Responding to our call to find the Massachusetts supreme court defining marriage as "the establishment of intimacy" -- which "the consistent conservative" J.D. Hayworth says mean you could marry a horse -- viewer ScooterDooder (dig the code name!) writes:
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."
Sherri Joubert adds:
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.
Leave a Comment:
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 think this pretty much sums up their conversation.
OMG that is almost exactly how it was. LMAO...Too funny perfectly appropriate.
perfect!!!
J.D.Hayworth sounds like an ambulance chasing lawyer firm, not to give a bad name to ambulance chasing lawyers, everyone needs a lawyer sometime..
He smirked, squirmed, slimed his way through the interview last night. He sounded like snake-oil.
J.D.Hayworth sounds like the name of an ambulance-chasing lawyer, not that the world doesn't need ambulance-chasing lawyers... I watched the interview last night. He smirked, squirmed, slimed his way through it, can't understand how Ms. Maddow didn't call him a liar to his face. Pure professionalism I guess.
Good show, Rachel, we love you.
If he does any more interviews like this, he will put Waffle House out of business
JD Hayworth had an office here in Flagstaff just around the corner to my office. Very rude individual and pompous. His 'holier than thou' attitude even made me cringe coming through the television! Why do we have idiots like this trying to run our country?
The entire opinion has 6 instances of the word "intimacy" even if you were to blot out part of a sentence with the clever usage of "......," you can't construct the senetence Mr. Hayworth used.
Simple truth. Hayworth made reference to what he called a quote. If nobody can find this string of characters, then he is lying. If he chooses to not be forthcoming in showing where he pulled the supposed quote - then he is either lying or not truley valuing the thoughts and opinions of those listening to his voice.
This type of dialog is soooooo common. Republicans seem to use more than what has collectively been brought to the table when formulating opinions or interpreting definitions. It is often infered that they are presenting a thoughtful position so pompously as to suggest you are simply not capable of understanding. And they call liberals the intelletuals. I guess the difference is that liberals don't pretend to be intellectual or more importanly they don't presume or infer their advisary to be stupid. It is so common that a republican will say "I disagree" and terminate the argument. It's a shallow attempt at bringing credance to the unsupportable words that are spewing from their mouths. Even after, as you said Rachel, all emperical information has been brought to the table. The inevitible "We'll just have to agree to disagree" stuff leaves the usual ambiguity. What does he disagree with? That it is an emperical issue? Does he disagree with homsexuals acknowledging they feel intimate with eachother without other people having the right to acknowledge their feelings about horses? Does he feel the same about people who love their car? I've developed quite an intimate relationship with my Blackberry. Does he suggest I and my Blackberry should have the same rights as gay people and that he will fight for our rights? Or... is he saying the feelings homosexual couples have with eachother has no more substance or value than my relationship with my phone?
Hetero or homo, it doesn't matter... I have heard of only two types of marriage by people who are married... they either consider their marriage a partnership or a union. An split ideology that is not exclusive to sexual orientation or intimacy for that matter. In fact, I know many hetero marriages/relationships where sex is present but intimacy is not. Where does that leave us!?
I believe what Mr. Hayworth is referring to is an isolated quotation in Cordy's dissent. Specifically, Justice Cordy sates, "The protected right to freedom of association, in the sense of freedom of chose 'to enter into and maintain certain intimate and human relationships,' is similarly limited and unimpaired by the marriage statute. " citing Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 US 609 (1982). Which presents a couple of issues:
1. This language comes from the dissent of the case and not the holding, therefore is not a declaration by "the court" and
2. This language is a direct quotation from a SCOTUS case and therefore is not a declaration by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in any event.
I do not expect that Mr. Hayworth would understand how law and precedent works. However, I would expect that Mr. Hayworth should understand his lack understanding in this area and as such not opine on it, especially not on national television and even more especially not when arguing with a Rhodes Scholar. Not sayin...just sayin.
The attorney who won the Massachusetts decision just weighed in.
I feel sorry for the people in Arizona! This guy looks like Howdy Doody on SPEED!!! He speaks like the party he represents! Half truths and LIES. Arizona you have my sympathy. This guy is nothing more than an educated idiot! This is tea party material? He's a Republican thru and thru. Kind of like the ones we see on TV. Against everything except getting re-elected. Lets all thank those YAHOS in Washington for looking out for those of us who elected them YIPEE!!!!!!
Didn't J.D. Hayworth play the psycho killer in South Side Pickup?
Watching people challenge Rachel is like watching the old black-and-white footage of two trains running toward each other. You know exactly what's going to happen and that it's not going to be pretty. Honestly, why do they challenge her?
Watching people challenge Rachel is kind of like some old black-and-white footage I saw of a train running into a brick wall. You know what's going to happen and it's not going to end well for one party. I mean, honestly, why do people challenge her? Do they not watch the show?