Worcester County Freedom Trail » Blog Archive » Re: Let the People Vote Rally in Worcester Draws 200

February 2010
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Jan
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28

Re: Let the People Vote Rally in Worcester Draws 200

I was at the rally, too. Unfortunately I did not see what happened prior to the protester being on the ground. A few observations:

1. The people with the rally permit wanted nothing more than to hold their rally. The protesters in the back, who accused us all of “hate,” were the only ones I saw or heard spewing venom and cursing at others (namely, us).

(a) Amazingly, the lefties never see the irony in this.

(b) The lefties have several easy formulas for shutting off debate. One of their favorites is that if you disagree with them, you are a “hater.” When will the world get tired of this little dodge lefties use to avoid debate?

(c) Do conservatives ever heckle, disrupt, throw pies at, or otherwise trash a lefty’s right to speak in a forum where the lefty is the speaker?

(d) What does it say for the Left’s confidence in the intellectual integrity of their arguments that their debating posture is to shut up their opponents? By labeling disagreements with their views “hate speech,” they have successfully stifled debate. They cause people who disagree with them to lose their jobs because corporations are frightened of lawsuits and bad publicity. In Canada, certain aspects of “hate speech” are indeed now crimes. It would not surprise me at all if it soon is a crime in Massachusetts for a minister to refuse to “marry” a same-sex couple. (A priest in Canada is being sued over this.) And if you don’t think free speech can be criminalized in the United States on account of the First and Fourteen Amendments to the US Constitution, I’ve got five words for you: McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.

2. It seemed the Worcester T&G article author’s sympathies were pretty much with the protesters. The pure, plain reporting, the “just the facts, ma’am” reporting, occurred in discussing the points about the rally that focussed on what the speakers said. But the portion of the article about the confrontation pretty much conclusively reported the rally-holders as committing unprovoked violence, thus buying into the lame “if you disagree with the left, you are a hater” meme. If the reporter, Richard Nangle, based his account of the incident, on his own eyewitnessing, it seems to me that he should disclose this to his readers, rather that asserting the accounts as simply undisputed fact.

(a) Mr. Nangle gave the protester’s remark about “I have a right to be here” as news, and yes as a remark it was, but left the impression that the protester was right. I know reporters are on terribly tight deadlines, with too many assignments and not enough bandwidth, so I criticize here with some trepidation. But if the reporter has not sufficient time to do the research to know that protesters are not permitted to be in the area for the rally where the rally-holders had a permit to be, then it is best to leave off the protester’s assertion of what the law is where there is no counterassertion in the article, even though the FACT that the protester made the assertion is, in fact, plain news.

(b) With less trepidation, I have to say that the article (and I’m sorry to say this about Mr. Nangle, whom I do not know, and against whom I have no animosity) is typical of the MSM in that it blew out of proportion the incident. It was one incident and extremely minor. (I have to say that Mr. Nangle may well have not been responsible for the front-page story headline, which was “Worcester Rally Turns Ugly” with a subhead of “Gay Marriage Backer Pushed”.)

(c) The individual who fell was not lying “motionless” on the ground, certainly not in the sense that it would give most readers the impression that she was unconscious. Also, it is highly debatable that her head hit the ground at all, and if it did, believe me, if it “slammed” the sidewalk (Mr. Nangle’s words), she really would have been motionless, and an ambulance would have come.

3. I did not see the incident itself, but I was there in the immediate aftermath. I do not propose that I am a mind-reader, like the protesters do, who apparently know (a) that I hate everyone who is not a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, or something like that, and (b) the intimate details of my relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, because their signs judge that my heart is not following Christ, though in fact if I am not mistaken they’ve been commanded not to judge others. But one does get a sense of when something is well scripted, acted, staged. Sure, I am not medically trained, nor were I so, did I conduct an examination. But the individual in question appeared to me to be completely unhurt. She showed no scrapes or visible injuries to the police, who where on the spot within seconds. No ambulance came or was requested. She laid on the ground, not motionless but squirming around, crying very loudly, for what seemed a couple of minutes, a very long time for someone uninjured. She kept crying something to the effect of “This is what happens when people hate! Do you see what happens when people hate?” Ah, how convenient that the “assault” by us Neanderthals has proved her very point that we are all haters.

