J.D. Hayworth, the Republican running against Senator John McCain for the Arizona Senate seat, said during a radio interview on WORL: "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? 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 -- 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."
The only thing that makes sense with this argument is that he admits that it is absurd. It’s hard to believe there are people who think like this. Is this really the best argument there is against gay marriage?
During the 2008 Presidential campaign, I did considerable research on John McCain, and the more I learned the more I disliked him. He is not all that bright having graduated 894 out of 899 from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958. His career as a Naval pilot was also sub-par, described as careless and reckless in crashing planes. He is characterized as being aggressive...an outright bully by his Senate colleagues...a man with a hard to control temper that carries a grudge. His personal life, his divorce and his marriage to Cindy Hensley should have discredited him for public office by any Republican "family values" standard.
Furthermore his so called "maverick" stands on issues of the day are nothing more than opportunism. He would flip flop on any issue, not for any new insight, but rather for opportunism. In July 2008, Alternet documented 61 flip flops of John McCain. John Kerry was castigated by the Republicans for one flip flop. McCains's recent lashing out at the Democrats for passing heath care reform is indicative of his vindictive character, "There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," he said. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it." And now he is aligning himself with Sarah Palin and the Tea Party in a desperate move to retain his Senate seat.
On the other hand, I knew very little about J.D. Hayworth until I saw him on the Rachel Maddow show. I have to say I took an immediate dislike to the guy as he lied on television in the classic "facts don't matter" fashion that typifies so many politicians today. But it wasn't only the denial of facts that bothered me...it was the smug, in your face attitude that turned me off...bullying. I took a quick look at Wikipedia and other websites, and yes, this is a guy that I would not want as my Senator. It is not only his political positions on such issues as homosexual rights and same sex marriage, the environment, and illegal immigration, but also the incendiary language, intimidation and bullying that he uses to demean others that oppose his views. The Arizona Republic called J. D. Hayworth "among Capitol Hill's worst offenders of extreme partisanship."
I wonder why with all the good people in Arizona that could serve in public office, how these two have risen to the top of the state's Republican Party. Surely there are better qualified citizens that could better represent the values of the people of the state. Is it the money that keeps them from coming forward?
Zach F Wrote: J.D. Hayworth, the Republican running against Senator John McCain for the Arizona Senate seat, said during a radio interview on WORL: "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? 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 -- 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." The only thing that makes sense with this argument is that he admits that it is absurd. It’s hard to believe there are people who think like this. Is this really the best argument there is against gay marriage?
Listening Wrote: Zach F Wrote: J.D. Hayworth, the Republican running against Senator John McCain for the Arizona Senate seat, said during a radio interview on WORL: "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? 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 -- 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." The only thing that makes sense with this argument is that he admits that it is absurd. It’s hard to believe there are people who think like this. Is this really the best argument there is against gay marriage? Frank, What I find a bit absurd is the title of this thread. I opened it up thinking I would see a statement from a right winger that showed he was on LSD while doing an interview. Yes, the argument is absurd but I see nothing that would support your claim. This does not help the cause of truth in reporting !!!