Ex-Massachusetts senator Cheryl Jacques says . . .

[TaleWgnDg]

Ex-Massachusetts senator Cheryl Jacques says . . . through friends, reportedly, that she resigned as the head of the Human Rights Commission (HRC), a gay and lesbian lobbying and activist organization, because she disagreed with the direction HRC intended to go . . . which was toward "civil unions" instead of "same-sex marriage."

On the other hand, HRC disagrees that its future main focus would be "civil unions" and not "same-sex marriage."

Replacing Jacques temporarily are Michael Berman, a longtime supporter of gay causes who is straight, and Hilary Rosen, an HRC veteran and former recording industry lobbyist who wrote an essay in The Advocate, a national gay and lesbian magazine, this month. She argued that in a conservative era, gays should push for civil unions, Social Security, pension, and tax benefits. ''Paving a middle road for people to walk down is not caving in, it is building a future," she wrote.

''(Cheryl Jacques) made the decision that the most important issue for HRC was marriage," said (Scott) Harshbarger, Boston attorney, former Massachusetts attorney general (and former head of Common Cause). ''It is what HRC is all about. (Cheryl Jacques) had every right to think that would be accepted by the board. Then they take action to eliminate (her) tenure. . . .I'm afraid all the wrong lessons got learned by HRC. To walk away because you interpret the results of an election to mean (marriage) is not a winner for the community you represent is very sad and misguided, and Cheryl was a victim of that internal power play."

Vincent McCarthy, Boston attorney, well-known gay rights activist, and founder of HRC in New England, says that he was worried HRC, which lobbies on Capitol Hill, chose political pragmatism over ideals in ousting Jacques. ''If we lose, let us lose the whole war," he said. ''If Hilary (Rosen of HRC) tries to pull the movement back to civil unions, there will be a revolution."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/12/13/gay_rights_activists_split_over_taking_softer_course?pg=full

Shall the fight be for "gay marriage" in its entirety? Thereby, risking "gay marriage" in its entirety? Or should the fight remain in small increments, piece by piece, until "gay marriage" is won? Thereby, placing "gay marriage" at lesser risk? Or has the entire issue been "let out of the bag" so that such choices may no longer be made? I'd opt for the latter because neither HRC or any other organization has control over litigants challenging their rights across America in courts now that "the cat has been let out of the bag" in Massachusetts. Thus, the direction should be vetted with that in mind.

However the issue turns, knee jerk discontent toward whatever position HRC claims is misguided and misdirected because "gay rights" needs voices whether "a middle road" in small increments with an eye on the issue of same-sex marriage, or a voice of no compromise toward same-sex marriage. After all, the "same-sex marriage" is not the end-all issue. Instead the appropriate legal conclusion is equal protection of the law -- all laws -- for gays. No discrimination in law against gays -- across the board. Never lose sight of the forest for the trees.

[TaleWgnDg]

1. All of the above . . .

All of the above that I indicated, and as I repeat here:

"Shall the fight be for 'gay marriage' in its entirety? Thereby, risking 'gay marriage' in its entirety? Or should the fight remain in small increments, piece by piece, until 'gay marriage' is won? Thereby, placing 'gay marriage' at lesser risk? Or has the entire issue been 'let out of the bag' so that such choices may no longer be made? I'd opt for the latter because neither HRC or any other organization has control over litigants challenging their rights across America in courts now that 'the cat has been let out of the bag" in Massachusetts. Thus, the direction should be vetted with that in mind.'"

"However the issue turns, knee jerk discontent toward whatever position HRC claims is misguided and misdirected because 'gay rights' needs voices whether 'a middle road' in small increments with an eye on the issue of same-sex marriage, or a voice of no compromise toward same-sex marriage. After all, the 'same-sex marriage' is not the end-all issue. Instead the appropriate legal conclusion is equal protection of the law -- all laws -- for gays. No discrimination in law against gays -- across the board. Never lose sight of the forest for the trees."

turn on two vital variables; that is, if

1.) There is no rightwing shift in those who are seated on U.S. Supreme Court, and
2.) If congress does not remove the power/authority from the federal courts to hear and review these issues (see: U.S. constitution, Article III, Section 1, in pertinent part, "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish(,)" and see, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, in pertinent part, "In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.").

http://www.democraticunderground.com/demopedia/index.php/Constitution#Article_III_-_Judicial_Branch . . . or . . . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/

(note: Throughout demopedia's webpages containing the U.S. constitution are inserted titles, such as "original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, trial by jury," etc. These titles should be deleted because they are not a part of the constitution and are incorrectly stated, overall.)


.

[Lexingtonian]

2. yes, keep the goal in mind

Shall the fight be for "gay marriage" in its entirety? Thereby, risking "gay marriage" in its entirety? Or should the fight remain in small increments, piece by piece, until "gay marriage" is won? