What really bothers me in this situation is the lack of anyone coming forward from the “moral” majority and making a statement denoucing violence. If the situtation was reversed we would have put the person on administrative leave until the matter was resolved, and we would have given a statement that clarifies our position against violence on either side. Why is this wisdom hard to see and act upon?

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=25979603&postID=116658572027769206

1-I think the problem with assuming Cirignano is telling two different stories, one to the Police and one in public, is simply a poor idea because it won’t work in throwing off the media or you guys because the truth will eventually out. It’s very unlikely, so I’d expect some kind of proof.
2-If we suppose for the sake of argument that Cirignano actually admitted to Police, but not the public, that he pushed Ms. Loy down, then Sgt. Hazelhurst has leaked confidential information.
3-If Cirignano addmitted no such thing, which is what is reported in the Telegram, then Sgt. Hazelhurst ‘misspoke’.
4-Either way, this appears at minimum as unprofessional for a Police Dept. spokesman.
5-The only other possibility is that Sgt. Hazelhurst was misquoted. In that case, EDGE would appear unprofessional for misquoting him.

You think that when defending someone, you should ask if their actions were just, and I agree, but I would add that you should also ask what are the motives of his accusers. What say you?

…and you know Rich Gregoire? From dialoging? I understand and appreciate this approach, and would be willing to use it here, but I think we need to clearly state who said what, and who did what, and try to avoid inferences, e.g. Cirignano admitting pushing Loy when the quote comes from a Police spokesperson but not from Cirignano.

The police were there to control the crowd, and if Mr. Cirignano had used his brain instead his allowing his emotions to control him this would not have turned out this way.

I will be there in court the day the witnesses take their stand, so we will see if what you say now is what you’ll say then. Much is said in front of crowds and media to divert unwanted attention, but there are too many witnesses for the truth not come out in court.

Mr. Cirignano is no angel. Some of the quotes from emails he has sent others are quite telling:

“I pray that they do not find a “gay Gene” or most gay people will be aborted.”

“Black people are born that way and Gay people to choose to act that way.”

For one, I didn’t know Catholics would have an abortion, and two what is implied by saying black people are born that way. What way?

In “The T&G’s Richard Nangle clarifies: yup, the guy shoved her” from BlueMassGroup someone states:

“The notoriously thin skinned (but never meek) Mr. Cirignano, reportedly once pulled the hair of an elderly woman at a rally because she held a sign proclaiming: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

The more that comes out, the more he is harder to defend.

In an ever diversifying society, are we doing ourselves a favor by continuing to promote intolerance? No we are not, and those who are intolerant will be at a disadvantage to people who can learn to live in peace with those that they disagree with. There need be no compromise in your own life in order to live and let live.

Sarah Loy was on a public sidewalk, which in legal circles is known as a public forum. Thus Mrs. Loy had a first amendment right to be there, to express opinions and a fourth amendment right to be safe and secure in her person and property. Mark who started this thread is mistaken in stating that Mrs. Loy was doing something illegal by standing amongst the VoteOnMarriage crowd. Jay G is also incorrect stating that she did not have a right to be where she was before the assault occurred. Mrs. Loy did nothing wrong or illegal, though she may have been provocative.

The assault which Larry Cirignano confessed to the Worcester Police could not be justified or mitigated by his perception that Mrs. Loy was disrupting the event or was trespassing on the VOM permit. As I understand it, these excuses will not stand up to legal scrutiny. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Cirignano pleads guilty or not guilty in court.

Hazelhurst confirmed that VoteOnMarriage.org had secured a permit to use the space in front of City Hall for their rally, but he said that the permit did not give them the right to screen out people with an opposing viewpoint.

“Everybody’s allowed to be there, it’s a public area. There’s no doubt about that,” said Hazelhurst.