Rachel pointed out on the air tonight that despite the insistence of J.D. Hayworth, the Massachusetts supreme court did not define marriage as "the establishment of intimacy." In case that definition exists in there and we just overlooked it, please let us know if you find it:
HILLARY GOODRIDGE & others vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & another (pdf hosted on Boston.com)
ADDING: Here's a little more orderly pdf from FindLaw.
Further fact-checking of the J.D. Hayworth interview here.
Leave a Comment:
Wild goose chase. Even if it's defined as "the establishment of intimacy" it has to be consensual. And consent is a legal thing. Horses don't have the mental capacity to consent--just as he law says people under a certain age can't consent.
The Women's Rights movement redefined marriage as between two consenting autonomous adults. But some people still have it in their heads that women are property in a marriage. That's what leads them to think if the law doesn't say men have to marry women, they'll be able to marry anything. In their mind only the man has to consent, not the other party.
So "man-horse nuptials" really reveals how Hayworth understands consent in a relationship.
Out of curiosity I decided to look up what was easy to find on Google about Mass. same sex policy and I found this page without much searching
http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/gaymarriage.html
and "a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions."
since we have a previous President or I should say many who's lives showed that exclusive isn't really there I can see Hayworth's statement as a fact based opionion.
Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, Hayworth's opinion is that "establishment of intimacy" could lead to a man marrying a horse.
What you quoted is still dealing with two human beings. Still, it's not actually part of the decision so it doesn't count.
The fact is, the law is only applicable to people, not horses. It cannot be interpreted by the court any other way.
"just as the law" oh, my time ran out to fix the typo.
If Arizonans are not careful a particularly large horse anatomy might get elected to the U.S. Senate.
You might expect some kind of animal analogy, from the kind of reptile that is Hayworth!
Hayworth isn't really worth discussing imho--on your next issue re Jefferson and Texas rejection: in addition to his position on church-state, keep in mind he also cohabited w/ a Black woman. Not nice for such nice Texicans. Now you've just finished talking about my dumb state which is next door to the other dumb state. Sigh!
Rachel, So good to see you mop the floor with this ignorant, condescending idiot without even breaking a sweat!! Brava!
I agree! My reaction as I watched this interview was "what an arrogant, condescending a**hole."
I'm a full out Rachel Maddow fan, but her presentation here is overdone. Among all the bat-sht-crazy things that the far right believes, this is not the fight to pick. JD Hayworth is not inventing this reading of the Mass. Supreme Court ruling, which states:
"... the core concept of common human dignity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes government intrusion into the deeply personal realms of consensual adult expressions of intimacy and one's choice of an intimate partner."
Rachel's point is that this is not an attempt to define marriage. She is correct. Hayworth's point is that marriage should not be reduced to "expressions of intimacy" and presumably that gay Americans should be protected under the 14th amendment but still not be allowed to water-down marriage for God-knows what reason (double entendre fully intended!).
Still, Rachel should reserve her incredulous "you-are-wrong-sir" moments for when the opponent is really off-base and that isn't the case here. Hayworth is wrong on gay marriage, but it's not as simple as him inventing something which doesn't exist.
If all repugs use this kind of logic, it's no wonder Palin is the best they can do.
ON page 61 of the Goodridge decision the court states:
"We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."
I think this as clear a definition of marriage as presented anywhere in the decision. And there is certainly no way to costrue this to include cosanguinity, polygamy, and/or bestiality as so many nut jobs try to do. The court upheld the importance of marriage and sought to remedy the common-law definition as to not disrupt the importance of the marriage law or usurp powers and perogatives of the Legislature.
J.D. Hayworth and others seek at any cost to further their own narrow view for the sole reason of amassing power. It is time to stand up and stop the erosion of our civil rights for their political gain.
That's how I read it, too!
The real question is, between this shady creep ("I appreciate you taking the time to call me a creep, and allowing me to clear that up") and The New John McCain (Bizarro McCain), which is the lesser of two evils for Arizona? I mean, since McCain was reborn in the presidential election as a senseless, tea-bagging, nitwit and complete anti-Maverick who would follow the GOP off a cliff if told to, maybe this guy's possibly a better GOP contender?
Neither seems to have any shame. Maybe splitting the fight will get a Democrat re-elected.
I think it's apparent that the sentence his opinion is formed from is the following:
"Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family." Ironic how he discusses line-item earlier in the discussion with you and it's very apparent that he himself is using the same principles when he reviews Supreme Judicial Court hearings. How is it that (some of) our states are represented by people that are too ignorant to actually critically think and understand a Supreme Judicial Court review?!
I do believe there are prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license:
1- consent (which a horse cannot give)
2- a birth certificate (not a registration certificate
3- a social security number (which are only issued to humans)
Just to name a few...
Side-note directly to J.D. Hayworth-- Hopefully the next time you want to discuss a political issue you do not agree with, you will form some legitimate support for your stance and not commit fallacies.
Just for fun, and because I have a fast remote, I was flipping back to Faux, and the runner under the program said that (Gasp!), Hayworth was WRONG! They even had the quote from the law! Are they anti-Hayworth? Lol. Hey, if you get him back on, Please ask him if he approves of paying for other peoples' stomach stapling, or other procedures to lose weight, and whether or not they should be included in the health care bill... Jabba himself underwent a similar procedure, ON THE PUBLIC'S DIME, and now it's too good for us common folk. Go Away, J.D!
I love it when they lie about things that are *so easy* to fact check. What with the InterWeb, the tubes deliver up the text so fast...
And when they'll tell a bald faced lie like that, you kind of wonder if anything else they say is true. Actually, I guess you don't have to wonder much.
Nice job Rachel.
Way to go Rachel...listening to him was sickening...it was good to see you stick his feet to the fire. It's just frustrating that the Rep. party seems so capable of snowing the general public. Regarding Texas and their new ideas for the history books...as a teacher who has welcomed a more balanced (yet still anglo version of history) that's been in textbooks for the last few years...I'm nearly to the point of saying let them sucede if they really want to. More help for the rest of the country and they'll have no excuse for complaining.
Rachel,
I am always amazed at how you keep your cool when confronting TEA BAGGERs (like the creep from Arizona), and other such ilk, when they are lying their nether regions off. And the zingers you can sling (while still remaining cool as a cucumber) that go miles over their heads is sooo much fun to watch!
Rachel and TRMS staff,
I just finished carefully reading the decision and I never saw the word "intimacy" as the purpose of modern marriage, same or opposite gender. When intimacy was mentioned, it was clearly associated with 2 human, consenting adults with the ability to enter into binding contracts. Last time I checked, horses are not eligible to sign a marriage license application, nor any other binding contract or agreement. Marriage laws are clearly for humans and not other species.
Marriage licenses do not specify gender as part of the application, and sex discrimination is carried out every time a clerk or registrar refuses to accept an application or denies the couple applying with the marriage license they seek.
The primary arguments for same-sex marriage, as I read it anyway, are same-gender individuals cannot be excluded from equal protection under the Massachusetts Constitution based solely on gender, and the same-sex marriage ban is based on sex of the individuals, not their sexual orientations. Gender (sex) discrimination is expressly forbidden in Mass.
The U.S. Constitution defines the right of individuals to marry the person of their choice and that marriage is a fundamental right in Loving v Virginia (1967).
All the same benefits and responsibilities of marriage are for the stability of communities, protection of minor children, providing unambiguous parentage and all the rights and benefits that children of opposite-sex parents enjoy. Like opposite-sex marriage, any acts of sexual intimacy in a same-sex relationship are private (see Lawrence v Texas (2003).
IMHO, Mr. Hayworth is an arrogant bigot with a serious problem of creating his own fantasies if he doesn't like the facts. Yet another example of Republican freedom from the facts. He doesn't have to like same-sex marriage and he's free to say so. He is not free to make up his own facts.
Sherri Joubert
Yeah, this was not rocket science. You bring up the decision, you proceed to do a text search.
The word "establishment" never occurs in the decision.
The word "intimacy" occurs six times, if I've counted properly, and never in the phrase Hayworth lied about.
can one just say that "we disagree" instead of i made up a lie these days? you basically owned him and his response was that you two obviously "disagreed." if you could pass this along to him, you cannot lie and simply tell the person who calls you out a disagreement has occurred. there is truth and there are falsehoods. there is no gray area. you can disagree on philosophy but you cannot just make things up and then claim the other side disagrees with you when asked to back up your statements. i award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.
It was great to wake up to your comments this morning. I highlighted a couple of them.
How can the Joker from Batman run for Congress? Actually; that would not surprise me anymore. Does the guy not look like the Joker..It's like seeing kiss without their makeup for the first time. J.D. Hayworth that sounds like an insurance company. Look this guy needs to give up being an evil politician, and go into acting as an evil nemisis. I see nothing to back up his statement. By the way your researchers are awesome.
I would pick Two-face as the Batman villain of choice for Hayword. That smirk kinda makes him look like Two-face. Now we just have to nab him and check him into Arkham Asylum for the rest of his life :) Oh, and don't forget his two-headed coin. I'm not sure he could pull off the Joker's insanity and brilliance. He's just doesn't strike me as the brightest bulb in the box.
Do you think he knew what "empirical" meant? I envisioned him Googling it after the interview.
I imagine him not caring what "empirical" means, nor do I think he would take the time to enlighten himself. He might actually have to think if he did that.
he thought she said "Empire-ical", as in a human and horse creating an empire....
come on give him a break, after all IOKIYAR!!!!!
"Establishment of intimacy" sounds like a clinical term, and since it did not come from the ruling itself, it must have come from somewhere. I wonder what Hayworth's aides, or pastor perhaps, have been reading?
You better know what the hell you're talking about when you go on the air with Rachel. I think Hayworth realized that because he usually never shuts up!
Typical conservative. He shoots off his mouth about an opinion, can't (or won't) prove where his "facts" come from, then tries his best NOT to let the other side speak. Good job, Rachel -- you showed his true colors! Hopefully the citizens of Arizona are paying attention.