Now, I don’t know about you, but based on my experience when I’ve been hurt, it’s just not natural to cry out the way she did … if you are really hurt. My impression is that the entire event was staged. The accounts I have heard are that she barged into the crowd (illegally, since the protesters had no permit to be there as protesters), pushed and shoved people to get up near the podium, and stepped on one teenage girl’s foot in the process. It seems to me she may have been attempting to provoke someone to push back, and in any event, whether or not anyone did, to deliberately fall and stage a scene. This was the impression of a great many who were there. None of this was reflected in the T&G article, and for this I believe Mr. Nangle was remiss. I ask Mr. Nangle to seriously ask himself (privately, of course) whether or not his preconceived ideas of which side in the issue is right lead him to play his violin to the tune of “lefties are victims, those who oppose them are oppressors.”

Posted in Uncategorized December 17th, 2006 by Mark | 40 comments

40 Comments

Again, it disgusts me that you’d try to spin this. If you have a problem with someone at a public event, you can talk to that person, you can ask the police to deal with it. Shoving people is not OK. To me, shoving women is especially not OK. If a person is such a hothead that he can’t control himself in mildly confrontional situations, maybe he should know himself well enough to avoid them.

Comment by Mike Benedetti — December 17, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
It’s pretty bad when you are standing up for a man who assaulted a woman. The facts were that the president of Mass Catholic Citizenship stepped aways from the podium and pushed a woman with a sign to the ground. If she was such a threat, why didn’t he have a policeman take her away? No, he took it upon himself to assault the woman plain and simple.

Comment by Buddy — December 17, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
When did the world flip flop?
When did the loony left, bong smoking, peace sign, make love not war, gun banning, hippy dippy clowns become the TOUGH guys!!???

The left initiates violence, invokes a policy of intimidation. Interestingly, if it actually came down to a confrontation, the (RIGHT) would HURT the (LEFT) in a bad way, VERY BAD WAY.

The left better be careful choosing what game they play, because the best players are on the bench waiting to get IN the game!

Comment by Knightbrigade — December 17, 2006 @ 6:47 pm
Hey listen, I was there. I saw the incident. I don’t condone violence of any kind at rallies or protests. I believe in working with the police to control the crowd. Notice the paper didn’t mention that we talked with the police numerous times about keeping the protestors away from the rally. They were way too close and were hurling obscenities from the moment we started. But the police didn’t care. They said the protestors were fine where they were, even though they didn’t have a license to be on City Hall property and they were supposed to stay apart from our group. A bit of inciting going on, don’t you think?

On another note, there are a couple of physics issues that were ignored by the press. According to a witness that was about 15 feet from the incident, Larry and the protestor were heading in direction A, into the crowd. When the woman fell, she fell at a near 90 degree angle from their direction of movement, a physically impossible feat for Larry to accomplish if he was pushing her, but definitely possible if it was an act by the protestor. And she was in the thick of the crowd; how did she hit the concrete that hard to begin with without being cushioned by others in the audience? If her head did hit the concrete as hard as the T&G implied, why in heavens name didn’t she call an ambulance?

Comment by sharilee — December 18, 2006 @ 12:03 am
This is a bold faced lie that will be soundly refuted when video evidence is shown. I think that people are waiting to hear what Larry has to say before going public, but we shall see what happens.

No one has the right to put their hands on someone else no matter the circumstance. I have had people from the right call me names, but that does not give me the right to touch them in any way.

With the way Sharilee is shading the truth I wonder if she was at the same demonstration I was. Damage control isn’t going to do much to explain away what is shown in pictures for all to see.

Lies seem to pour from the “moral” side of this issue like water from a fire hose. What do you think God will say to you for bearing false witness? For shame.

Comment by John Hosty — December 18, 2006 @ 1:23 am
Sharilee,

I’ve been a recent reader of your blog. I myself am a blogger. I focus on pro-life issues, marriage, contraception alternatives, the problems arises with artificial conception and no-fault divorce. I only sometimes write about same-sex marriage if it is relevant to the topic. I’ve been called every name in the book. Ignorant, bigot, and hag. I’ve been swarmed by individuals who linked over to my blog, who had no idea what I stood for. These drive by commenters don’t even read what is being written.

But also I do have people that read about my concerns as a stay at home mother of three children, and how the institution of marriage is my life. Marriage is not a legal instrument. It is something that civil laws can never grasp. Civil laws have rarely been apart of marriage, only in the past forty years has marriage been subject of civil laws and that is mainly due to court system handling divorce.

