It's amazing how people can read the same thing yet take something so different away - or completely change what was actually read as is the case with JD Hayworth.
At a Florida radio station, during an interview, he said,
"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," he continued. "I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse."
Hayworth, a former AZ congressman (card carrying member of GOP of course), stated that the only way to prevent marriage to horses - or any animal really - was to create a federal marriage amendment, which obviously he would support.
But what is TRUTH is that the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling (which denied the ban on gay marriage ) defined marriage as "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."
HM? Hayworth said this:
Massachusetts Supreme Court defines marriage as 'the establishment of intimacy.'"
when it really says this:
Massachusetts Supreme Court defines marriage as a "voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."
Yea, I can see how a former sportscaster turned congressman turned radio show host turned wannabe senator can misread such an intricate and complicated statement of definition.
Who actually listens to this guy (enthusiastically anyway) and what's scarier is who in the hell would vote for him? He cannot comprehend - lord knows that's probably why he voted yes on the bridge to nowhere - he thought it went to Russia perhaps? Did he misread all those earmark, pork spending bills he said yes to as well?