Worcester County Freedom Trail

Interesting column from the Chicago Sun-Times:

Gay activists made a big hairy deal this week when Sen. Barack Obama hired formerly gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to lead some fund-raising concerts in South Carolina this weekend.

So what.

McClurkin doesn’t have to stay gay if he doesn’t want to.

So when gay activist Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out demanded McClurkin be dropped from Obama’s “Embrace the Change” tour, he should have followed suit and embraced McClurkin’s change. Instead, Besen said: ”We strongly urge Obama to part ways with this divisive preacher who is clearly singing a different tune than the stated message of the campaign.”

I beg to differ. Like anybody else, McClurkin’s life story is his to tell. McClurkin told Ebony magazine he battled homosexuality for 20 years after several episodes of sexual abuse. Anyone should be able to understand how a child who was abused that way could grow to be confused about the role of sex and sexual identity.

As a Christian, McClurkin adheres to a fundamental view of the Bible that condemns homosexuality: ”I don’t believe that it is the intention of God,” he said.

The Grammy-winning singer also mirrors contemporary black religious thought when he says he does not believe in discriminating against homosexuals: ”What people do in their bedrooms and who they are as human beings are two different things.”

We cannot let our passion for civil rights negate the right for people to hold their heartfelt religious beliefs. Despite what gay activists insist, believing the Bible’s admonitions against homosexuality does not make Christians homophobic. It is not an either/or proposition. If it were, guess who would lose? Christianity has a better PR machine, considering it has a best-selling book attached to it. Ultimately, those who denigrated McClurkin and Obama (who says he does not hold the singer’s views) were really condemning people of faith.

Bottom line, the ruling in the Commonwealth vs Cirignano trial proves Sarah Loy had no right to disrupt the “Let the People Vote” rally on December 16, 2006. Therefore, there is no reason to pursue the criminal complaint against her. Here’s the announcement:

Ms. Worthington, a volunteer agent of the Massachusetts Family Institute, today dropped a complaint against defendant Sarah Loy in connection with Loy disturbing a lawful assembly last December 2006. Massachusetts Family Institute held the municipal permit for a “Let the People Vote” rally and Ms. Worthington coordinated the event.

Ms. Loy, a director of the Central Massachusetts Chapter of the ACLU, disrupted the duly permitted rally in front of Worcester City Hall. Ms. Loy infiltrated the crowd and blocked the keynote speaker from audience view by holding a sign contrary to the views of the rally organizers.

In a corresponding case decided on October 21, 2007, defendant Larry Cirignano was cleared of charges by Ms. Loy that Cirignano pushed her out of the podium area, causing her to fall at that rally.  Judge David P. Despotopulos’ order in that case, holding that Ms. Loy had no constitutional right to enter into or disrupt the permitted rally, essentially makes the same point as the application for a complaint against Ms. Loy.  As was proven in court, Ms. Loy’s fall was accidental on her part, and she was never injured – to which we are all grateful.

Ms. Worthington believes, and the Massachusetts Family Institute concurs, that justice has been served and additional public resources need not be spent on this matter.

As a result of this legal precedent, Massachusetts Family Institute believes that towns and cities where such rallies are held should confine counter protestors to a separate location.  This would protect the civil liberties and the safety of all rally speakers, attendees and counter protestors.

I’m a Christian and I’ve been working on removing hate from my life. I’m almost there. I still get upset when a driver isn’t looking where he’s going and cuts me off (or worse, *is* looking where he’s going and still cuts me off). But I’m working on that, too. Here’s an interesting column on hatred from Defend the Family:

Hate  has a pretty bad name in the world today. No one wants to be called a hater,  especially Christians, which is probably why we get accused of it all the time  by our opponents. Homosexuals are especially fond of calling people haters.  They even invented the word homophobia, which means hate and fear of  homosexuals, envisaged as a mental illness (a phobia is an anxiety disorder).

I hate being called a homophobe. It has such an ugly connotation. Its  especially unpleasant because, as a Christian, I’m supposed to have a  reputation for loving people, not hating them. So I’ve worked really hard over  the years to try to get the homosexuals to stop calling me a homophobe. I’ve  pointed out the difference between hating people and hating their behavior  (loving the sinner but hating the sin). They hated that. Then I tried “walking  my talk” by taking an ex-”gay” man who was dying of AIDS into my family. My  wife and I and our children loved and cared for him during the last year of  his life. They hated that even more.

Then I began asking for guidance  from homosexuals themselves: “Tell me, where is the line between homophobia  and acceptable opposition to homosexuality?” I asked. “What if I just agree  with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin no worse than any other sex outside  of marriage?” “No, that‘s homophobic,” they replied. “Suppose I talk only  about the proven medical hazards of gay sex and try to discourage people from  hurting themselves?“ “No, you can’t do that,” they said. “How about if I say  that homosexuals have the option to change if they choose?” “Ridiculous” they  answered. “Maybe I could just be completely positive, say nothing about  homosexuality, and focus only on promoting the natural family and traditional  marriage?” “That’s really hateful,” they replied.

After I while, I  realized that the only way I could get them to stop calling me a homophobe was  to start agreeing with them about everything. But here’s my dilemma: I  honestly believe the Bible which says that homosexuality is wrong and harmful  and that all sex belongs within marriage. I’ve also read the professional  studies and know that “gay” sex hurts people because it goes against the  design of their bodies. And I’m friends with a number of former homosexuals  who are now married and living heterosexual lives. Do I have to give up my  religion? Ignore scientific facts? Betray my friends? Is that the only way to  avoid being called a hater and a homophobe?

There’s no escape. A  homophobe is anyone who, for any reason, disapproves of homosexuality in any  way, shape, manner, form or degree. This leaves me with just two choices:  agree that everything about homosexuality is natural, normal, healthy, moral  and worthy to be celebrated OR be labeled as a mentally ill, hate-filled  bigot.

Am I wrong? Is there any way to openly disapprove of  homosexuality without being a homophobe? “Gay” leaders, please set me straight  on this.

Because if I’m right, that means the “gay agenda” is to stop  everyone from following the Bible regarding sexual matters. It is, after all,  their stated goal to “stamp out homophobia.” No more religious freedom. It’s  also to suppress scientific research that has reached conclusions they don’t  like, especially if it helps people to change their homosexual orientation  back to a heterosexual one (ask the doctors and scientists at narth.com what  they’ve had to endure). If it discourages homosexuality, even by implication,  it’s homophobic and can‘t be used.

There’s a queer reasoning behind  all of this. Homosexuals call me names like bigot and homophobe, condemn my  religion, mock my rational conclusions about social issues, impugn my motives,  display intense hostility toward my actions, and curse my very existence, all  under the justification that I’m a “hater.” But if I’m a “hater” for civilly  opposing what they do, why aren’t they haters for uncivilly opposing what I  do? Such a double standard, in the context of a public debate on “civil  rights,” is not just hypocritical, it is surreal.

I admit I have some  hate. I hate watching people kill themselves with preventable diseases like  AIDS. I hate seeing children being steered toward unhealthy lifestyles. I hate  having my pro-family views distorted by dishonest journalists, politicians and  academics. And I hate seeing my God being treated like a homophobe for what He  teaches in His Bible.

So if you’re not going to stop calling me a  “hater” for wanting homosexuals to be saved and healed, or for opposing  their political agenda, let’s at least see a little more of that famous  “American sense of fair play” in the public debate on this issue. Hatred of  “haters” is hateful too.

Having just lived through the trial involving local ACLU board member Sarah Loy’s fall at the Vote for Marriage rally in December, I’m a little sensitive to the issue of over-dramatization in the name of free speech. Here’s an interesting story from Washington DC about the anti-war group Code Pink. Apparently they regularly get out of hand at Congressional and Senate meetings. This from GOPUSA:

It seems that, increasingly, Congress is being run by Code Pink.

The anti-war group’s members are often arrested on Capitol Hill for disrupting congressional hearings and events.

However, few protests have been as dramatic as Wednesday’s, at which protester Desiree Anita Ali-Fairooz screamed at the secretary of state and yelled that the blood “of millions of Iraqis” is on the hands of the administration.

First of all, it’s clear from the way these “protestors” rant that they are looking for attention more than substantive results. AS you can see from this video, all the police officer had to do was grab the woman’s wrist, and she immediately starts screaming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgkuYJnYP4U

I’m sure you’ve been following the controversy over the new program at King Middle School in Portland, Maine. The school committee wants to allow middle school children, grades 6-8, to have unlimited access to birth control without parental consent. The school committee voted in favor of the resolution 7-2.

One of the members who voted against it is concerned and has proposed a plan to limit access…kind of. This from the Portland Press Herald today:

A Portland School Committee member wants to give parents the power to keep their children from participating in a controversial new plan to make prescription birth control available to students at King Middle School.

Benjamin Meiklejohn submitted a resolution Monday, to be considered by the committee on Nov. 7. The proposal would give parents the option to block access to prescription contraception if they enroll their children in the King Student Health Center.

Meiklejohn’s proposal also would limit access to prescription contraception such as “the pill” and “the patch” to students who are at least 14 years old.

