I sent an email to Richard Nangle of the Worcester Telegram last night concerning his article about the "Let the People Vote" rally at Worcester City Hall 'turning ugly' as his headline put it. No reply yet.
A quote from Nangle's article said, "Mr. Cirignano then pushed her to the ground, her head slamming against the concrete" but in today's Boston Globe Sarah Loy is quoted as saying "she was not injured during the fall". That would appear to contradict Mr. Nangle's story.
In the Boston Globe story Loy also asserted that Mr. Cirignano put both hands on her shoulders and pushed her, but she did not indicate if she was facing him or moving away from him with her back to him. As I stated before, I did not see Mr. Cirignano touch Ms. Loy and I never saw Mr. Cirignano's hands at shoulder height. There were many witnesses to this incident, unfortunately Mr. Nangle only interviewed the woman who staged it.
24 comments :
Cause anyone who falls gets injured... its the law.
I think she pressed charges, Globe reports today Worc Police will summons Larry Cirignano.
Nice try at obfuscation. But it won't work.
Nangle is going to testify in court as a witness. He saw the attack as it happened (and it was an attack, a premeditated and unprovoked attack) as an eyewitness, and said so in an email to David of BlueMassGroup today.
You can parse the T&G article until the sacred cows come home, JayG, but the bottom line is that it's what Nangle will say in court that matters, not your tortured spin on his news story.
Cirignano is a hypocrite and a thug with an anger management problem, one that has finally caught up with him. Not only is he on the wrong side of the state Constitution on this one, but that most of the Commonwealth doesn't share his views. He and his hangers-on are going to lose. He knows this and can't deal with it. And this incident, when it gets further play in the papers, will finish whatever shards of credibility he may have had as a "leader."
As for his propensity for bullying and assaulting people smaller than him, I think he should get professional help, and I hope that the court recommends he do so.
How do you stage the head of the Catholic Citizen's Group running over and pushing a woman to the ground?
This does not seem like a very Christian website. I have respect for the truth, and if this was one of our own I would not be trying to lie in order to do damamge control. I would simply not discuss it.
When was bearing false witness taken out of the Ten Commandments?
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.
What Mr. Cirignano did was wrong, and it would be no less wrong if a leader on our side had done it. I think that the difference is that we would not have tried to defend such actions, we would have made a public statement denoucing violence, and we would have put our leader on administrative leave until the court case was resolved. By failing to act it draws more attention to the hypocracy accused against Christian morality.
I find it ironic that Christ calls his followers to love their neighbor, and God gives us free will in order to let us define ourselves, yet Christians such as yourself pay no attention to either point. Instead of trying to love those who you do not understand, thereby drawing them closer to God through your good will, you choose instead to demonize gay people, drawing a line in the sand where it becomes an "us against them" sort of world.
Fear and hatred are not American values, and America is not a theocracy. Denying civil rights based on religious values is not constitutional, whether it can be pulled off or not. Many times in our nations past we have made the wrong decision, and denying rights are part of that past. Our country is great because of it's diversity, not in spite of it. You do not need to agree with everything your neighbor thinks in order to be a good neighbor yourself.
John,
I'm not trying to demonize anyone, but when 4 judges redefine marriage, which is actually an institution not a civil right, and Legislators undermine the People's right to the initiative petition process by ignoring their oath of office, I become involved; as you did.
The Constitution defines individual rights, what the SJC did was create a group right, and that needs a little more debate than Sen. Travaglini recognizing Jarret FluffnNutter Barrios on Jan. 2, 2007 at the ConCon, so that can kill the Petition again by violating their oath of office.
Just because these guys do not profess a mainstream religious faith, or a faith in God, does not mean these actions do not smack of a secular theocratic rule by the elite few. We had a "Let the People Vote" rally on Sat. 12/17, no matter what the Newspaper mislabels it, and you should be shocked that the ACLU is so willing to undermine our civil rights to petition the government. It sometimes seems that your side is more interested in results instead of the democratic process. And Massachusetts is the only State where you could pull off this coup, the coup d'etat of special privilege for a select group.
