From James Wolcott at VANITY FAIR:

Look, I have no idea why Senate candidate J. D. Hayworth would want to marry a horse […]. Perhaps he fell under the spell of a lustrous filly while vacationing at a dude ranch, which I gather are plentiful in his home state of Arizona, or struck up a conversation with Mr. Ed in a bar catering to lonely men whose wives are deep into denial, a casual chat over a bowl of peanuts that led to a spirited “hayride,” if you catch my innuendo.

Original DVD cover

[…] I think the voters of Arizona should think twice about a man willing to toss away 2000 years of Judeo-Christian values to mate with a horse. “[If] you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse,” he told an interviewer from KORN News. I wonder what Mrs. Hayworth thinks of her husband’s cavalier attitude about the sanctity of marriage, his willingness to cast it and her aside if the right pony came along that he could make his horse-wife. “A devoted family man, J.D. is happily married to Mary, and they are blessed with 3 children, Nicole , Hannah, and John Micah.” Oh sure, now they are blessed; but if J. D. Hayworth insists on giving in to his affections, he may eventually be the proud sire of a second set of children named Flicka, Pegasus, and Phar Lap, whose glossy manes would be the envy of their classmates but would make any future candidacy “problematic,” even in a Palinized Republican Party barely distinguishable from your average freak show.

Me, I’d have no problem with J. D. Hayworth’s cross-species lifestyle, but not everyone is a fan of John Waters films, and the conservative “base” might very well cool and him gravitate towards Mitt Romney, who only looks like a horse.


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.

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.”

J.D. Hayworth: The Party of Neigh


Filed under Gay rights, Homophobia, humor, John McCain, Mitt Romney, parody, politics, Republicans, Senate, snark, television, Wordpress Political Blogs

28 responses to “Horsefeathers!

  1. you take it to a new level

  2. I’m curious … is there a weaker anti-gay-marriage argument than the marry-an-animal one?

    Of course, there’s a group of people that eats it up.

    I think that they’re called “morons.”

    • what gets me is when all the married politicians who have been caught with hookers and/or girlfriends (or tapping their feet in bathroom stalls) start blathering about the sanctity of marriage. i guess they mean everyone else’s.

      • Indeed!

        The GOP lost moral authority on this subject many years ago.

        • they never had it. neither do the dems. unfortunately for all of them, we have 24/7 news, so we know that those who beat their chests the loudest proclaiming their righteousness are the ones who don’t give a lot of weight to the sanctity of marriage (unless it’s someone else’s).

          • Very good point.

            Of course, once upon a time news reporters could find better things to talk about. But since the Enquirer is now treated like a real news source, it’s only going to get worse …

            • these days, the enquirer is more of a news source than a lot of the so-called legitimate news sources. i just wrote to cnn to tell them that i refuse to watch as long as they are touting erick erickson as an important political voice. he’s a hateful racist and fear-monger who encourages violence against those he disagrees with. giving someone like him legitimacy is no longer a legitimate news network.

  3. Lawyer

    I love it when you stirrup things.

    • hello lawyer,

      welcome to the raisin! 😀

      try to rein in your enthusiasm, but have a good time (that’s the mane thing). have a look around, and make yourself comfortable. you might feel a bit lost at first, but that won’t be furlong. 😉

  4. What’s hanging out of Hayworth’s mouth?

    BTW, it figures a guy named Hayworth would start talking about being a bit too close to a horse.

  5. writechic

    He’s such a horse’s ass!

  6. Maybe Cindy Lu paid him– make John look good…. get out there & say crazy stuff.

    She’s got to be desperate— if John is not re elected, he’s home with her all the time!

    I think it’s all horseplay.

    • cindy lou will give capt underpants one of the condos to live in, while she uses all the other ones. i bet the only time she sees him now is on the campaign trail and when he grovels before her for his allowance.

  7. Drool you say. Could have sworn that was peckersnot. If Rep. Gohmart has his way that pony will have to wear a rubber. And where is your Florida Rep. who was going to introduce a bill to put a stop to animal husbandry!?! No more lopin’ the mule! Adios Bride of the Burro!!

    • a rubber? isn’t that birth control? i thought gohmert was against that, too. that would be too bad, because he’s a walking argument for birth control.

  8. JaxDem

    Hey nonnie…just a head’s up. I’m posting a memorial diary tonight around 8 – 8:30 eastern for bamabikeguy (theghostofkarlafayetucker). I learned yesterday that he passed away suddenly on the 23rd of Feb. I know you remember him from Morning Reaction/Feature and thought you might want to know.