Republicans sure do like animals. Not as in "pets" or "food," but as hypothetical sex partners. We've had Rick Santorum's immortal "man on dog" comment and John Cornyn's "box turtle marriages." And now we have another wonderful member of the animal kingdom added to the GOP's list of romantic options.
Yesterday, disgraced former House Representative and Jack Abramoff crony turned Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth, apparently overdosing on The Horse Whisperer, said that gay marriage could lead to men and horses living in wedded bliss:
Former Rep. J. D. Hayworth said Sunday that the expansion of state laws allowing gay marriage could lead to people marrying horses.
Hayworth, during an interview with an Orlando, Fla. radio station, explained, "You see, the Massacusetts 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.
Not very, J.D. And rather than quitting while he was ahead, Hayworth went all the way into GOP Animal Fetish Land.
"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."
I don't know, J.D. Even Catherine the Great didn't make that official.
Now, Hayworth is, for lack of a better phrase, dumb as a bag of rocks (when he was the House, he was known for his mouth and nothing else - think Rush Limbaugh with a Congressional seat, if that thought doesn't give you chills), but wouldn't he, after witnessing the problems caused by Santorum and Cornyn's comments, pause before invoking bestiality as a reason to oppose gay marriage? It's not even original any more.
So we've had man on dog, man on box turtle and man on horse. What's next? Will sloths get their day in the wedding chapel soon?