Why is the right to redefine marriage a civil right? What is this based on?
Placing a blanket statement against an entire class of people and their conduct as being bad for society in general constitutes demonization in my opinion, and that is what you defend.
The SJC did not stick its nose where it did not belong; it was invited by the legislators to give a ruling about the constitutionality of gay marriage, civil unions and the like. They simply did their job by reading the wording of the state constitution and consequently had to issue a ruling your side of this issue didn't like. I saw no one complaining on your side when the SJC ruled your amendment could continue on to the legislators.
As quoted in the Goodridge decision, marriage is a civil right first officially recognized by the United States Supreme court in Loving v. Virginia. It says it outright; it does not beat around the bush.
The legislators have not undermined the people's rights. Most are lawyers, unlike the common citizen, and know that there is no such thing as a vote on someone's civil rights. My inalienable right to marry who I wish has stronger legal defendability than your desire to vote that right away.
This is a representative form of government. Elected officials are to vote as they see fit in the best interests of their constituents. If they do an undesirable job, your recourse is at the ballot box, not at the expense or violation of my civil rights. Legislators have been killing bad ideas with parliamentary procedures for hundreds of years, why is this any different? The step of having to pass twice through the legislators in order to go to a direct vote of the people was put in place so that people could not put foolishness into law easily.
While trying to defend the anti-gay marriage petition amendment before the SJC, the assistant attorney general had to admit that the same stance he was using to defend people's right to vote on this issue could also bring back slavery. Would that be constitutional in your opinion?
We became involved for two different reasons. Your side decided that all gay people were unworthy of being married, and you have complained that by allowing gay people to marry, we would experience social ramifications. Because none of these fears have manifested themselves the focus has shifted onto "let the people vote" in an attempt to divert people's attention that due process has not been honored.
I got involved not because I am sure I want to marry my partner of 12 years, but because of the principle behind it. Being gay is not a crime, and I have been an outstanding citizen all my life. I have even been a volunteer with the Catholic Church when I was more active, and they were less hypocritical. If you want to take my rights away from me, you should at least be able to look at me as an individual and cite what I have personally done to deserve that action against me. That's what due process is all about. It is hard for me to hear someone say that my marriage will ruin society when marriages have been taken for granted by straight people for so long.
There seems no circumstance that marriage can in fact be taken away from a heterosexual. They can marry as many times as they want, need no justification for the marriage, and can even be a hardened criminal. A murderer has more right to marry than I do simply because I am gay? That might work in religious circles, but it does not make for good government where the government has sworn to be impartial to different beliefs.
Civil marriage is given by the government and has nothing to do with the holy sacrament of marriage given by Catholicism, or other religions opposed to gay marriage. It is enough that you have the freedom to do as you wish; you do not need to deny others their equal rights, especially when you have failed to justify a need.
I genuinely believe God made me gay and wants me to be happy with who I am. Your right to believe otherwise will always be yours. You are free to speak about it, to teach your children what you believe, but your right to act on that belief ends where my equal rights begin. It is not a special favor to ask that the government recognizes my right to marry who I wish is equal to your right to do the same.
Massachusetts has a long history of leadership in democracy, and at the protests of people like yourself who are handicapped by their own intolerance. We led the nation out of slavery, with women's suffrage, and we led the nation out of the tyranny of King George III of England.
Were civil rights to be given a vote when the populace did not see their value, we would have seen a very different outcome in states like Alabama that had George Wallace for a leader. The fact that this is an issue of civil rights is heavily debated, even though the Supreme Court put it plainly in black and white 39 years ago. Prior to this it was the position of Virginia that God put us on different continents to keep the races from mixing. This type of logic is the company you keep.
Thomas Jefferson, in his 1st inaugural address in 1801 said, “Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable. The minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression".
If you are so disgusted and revolted by the idea of homosexuality perhaps you would be better serving God in another way. One in which your personal views do not overshadow His message of perfect, unconditional love. You certainly are not drawing gays closer to God by saying they are inherently unworthy. If you know this, and you continue to do the same, you should ask yourself if you are doing this for your own glory and not God's.