Marriage is created by natural law. The needs of a mother and her children to be loved and honored by the father. It makes sense that men and women engage in making the commitment prior to engaging in procreative activities. I’ve given up every personal and material want and put them aside to love my children and my husband as a wife and mother, and my husband has done the very same as husband and father. They come before me, and I and my children come before my husband. Homosexuals and other companionships do not have this element.

I even discussed with many homoseuxals who understand that even I might disagree with them, I understand many of them have made a personal investments in a realtionship. I even suggested that we should call everything civil unions as a matter of law if the state can not make the distinction between heterosexuals and homoseuxals. So I find the irony that someone says how wrong it is to shove especially a woman (Yes, all assault is wrong), but they have no problem making my sacrifice I make 24 hours a day as a wife and mother with pregnancy, birth, and raising childring (including on demand breast feeding) into a meaningless word. As a matter of law, my family doesn’t exist. Ouch! Marriage now holds no substance, because everyone is entitled to the word no matter what they do with it. Maybe some benefits or even detriments like divorce are a civil right, but marriage as a word is not.

I’m a wife and mother. My husband works to provide and care. The state should encourage this behavior because it reduces poverty for women who are mothers and reduces the crime rate of children who have fathers. If the state does not endorse this, then they must stay neutral regarding the word marriage.

My husband and I literally don’t have the time to fight this fight regarding the laws. But we deal with it in our own way, we stay committed to each other and we love each other in many ways, in ways that no other relationship can and open ourselves to any children that may come. Marriage use to be a highly valued institution. Prior to the same sex marriage, marriage laws rather were horrible to begin with. The idea that one spouse can just abandon the family with no punitive measure and the courts endorse this concept is terrifying.

Shoving is wrong but taking away marriage for the most venerable isn’t right either. So I always wondered why any other relationship outside marriage would want to be subject to these laws?

It isn’t the laws that they want, it is the word.

Renee

Comment by Renee A. — December 18, 2006 @ 11:08 am
An excellent perspective, Renee, one that most people don’t stop to consider. And very well said.

Comment by sharilee — December 18, 2006 @ 11:39 am
Hi folks.
I was at the event.
I took some video, but not as much as I obviously would have liked to have taken!

You can check out the actions of the protesters for yourself at http://www.lonniebrennan.com. I captured some of the protesters banging a drum, giving the finger, yelling asshole, yelling biggot, yelling a lot of other things. Not nice these folks.

Since posting on another site, I’ve received a couple of e-mails which continue the namecalling. Well, at least it’s not like the pushing, shoving, and threats that happened at the event. Yes, the cops could have done a lot more. But fortunately, no one got hurt, even the actress!

Comment by Lonnie Brennan — December 18, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
Renee, It’s clear you feel passionately that marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals, but it’s also clear you do not know the facts about the history of marriage and law in Massachusetts. I feel the need to correct your misinformation. For nearly 400 years civil marriage has been controlled by laws here. Research by Rev. Peter Gomes of Harvard Divinity School revealed that the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony did not celebrate religious marriage at all, but kept the institution strictly secular:
“There would be no clergyman in Plymouth until the arrival of The Rev. Ralph Smith in 1629, but even then marriage would continue to be a civil affair, as these first Puritans opposed the English custom of clerical marriage as unscriptural. Not until 1692, when Plymouth Colony was merged into that of Massachusetts Bay, were the clergy authorized by the new province to solemnize marriages. To this day in this Commonwealth the clergy, including those of the archdiocese, solemnize marriage legally as agents of the Commonwealth and by its civil authority. Chapter 207 of the General Laws of Massachusetts tells who may perform such ceremonies.” wrote Rev. Gomes on February 8, 2004 in the Boston Globe Op-Ed section.

The Supreme Judicial Court’s Goodridge decision made same sex marriage legal is Massachusetts for the past two and a half years, was upheld by the US First Circuit Court of appeals, and the US Supreme Court refused to hear the challenge mounted against Goodridge by the Liberty Council. It is the law of the Commonwealth that same sex couples are treated equally to heterosexual couples who want to marry. The law does not require procreation of those who marry, and infertile or childless couples and women past menopause may marry. Your “Natural Law” argument has no standing in legal practice in Massachusetts, Canada, Spain and other jurisdictions that allow same sex marriage.

