"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 affectionfor 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.
Blahblahblah. Typical ridiculous statement from right-wing culture warrior. But you know what? He's right. Even if he got the actual facts wrong:
In fact, the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling striking down a ban on gay marriage defined marriage as "the voluntary union of two persons [emphasis mine] as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."
"Persons", huh? Well, that excludes horses and the people who love them. We'll liberate you one day, equiphiles.
But you know who are "persons"? Corporations, that's who. Yes.
Under the precedent of an 1886 court decision, corporations are recognized as persons with 14th Amendment protections. More recently, the Supreme Court took this further, giving them virtually unlimited ability to fund political campaigns, which should leapfrog us right over fascism in the very near future. Essentially, corporations have become a class of disembodied meta-humans, with far more rights and powers than any individual could possess. It's like if a race of ghostly Voltrons took over Earth.
But my point is, anyone can start a corporation, right? Couldn't you, gay man, start a corporation and let your lover marry it? And what if I married a corporation, then got a divorce? Do I get half the company? What perfume must I wear to get Monsanto's attention?
No comments:
Post a Comment