Look in the mirror and see yourself with the clarity and honesty only your critics are willing to show you. Bigotry may be part of America's history, but it does not need to be part of it's future, and it certainly does not amount to a tradition worth maintaining.
John,
How can we have a reasonable discussion about marriage and the Law if you can't allow for the possbility that I can legitimately question the redefinition of marriage. You are demonizing me because I disagree with your conclusions.
The Massachusetts Constitution protects minority rights when the Legislature decides that an initiative petition is so egregious, such an affront to basic civil rights, that 75% or more of the Legislature vote against allowing the initiative petition to go before the people for a vote, in any one of two ConCon votes over two years.
Your side can't get enough Legislators to vote with you, so you get the next best result, which just happens to violate the Constitution (The Legislature shall vote...), you get the Leadership to kill the petition by recessing, and then adjourning without a vote. This is back room politics, and BayWindows called for it; the BayWindows editorial pointed out that their lobby had donated over $1million to Mass. politicians, had volunteered numerous hours, and called for the Legislator to 'just make it go away.'
Your side did not do an adequate job explaining to the public why the group right to marry someone of the same sex is a civil right, which is why the Commonwealth is still divided on this issue. But you don't want to make your case, you only want results, even if they come from back room politics and subversion of the Constitution. And anyone who disagrees with you is intolerant, a bigot, pro-slavery and miscegenation, a George Wallace racist, a Tory, and someone who drives gays away from God. Well at least you didn't call me a homophobe.
You want things to go only your way, but that is not how life is. The SJC made a ruling for us, then they made one in your favor.
You say that the legislators are violating the constitution; that's a laugh. No one on your side complained in 1990 when the legislators adjourned instead of dealing with the whole pro-choice petition, did they? This is hypocracy and postering at it's most obvious. The legislators have used this tactic 5 times in the past to scuttle unwise and unpopular petitions. As you know, precedent in Massachusetts is as important and as powerful as law.
Since you bring up the point of the $1 million dollars spent to campaign against your bigotry, why don't we talk about the $1.25 million that was spent rigging the petition to look like the will of the people. Why do you think there is a criminal investigation into fraud in this matter?
The civil right to marry needs no explanation past what was already given in the Goodridge decision and Loving v. Virginia 1967. I suppose the United States Supreme Court is not a good enough remedy for the symptoms of mob mentality.
This is America, and people are guaranteed their equal rights. The Constitution does not say equal unless you're gay. The last time I checked the burden of proof layed with the accuser, not the accused. I already have the civil right to marry, and if you want to take it away I am owed the reason. It's called due process.
You seem to be confused as to why gay people might call people like you a bigot. Let's review the definition of the word. A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, as defined in the wikipedia online encyclopedia. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary's definition is synonymous. If the shoe fits...
In order for your attempt to deny my right to marry, you must first show a need. Your side has failed in that responsibility, so it has instead focused on making this issue sound like one that denies other people their rights. Sit back son, you are about to get a lesson served to you from the legislators on January 2; you know, the ones you just filed suit against before they even had a chance to vote. Talk about buring your bridges...
Jayg, hi. I've been trying to get people to think about marriage in a different way, so stay with me, give this a chance: Marriage grants conception rights to a couple, and not all relationships are eligible to be granted conception rights. Conception rights can be granted to same-sex couples, believe it or not. They have already done same-sex conception in mice (see my blog) and we allow them to try it in people, but we can prohibit them from trying it if we choose to. Currently, we allow it, and very few people realize that we need to prohibit it.
Marriage will only be redefined if we enact a ban against same-sex conception, because then marriage won't grant conception rights anymore. But if without a law against same-sex conception, then we can give the rights of marriage to same-sex couples just as if they were a man and a woman.
People should only have the right to conceive with someone of the other sex. This is where the rubber meets the road in marriage, and this should be the entire argument against same-sex marriage. Same-sex conception would be unethical and should not be allowed.
John Howard's statements only prove my point further. Where the need has not been established there should be no action. Is there any evidence to support the idea that gay people are unfit parents? Please don't bother quoting Dobson; he has already been proven a liar. Dr. Gilligan went as far as to post a video article on YouTube.com asking him not to quote her, and refuting what he had said about her work.
The need to deny people from marrying another person of their same sex is that their attempt at conception would be completely unethical and should not be allowed. It has nothing to do with parenting, it is entirely about whether or not we allow people to conceive with someone of the same sex. If we do, we should allow marriage, if we don't, then we shouldn't.
Mr. Howard,
Since my situation involves two people who wish nothing to do with being parents, how do you justify denying us marriage? Where is the need?
So same-sex marriage, and more importantly same-sex conception, undermine and blur gender, make gender irrelevant...What say you John Hosty?
Doesn't this further undermine marriage, making marriage irrelevant because it is now for anyone? I won't defend all the abuse heterosexuals have heaped on marriage, but would point out that much of the homosexual logic for granting marriage rights is basically to say, we're no worse than the heteros. But same-sex marriage could be very well be the final nail in the marriage coffin.
Marriage is a contract, like in business, first and foremost. It used to be chattel; the transfer of property from one man to another. A dowry used to be involved that the father would pay the husband in order to rid himself of her financial burden. The husband was the master, and the wife's vows included to obey him. Even to this day women are not seen as equals in most religions, religated to other duties rather than leadership.
We have seen marriage evolve from this state to where it is today. Marriage is a loving agreement between two people who wish to share their lives together, and little more. Religious institutions have a larger idea of what marriage means, but that does not apply to everyone since not everyone follows the same religion.
The botom line as far as my point of view is concerned is that marriage is a very personal thing, and it's meaning is best left to the individuals involved in it. What you think doesn't apply to the next person, and so on. There is no need to control or dictate what others can and can't do here. If there is need, prove it.
The recent research indicates that places which have had marriage equality for years now are seeing an increase in the amount of people getting married, and a decrease in divorce. Out of wedlock births are down in young parents as well.
Just like everything else, the gays are trendy. If they do it, all the cool kids want in! :)
In Jewish law and religion, the dowry was paid by the future husband for the wife. In the Christian view, St. Paul tells husbands to love their wives as Jesus loved the Church, and Jesus died for the Church. Marriage is not exactly a contract, it's a covenant, not an exchange of money and goods, but an exchange of persons; husband and wife. What you describe is the degradation of marriage, by pagans and gentiles, from where the ancient Jews had elevated it.
Throughout History Marriage has served a great purpose in all cultures of the world, by providing for the domestation of men, the protection of women, and the bearing and raising of children. Citing the abuses of marriage is not really making your case.
If marriage were a personal thing, there would be no need for the SJC to make a public pronouncement on it. Marriage is a public institution, though little understood by the public it appears.
To be fair, the Jews also contributed to the degradation of marriage; as Jesus pointed out, by pressuring Moses to allow them to 'put away' or divorce their wives. As Jesus said, this was due to the hardening of their hearts.
Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion. You don't need to believe in God to get married. You also don't need to procreate to get married. All you need is two people who want to declare a contract between themselves. Marriage is as defined by those whom it involves. You can say you don't like gay marriage all you want, but it doesn't give you the right to put your religious beliefs as law. My freedom to believe and practice what I wish is equal to yours.
I agree John that your My freedom to believe and practice what I wish is equal to mine, but your side used back room political deal making to redefine the public institution of marriage, and I think that the Legislature should vote the petition up or down, not let it die without a vote.
This redefinition needs a lot more analysis and debate because it is not clear that marriage is simply what two people want it to be.
You never had the right to deny us our equality in the ifrst place, and that is what the SJC clarified in the Goodridge decision. I'll take the wins any way we can and be as apologetic about it as your side is about our oppression.
Since my situation involves two people who wish nothing to do with being parents, how do you justify denying us marriage? Where is the need?
We don't care whether the people applying for a marraige license intend or wish to conceive children together, we only care that if they do, it will be ethical. If it would be unethical, we deny the marriage license, even if they state that they don't intend to conceive together.
Post a Comment