Man-Horse Matrimony

05/16/2010 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011

I'm confused. On The Rachel Maddow Show last night I watched Rachel interview J.D. Hayworth, the leading Republican contender for John McCain's Senate seat. If J.D. has it right, allowing gay marriage will lead to man-horse matrimony. Questions abound.

Was he talking exclusively of heterosexual cross-species liaisons? If so, what about woman-horse pairings? Does he envision gay men in stable relations with stallions? Lesbians with fillies?

And will we be confined to human-equine nuptials?

I like dogs. In fact, I love my long-time male companion, the longhaired miniature dachshund Gunter Herzog Fassbinder, aka "Gunther." If same-sex marriage is allowed, will I be able to ask for my beloved's paw in marriage?

And, am I the only one who sees a striking resemblance between J.D. and a high-strung Palomino? Reined in repeatedly by Rachel, the "consistent conservative" pinned his ears and whinnied from start to finish. On bailouts, earmarks and kickbacks, Rachel dug her spurs into J.D.'s flanks, revealing deep flaws.

But it was her exposure of his fictionalized version of a court decision that raised all these questions about horses and the men who love them. J.D. had claimed on a Florida talk show that the Massachusetts Supreme Court defined marriage as "the establishment of intimacy," and went on to suggest that, "If you really had affection for your horse I guess you could imagine marrying your horse."

Rachel informed her guest that she'd spent the afternoon scouring the court's decision and Massachusetts state law in search of the "Hayworth Interpretation." She couldn't find it.

What she did find was language that affirms the dignity and equality of all human beings, and a ruling, in Goodrich v. Department of Public Health, that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry."

When she confronted J.D. and his imaginary definition, he responded cheerily with, "You and I can have a disagreement about that."

"Well, either it is true or it isn't," replied Ms. Maddow. "It's empirical." To which J.D. responded, "I appreciate the fact we have a disagreement on that." In other words, facts, to J.D. Hayworth, are malleable.

One can only hope the people of Arizona decide to put Mr. Hayworth out to pasture. I can picture him neighing softly as he accepts sugar cubes from Jack Abramoff, due to be released from prison about a month after the November elections.