I’m sorry that you feel your marriage is undervalued, but that is really your own psychological problem. Your marriage is no less valid now than it was before May 17, 2004. I suggest you make the most of it and get on with enjoying your life, instead of trying to harm the lives of married gay and lesbian couples.

Comment by Steven Keirstead — December 19, 2006 @ 9:52 am
So what does it mean to consummate a marriage?

Two people of the same sex can never have sexual intercourse i.e. coitus. There is never a complete sexual union between the two of them. As a woman, my sexuality can not be interchanged with any other orifice on the human body. The female sexual organ isn’t just another opening for someone else’s pleasure, but the main component of her sexuality. Any other body part or orifice being used degrades her sexual identity as a woman. Anal or oral sex and masturbation never complete the act whether it be homosexual or heterosexual. Anal or oral sex and masturbation are acts that disrespect the female or male body, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual.

Since fertility in a women is limited in all women, an egg only last 12-24 hours and sperm can last up to five say most consummation is infertile so claiming that either a women irregularity of cycles or a man’s low sperm count is not an issue, because the sexuality is intact. I was designed as a women I respect all aspects of my sexuality of the women including my openness to having children. Even sexual intercourse with birth control still opens oneself itself to having children, due to the nature of birth control never being 100% unless you remove the hormonal elements of the reproductive system.

I had a rather liberal education, when I was 14 years old I was sent to the gym for a assembly with no idea (nor did my parents) of what would be taught in which I was told this in 1992 at Chelmsford High…

http://uponchristianhill.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html

“In her presentation, “Hot, Sexy, and Safer,” Landolphi began by telling the teenagers—who were forced by school authorities to be there—“I can’t believe how many people came here to listen to someone talk about sex, instead of staying home and having it yourself.” In the dry legal language of the complaint later filed by parents of some of the students, Landolphi also “used profane, lewd, and lascivious language to describe body parts and excretory functions,” including “eighteen references to orgasms, six references to male genitals, and eight references to female genitals.” (And that was just while thanking the school principal for inviting her.) She asked students to show their “orgasm faces” in front of a camera—which would certainly come in handy for any future on-camera careers in the adult film industry. She invited a male student on stage to lick a condom with her. After discussing anal sex, Landolphi remarked that one would be “in deep sh—.” She told one male student he “had a nice butt” and another that his baggy pants were “erection wear.”

I was fed a line and I bought into it for a while, but I knew this was not what was right. This behavior is not healthy or normal. Relationship after relationship I was used, I was always told there was something wrong with ME because I didn’t like safer recreational sex acts. You think by calling yourselves married, makes you married but you can never be married until you complete the ultimate act of love which is a man’s and woman’s sexuality becomes one in flesh.

To say that some how welcoming children through natural acts is a mental illness?

If marriage has nothing to do with procreation, then why are homoseuxals not open to the idea of marriage available to non-sexual companionships?

The only way you claim that sexual acts between two people of the same sex is normal is to claim that two people of the opposite sex making love is not normal and that hetrosexuals should engage in the same sexual acts as homosexuals engage in and pretent that they are equally pleasurable in enjoyment and contentment.

I having a psychological problem is nonsense and you know it. Even though nicely package all you can do is call people names I guess I’ll have to add it to the list of bigot, ignorant, and hag.

Comment by Renee A. — December 19, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
Do Buddhists have mental issues too?

quotes from the Daili Lama

http://www.bettnet.com/blog/index.php/weblog/comments/not_who_you_thought_he_was/

On homosexuality:

Although he is known for his tolerant, humane views, he is a surprisingly harsh critic of homosexuality. If you are a Buddhist, he says, it is wrong. “Full stop.

No way round it.

“A gay couple came to see me, seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife – astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong.”

At this point, he looks across at his interpreter – who seems mainly redundant – to check that he has been using the right English words to discuss this delicate matter. The interpreter gives a barely perceptible nod.

“A Western friend asked me what harm could there be between consenting adults having oral sex, if they enjoyed it,” the Dalai Lama continues, warming to his theme. “But the purpose of sex is reproduction, according to Buddhism. The other holes don’t create life. I don’t mind – but I can’t condone this way of life.”

