“He has no concern for the members,” said one legislator, who requested anonymity. “This is stuff we should be dealing with in the first year (of the session). It’s a lose-lose for anyone facing a challenger.”
Another irate Democrat compared DiMasi unfavorably to his predecessor, former House Speaker Thomas Finneran, saying the controversial vote could alienate support for the embattled North End Democrat.
“Finneran always did things to protect the membership,” the lawmaker said, “and he (DiMasi) has only worked to protect himself.”
Even pols who support the repeal of the 1913 ban on out-of-state residents from marrying here are concerned about the political timing, which renews the roiling gay marriage debate and provides opponents with fresh fodder only months before voters decide who to send to Beacon Hill.
How bizarre. It’s bad timing only because it brings back the gay marriage debate? While this certainly isn’t great timing for gay marriage supporters and supporters of the repeal, I would suggest that it’s bad timing because it takes time from the legislature to worry about problems within the borders of the Commonwealth rather than trying to advance the gay marriage lobby. We have the rising costs of health care and energy and the Legislature is going to take time to worry about whether or not out-of-state gay couples can get married in Massachusetts? Please… this is a complete waste of their time.
Meanwhile, the state Senate has voted in favor of raising taxes on all cell phones, and voted against requiring convicted child rapists to register with the Sex Offender Registry Board for life, against 10-year mandatory minimum sentences for the first offense of rape of a child by force, and against prohibiting convicted sex offenders from operating ice cream trucks. Is our biggest problem right now whether or not out-of-state gay couples can get married here? I don’t think so.
Let’s worry about our own problems first before worrying about the problems of people that don’t live in the Commonwealth.
Bad political timing? It’s only bad political timing if you believe supporting the repeal could have adverse effects on your re-election.
Rob Willington Executive Director of the Massachusetts GOP, issued the following statement:
“If Jim Marzilli isn’t showing up for work, then why should we keep paying his full time salary? Beacon Hill Democrats want to protect their own, but they should do the right thing and immediately expel Senator Marzilli since he is not showing up for work.”
Willington noted that to pay Marzilli’s yearly salary costs the taxpayers the equivalent of 4,559 gallons of gas, 17,701 Big Macs, or 322,000 eggs, or 15,751 gallons of milk.
Critics of politics-as-usual at the State House have long railed against lawmakers who pull double duty as defense lawyers.
The issue reared its head during debates over Melanie’s Law, which toughened drunken-driving penalties and has been an omnipresent factor in ongoing discussions about toughening the state’s sex-offender laws.
Rep. James Fagan, a Taunton criminal defense attorney, recently argued on the House floor against Jessica’s Law, a measure that would set mandatory minimum sentences for child rapists.
“Let me tell you why it’s so wrong,” said Fagan (D-Taunton). “It’s so wrong because in these situations . . . that 6-year-old is going to sit in front of me, or somebody far worse than me and I’m going to rip them apart. I’m going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined. That when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep. When they’re 19 years old they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody. And that’s not because I’m a nice guy. That’s because when you’re in court, and you’re defending somebody’s liberty, and you’re facing a mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions, you have to do every single thing you can do on behalf of your client. That is your obligation as a trial lawyer.”
Fagan, who opposed Melanie’s Law, also criticized laws named in honor of victims, calling such measures “knee-jerk” legislation.
“Why doesn’t he figure out a way to defend that child and put these kind of people away instead of trying to figure ways for defense attorneys to get around Jessica’s Law?” Mark Lunsford fumed, slamming recent remarks by Rep. James Fagan. “These are very serious crimes that nobody wants to take serious. What about the rights of these children?”
Lunsford, whose daughter Jessica was raped and murdered in Florida by a repeat sex offender, will be in Massachusetts tomorrow to push lawmakers to pass Jessica’s Law, which would require a 20-year sentence for rape of a child under 12. The House passed a watered-down version of the bill last week but Lunsford and other victims’ rights activists will be pushing the Senate to include mandatory prison time in the final law.
“If this bill is not going to put these people away, don’t disrespect me by putting my daughter’s name on it,” Lunsford told the Herald last night. “You have to put these guys in prison and admit these people are uncurable.”
