Via Eli Yokley at PoliticMo:

…Speaking to PoliticMo Monday, Hartzler clarified, saying she said – or meant to say – 13 year old, not three year old.

“I was saying that if you change the standard in the country to having marriage be, which is what they want, that just anybody that has a loving and committed relationship, then you set yourself on a slippery slope legally in courts to having other people come forward with similar arguments that would be objectionable to almost everyone,” she said. “So, that’s another reason why it makes sense to just keep the traditional definition of a man and a woman and that it’s my main point there is that it’s wise public policy.

“So, obviously those comments are just being misconstrued by those,” she said….

Representative Hartzler (r) addresses the “three year old driving a car” portion of her remarks but conveniently forgets the parts citing incest and pedophilia.

Uh, this is not “misconstrued”:

“…Why not allow a fifty year old man to marry a twelve year old, uh, girl if they love each other and they’re committed?…”

And, as we pointed out on Sunday:

….Uh, because, unlike two gay adults, a twelve year old girl is not an adult and is not capable legally or developmentally of making that decision.

Apparently you don’t need to make sense to be elected a republican member of Congress. But, we knew that already….

The republican cult of the victim rears its head again. Right wingnuts open their mouths, tell others in a public forum what they really believe, this prompts derision from others, the republican complains “that’s not what I meant”, attempts damage control and ignores the really outrageous statement, then blames it on “those”, whoever they are.

Previously:

Are teh gay really so icky, Vicky? (March 24, 2011)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) on DADT: it’s all about the plumbing (April 1, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): teh gay are so icky (June 5, 2011)