Comment by Renee A. — December 19, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
Renee, You and the Dalai Lama, the Pope, Mitt Romney, David Duke and whoever are welcome to believe whatever irrational things you have want about marriage, sex and procreation. That does not mean that your opinions are the majority omonions or the most realistic ones or even the most moral ones. As reported in today’s Boston Metro, 9 out of 10 US residents have sex before marriage. Most of that is non-procreative. The majority of heterosexuals have non-penile-vaginal sex from time to time. This is perfectly normal and healthy and legal, even for homosexuals now. Remember Lawrence v. Texas? Part of the function of sex is to bring people who love each other together, whether or not there is reproduction involved.

Marriage is a human invention and has changed over time and in different societies. Some Native American tribes had traditions allowing same sex marriages before the Europeans came here. No animals get married. DNA studies in many species of birds, once upheld as paragons of monogamy, have shown that promiscuity is present, that the offspring have more than one father. Not that I condone human promiscuity, far from it, promiscuous sex is bad, because it spreads disease and hurts people psychologically. Homosexuality has been scientifically observed in over 1500 animal species, including primates like the bonobo and orangutan. These creatures are genetically very similar to humans. So unlike marriage, homosexuality is not a human invention.

My boyfriend and I have not married yet, though we plan to get married in Boston sometime soon. We have been together since 1991, are monogamous and live and work together. We are together about 22 hours of the day. I doubt many couples are closer or more interdependent. My boyfriend’s main condition for marrying is “no brouhaha,” so it will be a civil ceremony before a justice of the peace.

I’m not religious, and don’t feel the need to track which religions sects or cults approve of my being gay and which ones condemn me. I could care less. Same for my fiancé.

I’m not saying that heterosexual sex or reproduction are any sort of mental illness. These things are perfectly natural, just as Psychology has recognized that homosexuality is a natural variant in human sexuality. I’m saying the obsession with the sex lives of homosexuals is a psychological problem. The belief of yours: that because there are gay male couples and lesbian couples who are married that the union you and your husband share is devalued is not rational. It’s not based on reality or science, it’s a dogma that you have been taught.

I’m sure you won’t agree with me, but it’s important to let you know my thoughts on the matter.

Comment by Steven Keirstead — December 20, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
Stephen,

Thanks for the excellent history lesson. Unfortunately, it falls on deaf ears as regards Renee. Months ago I was engaged with her in dialogue on another site and presented her with some similar evidence (not as comprehensive) after she claimed that marriage and civil law have only recently been linked and that the definition of marriage has been unchanged through the centuries. Renee shuts down when you present facts that counter her assertions. Or she replies later with rambling unrelated statements like the ones in comment 10 above.

I don’t know that you can have a cogent dialogue with her but I think there is great value in presenting an opposing viewpoint and supporting it with facts as you did. I don’t know that it will ever bring further understanding to someone like Renee, but I think it has great value for the casual reader who comes upon her writings.

Comment by Rick — December 20, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
There is a whole lot of people who are going to look very foolish for coming out to pretend Mr. Cirignano didn’t push her. He has already admitted it. I know you will jump to refute my testimony, but will you be so quick to call the Worcester police spokesperson a liar?

EdgeBoston.com
“Officers did not witness the incident, Worcester police spokesperson Sgt. Kerry Hazelhurst told EDGE Dec. 19. If they had, they would have placed Cirignano under arrest on a misdemeanor charge, he said. “He’s already admitted that he touched her,” Hazelhurst reported. Under Massachusetts law, a person can be charged with assault and battery by merely touching another person if the touch is unwanted, Hazelhurst explained. “He pushed her down and he admits that as well.”

Comment by John Hosty — December 20, 2006 @ 10:16 pm
John, there were a lot of witnesses there. I was one. Larry may have admitted to touching the protestor as he led her away from where she wasn’t legally entitled to be. But he did not admit to pushing her. Now you’re just putting words in his mouth and exaggerating the situation for political gain.

This is from today’s Telegram:

“I did not push anyone to the ground,” Mr. Cirignano said in an e-mailed statement. “I had a portfolio in one hand and escorted the lady back into the crowd and left. I never touched her shoulders and she apparently thought that she could draw a foul like it was a basketball game by falling down. Great theater, not Academy Award material.

“She was not in the crowd, she was out in front of the crowd facing them with her sign raised in the air blocking their view of the speakers. I was not debating her, just getting her out from in front of the podium.”

