apropos.

  13. wanumba,

    Actually, what’s more important is what’s getting play right now. It’s the 2nd story at Hot Air right now, and it ain’t flattering. Locally, everyone’s talking about how it’s Jim Deakin’s in. Jim Rose resigned today.

  14. Jason Rose left the campaign because he had to go see a man about a horse….

  15. Stephen Kohut says

    And McRINO is reaching out for everything and anything to prop him up and deflect outraged conservatives.

  16. Jane,
    This is not how the MA ruling defines marriage, as I pointed out above.

  17. Double Decaf Latte says

    JD isn’t that far off….Miss Mary will probably confirm that it is already possible to marry a horses ass.

  18. Stephen Kohut says

    Which Cindy McCain knows full well.

  19. ………………
    Jane Says:
    March 15th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
    The term “the establishment of intimacy” is largely used in the context of same-sex research and debate. Take care not to miss the glaring problem with that ruling, at least JD didn’t! It’s beyond absurd that the Mass. court would define marriage using language homosexuals adopted for their own purposes
    …………
    Bingo. That’s the WHY of the caterwaulering and vapors about JD’s comment and dead silence about what JD was referring to.

    The old days it would be “THAT’s an odd thing to say, what’s JD referring to?” followed by some inquiry into the issue. Now it’s ARHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! WAAAHHHH!!!!

    Sick and tired of it. Like we have to listen to political commentary of the level of a bunch of hysterical avocado-plastered biddies at the beauty parlor out to get the new school teacher simply because she’s prettier than they.
    Worthless.

  20. “The old days it would be “THAT’s an odd thing to say, what’s JD referring to?””

    Really? That’s what we’d do?

    If you’re interested in getting to the bottom of “odd things” people say, may I suggest a visit to your local psych ward – I’m sure your day would be absolutely filled with mystery!

    In the meantime, here’s JD getting smacked around by Rachel Maddow:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/15/jd-hayworth-doubles-down_n_500209.html

  21. …………….
    The Klute:
    “Really? That’s what we’d do?”
    ………..

    What makes you think anyone was referring to you in any way shape or form?

  22. Martin Sepulveda says

    JD should know about horses. Especially the ones put out to pasture.

    I live in the district that fired JD Hayworth. He was the farthest thing to a “consistant conservative” during his 12 years in Congress.

    All the hype and make-over will not change the marginal performance that led to his loss to a retired HS teacher.

    Az needs solutions not sound bites.

    Has Hayworth come clean on his Abramoff defense fund donors yet? The answer is no.

    It is extremely bad form for a former Congressman and US Senate candidate to not come clean on matters that resulted from his affiliation w/ a convicted felon.

  23. Stephen Kohut says

    You mean like Charles Keating?

Leave a Reply