Gay Marriage | News | Rachel Maddow

Maddow Talks to Man-Horse Marriage Fearmonger JD Hayworth


Rachel Maddow talked to McCain challenger J.D. Hayworth last night about his remarks that same-sex marriage could lead to man-horse marriage, and really seemed to irk him when she pointed out that the Massachusetts Supreme Court never wrote that "the establishment of intimacy" was a basis for the definition of marriage. Hayworth had argued that establishing intimacy as the basis of marriage might allow a man to marry a horse that he loved.


Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. When he tries to smile he looks like the Joker (Jack Nicholson version).

    "Wait til they get a load of me!"

    Seems kinda fitting, actually.

    Posted by: sparks | Mar 16, 2010 9:16:57 AM

  2. I'd marry Mr. Ed. He's hot and hung like one of his species.

    Posted by: kodiak | Mar 16, 2010 9:26:37 AM

  3. Right on Rachel! It's either there or it isn't, and it isn't - and this clown says "we have a difference of opinion?" Typical right wing bullshit. They lie their asses off and then say it's a "difference of opinion?" It is called a "lie".

    Posted by: Mike | Mar 16, 2010 9:29:19 AM

  4. Amen, Mike. Whenever these asshats are caught in a lie, they call it a "disagreement." It's total and utter bullshit. When one person speaks the truth and another lies, that's not a disagreement; that's an honest person standing next to a Big Fat Lying Liar from Liartown.

    Posted by: Red Seven | Mar 16, 2010 9:45:49 AM

  5. He was wise not to engage Rachel on this. He knew that he'd fucked up and that she had him in a corner and by repeating "we have a difference of opinion" that was code for, "you're right but i'm not going to say that out loud and i'm certainly not going to get into a back and forth with you cuz i'm obviously in over my head here."

    Posted by: amknyc | Mar 16, 2010 9:50:08 AM

  6. I wonder if anyone has pondered whether a man could marry a female horse... does J.D. have a problem with that? Since apparently the GENDER of the animal is so important to him.... according to him a human animal that is male should NOT be allowed to marry another human animal that is male. Now I wonder if male horse should be able to marry a female horse... would he support that?

    Posted by: | Mar 16, 2010 9:53:53 AM

  7. And if that doesn't work, they will go to the "This is a free country" meme. That is, implying that anyone who dares to point out the facts - in this case Rachel Maddow - does not love freedom. And is, therefore, somehow suspect as an American.

    It is a socialist plot to undermine the Bible.

    Quick, grab your gun and run for the hills!

    Posted by: John | Mar 16, 2010 9:54:50 AM

  8. And this is the ilk that the modern-day Republicans produce, espoused and supported by the Tea-bager brigades...lovely!

    Posted by: Arturo Beeche | Mar 16, 2010 10:29:46 AM

  9. Of course the one thing stopping this union would be that oh.. a horse (and any other animal for that matter) cannot understand a complicated legal contract and therefore should not be allowed to enter into it.

    *ugh* brains on these people... OY!

    Posted by: Darren | Mar 16, 2010 10:34:25 AM

  10. I'm waiting for tonight's telecast to see if La Rachel will fact-check another main issue discussed on yesterday's show, the Joker's* ties with Abramoff.

    *Yeah, Sparks, that was the first thought that entered my head too when this joker first showed up on camera.

    Posted by: Acronym Jim | Mar 16, 2010 10:35:45 AM

  11. This is what our political discourse has come to... sound bytes that are CLEARLY lies, and "agreeing to disagree" when the truth is shown.

    We can't agree to disagree on my (our) equal humanity and equal civil rights. This guy with the strange syndrome-like face either thinks we're equal, or he doesn't. He clearly doesn't. That makes him a bigot. Plain and simple. He and his ilk may not like the "b-word", but them's the facts. He doesn't deserve to be included in civilized discourse, let alone the senate of the United States.

    Posted by: The Milkman | Mar 16, 2010 10:38:09 AM

  12. JD's wife is married to a horse. At least a horse's ass.

    Posted by: Bob R | Mar 16, 2010 11:28:19 AM

  13. You're dead right, Sparks - and I find his voice very reminiscent of Rush Limbaugh's. It's like Jack and Rush had some sort of demonspawn baby!

    Posted by: DN | Mar 16, 2010 11:41:37 AM

  14. This guy is so bat-shit crazy he makes McCain look like a Oxford scholar. And I hope he wins the GOP nomination to replace McCain. He will be at the forefront in leading the GOP off a cliff from which it will never return.

    Posted by: B-rod | Mar 16, 2010 11:55:06 AM

  15. hey, now, republicans are allowed to have their own set of facts. the truthiness of his statements cannot be called into question! the sky is green, and jesus is a-comin'!

    Posted by: zach | Mar 16, 2010 11:55:23 AM

  16. I'm actually rooting for McCain in this primary.

    Posted by: KFLO | Mar 16, 2010 12:05:59 PM

  17. Rachel let this pig off way too easy.

    Posted by: grego | Mar 16, 2010 12:16:39 PM

  18. She should have hit him much harder. I'm very disappointed. He purported to quote a Supreme Court ruling, he even used the word "quote" and then followed it with a statement that is ABSOLUTELY not in the ruling. He lied and he lied about something important. He clearly has NO respect for the way our government works -- our written laws and our written court decisions -- if he thinks he can boldly tell people that our written laws and our written court decisions say something that merely reading them shows otherwise.

    Posted by: patrick | Mar 16, 2010 12:37:28 PM

  19. @AMKNYC: you're right! Ms. Maddow had this asshole backed deep into a corner. You can tell by the grimace on his face. But, in typical reich-wing, Faux-News fashion, he claims it's just a "disagreement" when in fact, Ms. Maddow catches him in an outright lie. It's like Faux-News' claim that they are "fair and balanced". There's no fairness and no balance.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Mar 16, 2010 2:26:55 PM

  20. Seriously? A horse? Mr. Hayworth knew he was outmatched, so he agreed to disagree. And Dr. Maddow showed him compassion by not thoroughly trouncing him, as she could have. However, I think the Future Mrs. Ed will think twice before coming to TRMS again.

    Posted by: Verdon Coleman | Mar 16, 2010 2:36:13 PM

  21. @ Patrick: completely agree with you. The "quote" strategy Hayworth used obsfuscates the fact that "establishment of intimacy" is merely his interpretation of the ruling (hence his "disagreement" with Maddow). But as Maddow read, the Court knows better: fundamental to marriage is not intimacy but consent.

    Posted by: latebrosus | Mar 16, 2010 2:36:34 PM

  22. I wish the gay press would redirect the conversation to point out that he's a closet case. Let's stop wasting time with the Ted Haggard's of the world. Please?

    Posted by: wuwei | Mar 16, 2010 2:43:27 PM

  23. If you really were a moron, I guess you'd be a moron.

    Posted by: Brandon | Mar 16, 2010 5:38:39 PM

  24. Ick ick ick. He's like a politician from a Steven Segal movie (one of the good ones) = SLIMY!

    Facts? Fuck the facts! When this man lies, he just thinks it's a disagreement.

    Posted by: Drew | Mar 17, 2010 12:54:30 AM

  25. Marriage to horses can't happen since horses can't sign a marriage license, unless hoofprints count.

    Posted by: AW | Mar 17, 2010 8:14:09 AM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Watch: Kiss-Out and Vigil Against Brooklyn Anti-Gay Gang Attack« «