Mass. Catholic Conference Joins with Focus on Family to Accomplish What They Believe about Gay Marriage
       The Mass. Catholic Conference has joined with Focus on the Family to accomplish what they believe must be done to prevent gay marriage:
       ● Their proposed Amendment will not ban civil unions. They say: "The reality in Massachusetts is that a constitutional amendment banning homosexual civil unions simply would not be able to pass the Legislature."
       ● They have jointly formed a new organization, called "Vote on Marriage.org."
       ● The new group says they are the "official sponsoring organization" of the "Protection of Marriage Amendment." That was the exact name of MCM's Amendment in 2001-2002. The new group has no legal or moral right to use the name of that Amendment. Some lawyers believe that that Amendment might still be approved when the present judges on the SJC are gone, for whatever reason, particularly if they are removed by Rep Emile Goguen's Resolution and are replaced by new judges who disagree with Margaret Marshall.
       ● According to the new group, people in 18 states have "spoken clearly" by amending their constitutions to forbid gay marriage. But they do not reveal that the vast majority of those states also ban civil unions. This is identical to what happened to the Federal Marriage Amendment before the last election where James Dobson (and his affiliated groups) were alone among the national family organizations in insisting that the Federal Amendment must not ban civil unions. He then suddenly changed his mind last year and to the best of our knowledge still favors banning civil unions on the federal level.      
       ● An inaccurate history of the fight for traditional marriage is presented on their websites. It says that the fight began in 2001 but it never says that it was MCM that presented the "Protection of Marriage" Amendment nor does it mention the name "Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage." It does not tell the truth when it says: "Efforts to approve an amendment banning both homosexual marriage and civil unions have failed twice, first in 2002 and again in 2004." Also it does not tell the truth when it says: "The first Protection of Marriage Amendment then proceeded to pass all the legal challenges necessary. The petition was killed, however, with a procedural maneuver by then Senate President Tom Birmingham. The amendment never received a vote."
       In that section, the reader can see that the new group uses the buzzword invented by the Boston Globe, "procedural maneuver" when the Globe lied about gay marriage. What Tom Birmingham did was not a "maneuver" but an illegal violation of the state Constitution as stated by a unanimous SJC (including Margaret Marshall) on Dec. 20, 2002 in response to suits brought by MCM attorney J. Edward Pawlick. That attorney was not joined by either member of the new group because both the Massachusetts Family Institute (the local state chapter of Focus on the Family) and the Catholic Conference ran from the scene after the violation of the state Constitution in July 2002, whereas MCM stayed to successfully battle alone.
       ● Who is Larry Cirignano? Larry is a native of New Jersey, who also worked in Washington D.C. as an "operator." He arrived here during the failed effort in 2004, as head of the Catholic Church's unsuccessful attempt to combat the successful attempt of the politicians (80% of our legislators are Catholic) to confuse the whole issue so that it would fail and Archbishop O'Malley and other leaders would be discouraged.

The attorney for MCM, J. Edward Pawlick, was introduced by a friend to Larry shortly after he arrived. Larry is an attractive man probably in his thirties, much like Mitt Romney. He has the chiseled good looks and the ambition to be an important leader on the national level
	Former Mayor Flynn, Archbishop O'Malley, and Larry Cirignano (right). He likes to be seen with important people

       In the current scene, Larry has put all the efforts of the Church behind another Amendment forbidding gay marriage. That could not be enacted for probably at least another six years. Larry knows nothing about the history in Massachusetts before 2004 except secondhand, which is what he reads or is told. That may be part of the reason that his histories are so inaccurate.
       Little of his work has the name of our state in it, probably because his ambitions go far beyond Massachusetts.