Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Marzilli’s Defense Team Uses Same Sex Marriage as Part of Defense Strategy

By

You really can’t make this stuff up.  The Marzilli case gets weirder by the moment.  Ever the civil rights crusader according to the Boston Herald, Marzilli’s lawyer says he shouldn’t be tried because no statute covers same sex groping.  Here, read for yourself….

The lawyer defending state Sen. Jim Marzilli against charges of a sexual rampage in Lowell intends to argue the case should be thrown out because there’s no corresponding law for same-sex perverts.

Attorney Terrence Kennedy of Everett told the Herald his unprecedented legal maneuver could allow Marzilli to walk away from four indictments of annoying and accosting a person of the opposite sex.

Kennedy said since Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage, the state should also have same-sex accosting charges.

“If the perpetrator was another woman, they couldn’t be prosecuted and the victims would have no redress,” Kennedy said. “The only reason you can prosecute (Marzilli) is because he’s a man. I’ve got a problem with that.”

Marzilli, 50, an Arlington Democrat diagnosed as bipolar, was ordered to stay out of Lowell yesterday by Superior Court Judge Paul A. Chernoff after pleading not guilty to multiple charges resulting from alleged assaults on four women – including a disabled 60-year-old grandmother – on June 3, when he was in the city for an open house.

Ah yes the “moonbat defense”.  This is really unbelievable but totally predictable.

HT: “What Would Reagan Do?” at RMG

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. …sexual assault is abhorrent.

    <

    p>But the guy has a point with, “The only reason you can prosecute (Marzilli) is because he’s a man. I’ve got a problem with that.” Not being a trained attorney, I don’t know if I agree with the only part (technically, under this logic, another reason Marzilli can be prosecuted is because his alleged victims aren’t men), but almost every law should apply to male and female equally.

    <

    p>That’s the fundamental flaw with “EaBo’s Law”, the law you proposed saying,

    <

    p>

    upon the first offense and conviction of rape of a child I am for castration, preferably without anesthesia.

    <

    p>To which I replied:

    <

    p>

    And how would Eabo castrate female perpetrators?

    Like all those Florida female teachers sleeping with underage boys?  Eabo’s law seems kind of discriminatory if a certain punishment (in this case, genital mutilation) can only be carried out on men.

    Does Eabo propose that we give women offenders clitorectomies, like they do in some barbaric African/Asian fundamentalist Islamic and Christian cultures? Eabo’s law would show the world that America is far more civilized then then the backwards countries to which we wish to export democracy.

     

    <

    p>To be clear, I have sympathy for a person that’s so psychologically messed up that they participate in behavior that’s harmful to others, self-destroys good careers, and brings shame and strife to family life, BUT…There might be reasons and extenuating factors behind Marzilli’s behavior, yet we can’t dismiss it away because we can’t have sexual assaulters walking around. I believe in second chances and rehabilitation, but his government career has to be over. And it doesn’t seem that Marzilli can mount a medical defense that will excuse him from jail time; I won’t lose sleep if Marzilli recieves a fair trial and consequently jailed.

    <

    p>I do think this development makes it a good time for R’s and D’s to come together to bring yet another level of equality under the law and ensure that we are all have legal protections against any sexual assaulter, regardless of sex and gender, and the same with domestic violence and other transgressions that are typically thought of only in the male/female mold.

    <

    p>—–

    <

    p>PS – After thinking this comment through, what would the Constitutional issues be on this? Say Marzilli’s lawyer wins this argument – could the ruing be overturned because the Constitution  would trump the discriminatory man assaulting female law and dictate the law must be applied equally? Or is it the other way around, if Marzilli loses, could the conviction be thrown out under Constitutional law because the law is discriminatory? I doubt anyone would allow the latter because then thousands of MA sexual assaulters’ convictions would be thrown out.  

    <

    p>  

    • G.L. c. 4, § 6 now provides that “words of one gender may be construed to include the other gender and the neuter.”

      <

      p>I’m not sure when this statute was passed (since I don’t remember it being used for gay marriage in the arguments…so I would guess after the fact to comply with the court’s ruling of gender equality), but regardless it is law today and would seem to effectively moot his argument.

      <

      p>-Paul

  2. and declare man-on-woman (and woman-on-man) sexual assaults to be essentially legal. Every pervert picked up for groping on the green line would be completely vindicated. An absurd, cynical and diabolical defense strategy indeed.

    • Funny, the last time I checked, I’m also a man, and the cops haven’t showed up at my door yet…should I be worried? Is this some sort of crackdown on males?

  3. I’m not sure exactly what crime Mr. Marzilli is being charged with, but a quick look at state law on assault reveals that none of these statutes are gender specific.  Without knowing more, I’d say this is just a stunt.  Does anyone know differently?

    • If any woman is sexually assaulted by anyone, of any gender – man, woman, m-to-f or f-to-m transsexual – there would have to be charges for the perpetrator to face.  This defense is ridiculous…  

      • that, among other things, Marzilli has been charged under GL c. 272, s. 53:

        <

        p>

        Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

        • This statement:

          <

          p>

          persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex

          <

          p>…really should be changed – why should it only apply to persons of the opposite sex?  Had Marzilli assaulted men, would they not be able to charge him?  I still don’t agree with Marzilli’s lawyer, but if that’s the case, then he does have a point.

        • And uncommon street walkers, for that matter. Moreover, shouldn’t the common ones be OK insofar as thet presumably are following “common” community standards.

          <

          p>… OK, OK, I am being deliberately obtuse. But it is an amusingly archaic turn of phrase.

          • I wondered what “common railers” were too, and found this, which said the following about the word “common”:

            Whether the word ‘common,’ at used in the statute, has reference only to the frequency of the offence, it is not easy to determine. If so, it would seem to give it no new force; as ‘drunkard* of itself means one who habitually gets drunk. . . . The word ‘ common ‘ would seem to be used in the sense of public. It seems to be the offence to the public peace and good order which the statute is intended to punish. Common pipers and fiddlers. common railers and brawlers, are persons who are so to the nuisance of the public. Applying the familiar rule of construction, noscilur a soctis, he would seem lo be within the statute a common drunkard who not only is an habitual drunkard, but is so to the disturbance of the public peace and good order.

          • …general hookers? And why do they need their own entrance to the State House? What’s wrong with the front door? And how do the specific hookers get in? Is this the entrance reserved for lobbyists, or just sell-out pols?

            <

            p>And where’s the big pimpin’ entrance?  

    • he was diagnosed as bipolar. Seriously, if you’re going to try to make a point, maybe you should try for one that makes sense next time…

      • He could have applied and gotten a license to be crazy and then wouldn’t have had to run dangerously from the cops, risking his life.

  6. Now everyone who said “gay marriage leads to terrible things” can use this as an example.

    <

    p>Thanks, Senator Marzilli!

    <

    p>< /sarcasm >

  7. How responsible are clients for the outrageous claims or arguments of their lawyers? On hiring a lawyer in a case like Marzilli’s, does one expect to vet the arguments that the lawyer makes or does one leave it to one’s attorney to do “whatever it takes to win”. With the threat of jail time, I’d expect a strong incentive to choose the latter.

Archives