Comment by sharilee — December 20, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
“Under Massachusetts law, a person can be charged with assault and battery by merely touching another person if the touch is unwanted, Hazelhurst explained.”

Soon under Massachusetts law, a (CHEESBURGER) could be CHARGED with assault and battery by merely touching another person.

ANYONE can/could be charged with ANYTHING, lets talk about convictions shall we??? A bogus charge is a bogus charge, no matter what.

Comment by Knightbrigade — December 20, 2006 @ 11:34 pm
Hazelhurst explained. “He pushed her down and he admits that as well.”

This is the police statement. Just the facts ma’am.

When did they take bearing false witness off the Ten Commandments?

Comment by John Hosty — December 21, 2006 @ 8:00 am
Hazelhurst saying Larry admitted something is not Larry actually saying something.

Comment by sharilee — December 21, 2006 @ 8:33 am
Are you accusing the police of misinformation?

Comment by John Hosty — December 21, 2006 @ 9:59 am
I have no idea where Hazelhurst got his information. It’s odd that you now don’t trust the reporter when he quotes Larry directly. This is a bit confusing as you were happy to rely on the reporter when he was saying the things you wanted to hear.

Comment by sharilee — December 21, 2006 @ 10:15 am
Like most of your posts, your last statement is meant to confuse the truth, and you know it.

I trust the reporter got Mr. Cirignano’s quote correct. I don’t believe Mr. Cirignano is telling the media the same story he told police. I think that is easy enough to understand, but you need I can explain why I think that.

I trust Larry Cirignano like a trust Ted Haggard.

Comment by John Hosty — December 21, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
John, you’re just spinning your wheels now, trying to make this a bigger story than it is. Time to move on.

Comment by sharilee — December 21, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
Very dismissive; how reveiling. Why is it that you can make strong statements in support of Mr. Cirignano, but when someone comes here to clarify YOUR spin, it’s time to move on?

You tried and failed to make it sound like I changed my story. The reporter was accurate, but it has been Larry Cirignano that seems to have told two stories. I will move on when there are no more mistruths to refute, unless you are going to start censoring me.

Comment by John Hosty — December 21, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
Ooo, threats! I love it. But I’m sure you’ll want the last word, so go ahead…

Comment by sharilee — December 21, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
Another tid bit of misinformation. I did not make any threat. Is that all you have is lies and hate? How Christian.

Comment by John Hosty — December 21, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
Sorry, gotta run. I have to make cookies to deliver to my Pastor in the am. I know you find it hard to believe, but I really am a Christian.

Comment by sharilee — December 21, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
Words don’t make a Christian, actions do. I walk my talk, and if you know Richard Gregiore then he may tell you the same. There is room for all of us here in America. My belief that God my me the way I am for a reason is my own to believe. No one should feel the right to force there will on someone else, and that is what this marriage struggle is about. If your camp thinks it is a sin, then don’t practice gay marriage. Your rights end where mine begin, and if you want to take my rights away, you need to have a reason. It’s called due process.

Cookies…what kind of cookies?

Comment by John Hosty — December 21, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
John,
I sincerely do believe the Commandments, and what I saw did not fit with getting pushed to the ground, and I think that the statement ‘her head slamming against the concrete sidewalk’ is called into question by the quote in the Globe and elsewhere where Sarah Loy says that she was not hurt.

I’ve stated what I saw, and where I saw it from. I’m also not sure that your side has an assault case in a slam dunk as you initially thought. I think this is indicated by MassEquality’s Marc Solomon calling for Larry to be fired, not for assault, but for ‘aggressive action’ which is inappropriate for movement leaders, who must be held to a higher standard.

I’m not saying the court case is going away, or that your side would ever give up a fight, only that Mr. Solomon’s words indicate a realization that an assault charge against Larry Cirignano is not going to work out so easily. They’ll more likely try to immobilize Larry through embarrassment. I guess your side has got to do what they think they have got to do.

Comment by JayG — December 21, 2006 @ 9:53 pm
Tell me Jay, if the situation was reversed, would the VoteonMarriage people let it go? I am not saying he beat her and left her bloodied battered body unconscious on the sidewalk. I simply said that it was assualt and battery by the police’s words, not mine. Mr. Cirignano was wrong in what he did, and you guys should think twice about coming to his defense, because it paints those who do in a very ugly light.

