Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Those of you familiar with former Rep. J.D. Hayworth know that a day without Hayworth saying something offensive or stupid is like a day without — well, that never happens. The man is a gaffe machine. We cannot possibly hope to keep up with everything uttered by J.D. Hayworth in his Senate campaign.
Last night J.D. Hayworth was a guest on the big, bad liberal media MSNBC network program The Rachel Maddow Show. I guess he needed to demonstrate his machismo. Most of the interview is Hayworth giving slippery explanations about his relationship with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and why he is not as big a hypocrite as Sen. John McCain (OK,let's just call it a tie).
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I just want to focus on one part of this interview. Monday, March 15th – Rachel Maddow show:
MADDOW: Congressman, I know you made headlines nationwide yesterday when you gave an interview on a talk radio station in Florida. And this is the comments you made about same-sex marriage. I know you‘ve been asked about this a lot today. Here they are.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
HAYWORTH: You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage—now, get this—it defined marriage as simply, quote, “the establishment of intimacy.” Now, how dangerous is that? 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. I guess that would mean if you really have affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
MADDOW: So, here‘s my question about that. Where is—does the establishment of intimacy thing come from? Where in Massachusetts law or in the Supreme Court ruling does it say the establishment of intimacy? I read—spent the whole afternoon sort of looking for that and couldn‘t find that anywhere.
HAYWORTH: Well, as we went back and reviewed that document, back when the argument was made, the high court in Massachusetts defined marriage in a rather amorphous fashion, simply as, quote, “the establishment of intimacy.” Now, I think we all agree there‘s much more to marriage than that.
MADDOW: Sir, I‘m sorry, it didn‘t.
(CROSSTALK)
HAYWORTH: And it is on that predicate that I preface my remarks. OK. You and I have a disagreement.
MADDOW: Well, I mean, I went OK, so, I‘ve gone through the Supreme Court ruling and I found all of the references to the word “intimacy,” which you can‘t get to your assertion without using the word “intimacy.” And it‘s things like, “The United States Supreme Court affirmed that the core concept of common human dignity protected by the 14th Amendment precludes government intrusion into the deeply personal realms of consensual adopt expressions of intimacy and one‘s choice of an intimate partner.”
Quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, “Marriage bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship and intimacy.”
I mean, those are the kinds of use of the word “intimacy,” the establishment as the definition of marriage—it‘s just not there. I mean, let alone the horse thing, which I‘ll—I‘ll leave you to explain.
But what you said about the establishment of intimacy being the definition of marriage in Massachusetts, I don‘t think it‘s true, sir.
HAYWORTH: Well, that‘s fine. You and I can have a disagreement about that.
MADDOW: Well, it either is true. It isn‘t. It‘s empirical.
HAYWORTH: OK. OK.
MADDOW: All right.
HAYWORTH: Well, I appreciate the fact that we have a disagreement on that. I‘m sure one of many disagreements we would have. And again, I thank you for the chance to join you.
MADDOW: All right. We‘ll post the—we‘ll post the ruling online.
Maybe our viewers can help us go through it and resolve this matter.
Here is the slip opinion from the Supreme Court of Massachusetts from FindLaw. http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf
Go ahead. Knock yourself out. You will not find what J.D. Hayworth claims is quote "the establishment of intimacy" standard as the basis for the court's ruling.
This is what in some circles is known as the "Fox Effect." Facts don't matter, everything is opinion. There are no empirical facts, only opinions on which we can agree to disagree.
Steve Benen of The Washington Monthly explains:
A couple of days ago, Hayworth said during a radio interview, "[T]he Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage — now get this — it defined marriage as simply, 'the establishment of intimacy.'" He went on to argue that such an approach would allow humans to marry horses.
There's all kinds of things wrong with this, but if you look at the Massachusetts Supreme Court, there are no references to "the establishment of intimacy" as a standard for anything. The words simply aren't there. Hayworth made up the quote.
Last night, Rachel Maddow asked Hayworth to explain his bizarre remarks. The exchange was quite illustrative.
* * *
Hayworth, perhaps unaware of what "empirical" means, replied, "OK. OK. I appreciate the fact that we have a disagreement on that."
And this is why conversations with conservatives never seem to go well. Reality is an inconvenient detail that can be twisted, manipulated, and frequently ignored.
In a normal, sensible debate, one side might make a provocative claim. The other side can challenge the claim, and provide evidence. If it's proven false, the first side moves on to some other claim. Lather, rinse, repeat.
But that's not how Republicans work. They make claims that aren't true, and after being corrected, either repeat those claims again anyway, pretend the matter is subjective, or both.
It's genuinely painful to listen to clowns for whom reality is meaningless.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.