The committee’s 7-2 vote last week would make King the first middle school in Maine to offer a full range of contraception in grades 6 to 8, when students are 11 to 15 years old, school officials said.

Here’s the catch…

Although students need written parental permission to be treated at King’s health center, state law allows them to receive confidential care for reproductive health, mental health and substance abuse issues. So parents who allow their children to be treated there may never know whether their children receive the pill or the patch or any other reproductive health care.

King’s health center, which is operated by the city’s Public Health Division, has provided condoms as part of comprehensive reproductive health care since it opened in 2000.

So the new plan still allows access to birth control without parental consent because it forces parents to enroll their children in the health center before they can opt-out of the initial birth control program.

Does that sound like the government or what? No limits on children and circular reasoning to boot.

I won’t be surprised if Bishop McManus finds he has no choice but to dissociate Holy Cross College from the Catholic Church. Holy Cross President Father McFarland seems to be picking and choosing which of the Church’s teachings he and the college support.

This on the Phi Beta Cons blog at National Review:

The College of the Holy Cross has decided to play host to an Alliance on Teen Pregnancy conference, sponsored by NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Not surprisingly, certain students and alumni are troubled by this decision. In a response to those upset by the decision, the College’s president, Michael McFarland, SJ issued the following letter:

Dear …,

Thank you for your message. I commend your concern for the unborn.

However, I cannot look at the Alliance on Teen Pregnancy as simplistically as you seem to do.

It is not and has never been the mainstream Catholic position, and certainly is not the Jesuit position, that we should run away from public discussions of issues that are important to us just because of the presence of those whose positions or activities we find to be wrong…I must point out that the strategy of some pro-life groups to shun Planned Parenthood and thus discredit them in the public eye, however justified in theory, has been a miserable failure in practice. To the extent that the Church has tried it, all it has done is marginalize its own voice, which is tragic.

By refusing to take part in broad-based efforts to help young girls and their children, we play into the hands of Planned Parenthood, who want to portray us as only caring for our own ideology and not for the welfare of women. I think that…a much sounder strategy of involving itself in important efforts to protect the welfare of children and young people in ways that we find morally acceptable. If successful, these efforts could lead to fewer abortions. In any event, given importance of the work done by the Alliance and the involvement of Catholic Charities and other Catholic groups, I don’t see that we are compelled to withdraw from the agreement to rent space to them.

JayG’s Defend the Faith blog has done a phenomenal job tracking the whole story, complete with letters from Holy Cross alumni to Fr. McFarland. Follow the whole story starting here.

Larry Cirignano, former Executive Director of Catholic Citizenship, has been found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Sarah Loy of the ACLU accused Mr. Cirignano of assault and battery while attending a “Let the People Vote” rally in support of the marriage amendment on December 16, 2006. Ms Loy also accused Mr. Cirignano of violating her civil rights. Those charges were dropped last week during the trial.

Mike at pieandcoffe.org has the details about today, the last day in court.

Not only is this appalling news, but I’ve heard personal testimony from former abortion clinic workers who saw doctors refuse to stop abortions even after the woman has said “no.” [Isn't that just another form of rape?]
This from LifeNews.com:

The family of a woman who died from an abortion at an abortion business in this Massachusetts city is speaking out about her death and wondering why the mainstream media has refused to cover it. Laura Hope Smith, who was 22-years-old, apparently died after suffering hemorrhaging caused by an abortion obtained at Women Health Center.

It appears that abortion practitioner Rapin Osathanondh, did the September 13 abortion that may have caused her death.

He made headlines in 2001 when he threatened to kill staff members because of misplaced paperwork.

Nearly 600 people attended Smith’s funeral and the National Catholic Register reports that at least one woman canceled her appointment for an abortion after hearing of the tragic news.

Smith as the Honduran-born daughter of Honduran-born daughter whom Eileen and Tom Smith adopted at the age of five.

Eileen Smith told the Catholic newspaper that she’s upset at the lack of media coverage, other than initial reports in LifeNews.com and other alternative media.

“I don’t want Laura’s death swept under the rug, she told the Register.

“If Laura had died falling off a bike or in a car accident, it would have been in the paper the next day. This is a political hot potato,” she said.

According to Smith, a reporter from the local Cape Cod Times approached her two days after her daughter died for an interview. However, the article never ran in the newspaper.

“My daughter walked into that office healthy and she left dead. I don’t want her death to be in vain,” Smith added.

Smith told the Register that her daughter apparently died on the operating table at the abortion business and that she was not responsive when emergency medical personnel arrived there.

Officials took her to Cape Cod Hospital via ambulance, where she died.