Comment by John Hosty — December 22, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
If defending Larry means telling what I saw, with details about where I was and the direction and momentum of Ms. Loy and Mr. Cirignano, paints me in a very ugly light, I guess I can live with it, because it’s true.

As a board member of the ACLU, shouldn’t Sarah Loy have been held to a higher standard, the higher standard Marc Solomon alluded to in his comments – a standard that recognizes those who have the permit should not have their rally interrupted from the middle (as Ms. Loy did, standing in front, close to the podium)? This is because she did not have a right to stand there at that particular time, her right was to stand at the edge of our rally. Isn’t that why the Police escorted numerous Anti-Constitution protesters out of the middle of our rally?

Assuming the Police spokesman was right, any unwanted touch is assault and battery, wouldn’t the alleged victim have to indicate that they did not want to be touched first? If not, I envision a Constitutional crisis for subway riders.

Comment by JayG — December 22, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
From the BayWindows article:

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.

Comment by Steven Keirstead — December 23, 2006 @ 8:21 am
To clarify my previous post that was from an interview with Worcester Police spokesman Sgt. Kerry Hazelhurst.

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.

Comment by Steven Keirstead — December 23, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
In defending someone you should ask if their actions were just. Mr. Cirignano has no right to puts his hands on someone, period. Your speculation of the unwanted touching needing to be declared is not lawfully accurate. There was someone from another time that tapped someone on the shoulder and was arrested because the police saw that.

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.

Comment by John Hosty — December 23, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
Btw, Ms Loy’s credibility came into question for me as soon as I saw her quoted in the paper as saying she was just quietly holding a sign in front of the crowd, not saying a word. That is entirely untrue as I was standing off to the side and saw her shouting something to the crowd. I couldn’t make out what she was saying, but she was not silent.

Comment by sharilee — December 23, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
John,
I’m defending Cirignano against a charge of pushing, and assault and battery. You are trying to make the single fact that we agree on; that Cirignano put his hand on Mrs. Loy’s back, into some type of proof that this was a push, or not, and it was assault and battery because you have some old emails of Larry allegedly saying bad things, and you heard from a guy (on BlueMassgroup) who knows a guy who heard Larry pulled some Lady’s hair. On BlueMassgroup you asked for verification of the hair pulling allegation – since you show no news or court record attribution I’ll assume no one provided you with any.

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.

Comment by JayG — December 23, 2006 @ 9:31 pm
John,
To followup what I meant about the situation with Sgt. Kerry Hazelhurst, I would submit the following;

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.

Comment by JayG — December 23, 2006 @ 9:39 pm
I think it is a little late to be trying to discredit Mrs. Loy (not Ms) when Mr. Cirignano is giving to different versions of his story. The police say he has admitted to them he pushed her, yet he wants the media to believe something else. Larry’s other actions seem to lend to a larger picture, but I doubt you’ll comment on that. They’re harder to defend.

Comment by John Hosty — December 24, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
Peter Cassels, National News Editor of Edge, states that he quoted Sgt. Hazelhurst accurately; which leaves us with the situation where it appears that the only conclusions to draw from the apparent contradiction between what Cirignano has said and Sgt. Hazelhurst has said is that either Sgt. Hazelhurst has leaked confidential information or he has ‘misspoken’.

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

Comment by JayG — December 25, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
John, it is never too late to tell the truth. I just report what I saw, both on the part of Mrs. Loy and Mr. Cirignano.

Comment by sharilee — December 27, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
Let’s hope that all people involved remember that sound advice Sharilee, it is never too late to stop spinning the truth. I will be very interested to see how many people are willing to swear the same things they have said under oath.

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?

Comment by John Hosty — December 28, 2006 @ 3:32 pm

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Rational Thought from the Red Part of the Bluest of Blue States

Categories

Blogroll

Candidates

Gear & Stuff

Spread Joy!

Archives

Meta

Search

40 Comments

Leave a comment

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

lipitor is there a generic

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

"cipro and std treatment"

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

lipitor drug cost

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

"cipro and std treatment"

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

lipitor drug cost

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

accutane timeline

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

lipitor drug cost

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

accutane timeline

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

lipitor drug cost

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

accutane timeline

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

"cipro and std treatment"

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

"prednisone stopped taking side effects"

Difference between lexapro and celexa discount nexium 757.

accutane timeline