Rapin Osathanondh reportedly met with Eileen Smith for an hour after her daughter died and he admitted the abortion killed her but wouldn’t take responsibility.

A pro-life group has filed a complaint against Osathanondh with the Massachusetts Board of Registration In Medicine regarding the abortion death.

“Our nation is facing a crisis of dangerous abortionists operating in unsafe abortion mills, killing innocent babies — sometimes illegally as we have seen in some states — and injuring and killing unsuspecting women,” spokeswoman Cheryl Sullenger told LifeNews.com.

“More must be done to stop these predatory abortion businesses from inflicting additional human tragedy on society,” she said.

Meanwhile, Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O’Keefe has indicated to the Catholic newspaper that his office will possibly look into Smith’s death but must first get a report from the state medical examiner’s autopsy report, and that isn’t expected until later this month.

Why is it that the Boston mainstream media ignores stories involving Democrats breaking the law, but they’re all over even the slightest infraction by a Republican?

This week, the Worcester Telegram’s Shaun Sutner and several radio stations reported that State Senator Edward Augustus recently signed a legal document that shows his primary place of residence as Boston, Massachusetts. Last time I looked, Boston was nowhere near the Second Worcester district. Senator Augustus can choose from Worcester wards 5-8, Shrewsbury, Grafton, Millbury, Upton, Auburn, or Leicester. But he may not choose to have his primary residence in Cambridge.

Where is the state’s Attorney General or Election Commission on this? Oh wait, Augustus heads the Committee on Election Laws. How convenient.

This from the Telegram:

State Sen. Edward M. Augustus Jr. signed a legal document attesting that a three-bedroom condominium he bought in Boston in January is his principal residence.

After signing the “Declaration of Estate of Homestead” — which protects property owners from some creditors’ claims of up to $500,000 — the Worcester Democrat voted in Worcester’s Sept. 11 preliminary municipal election, in possible violation of election laws that require voters to vote in the district in which they live.

While Mr. Augustus, who is Senate chairman of the Committee on Election Laws, maintained that he never intended for the condo to be his main home and bought it only as an investment, a Republican critic said his ownership of the Boston property shows not only disregard for election laws but also that the lawmaker is not connected to his Senate district.

“He should be indicted for fraud for declaring his residence in Boston, or resign from his Senate seat because his house is no longer in his district,” said Robert Willington, executive director of the Massachusetts Republican Party.

The trial of the State vs Cirignano, where protester Sarah Loy accused Larry Cirignano of pushing her to the ground at a pro marriage amendment rally on December 16, 2006, concluded today in Worcester District Court. There were legal maneuverings on Monday when the trial started, then the prosecution witnesses testified Tuesday and Wednesday. The defense witnesses were on the stand Wednesday, Thursday, and today.

On Thursday, the frivolous civil rights violation part of the complaint was dropped, I assume because of insufficient evidence.

Unfortunately, I missed most of the testimony because I was a witness for the defense. As rally organizer and attendee, I saw enough to be called to the stand. But you can get a pretty thorough account of the proceedings from Worcester blogger Mike at pieandcofee.org:

Afternoon 2

Morning 2

Afternoon 1

Morning 1

Mike arrived late this morning and so missed my cross-exam by the prosecutor. He takes pretty good notes, although he was totally off base in his posting about the criminal complaint I filed against Sarah Loy.

In fact, much of my cross-exam this morning focused on the criminal complaint I filed against Ms Loy for violating the rights of the rally attendees by disturbing the event. There is a lot of case law on this issue that supports the rights of permitted event attendees.

The prosecutor seemed concerned that I didn’t file the complaint right after the event. I wish I could have. I was pretty disappointed after Ms Loy’s disruptive actions at the rally. The Worcester police repeatedly ignored my requests to keep the protesters separate, so I assumed the law wasn’t on my side. When I was told the law was, in fact, on my side, I was determined to file the complaint.

But I didn’t realize I was being timed! Geez, I got there as soon as I could. Unfortunately, my life has been a bit chaotic — way too much plane travel for work, which destroyed one of my knees and left me on crutches and housebound, then a child diagnosed with a herniated disk who was put on immediate bed rest and nasty medications and also housebound. I’ve been intending to file the complaint for quite some time, but wasn’t actually able to get to the courthouse until September.

I’m not going to apologize for the fact that my family’s health and earning a living come before the concerns of the prosecutor.

In the meantime, we’re waiting to hear the verdict on the Cirignano trial. I had to leave early to attend to my child, but the attorneys were about to give their closing arguments at 11:15. So I assume this will go to the jury before the day is out.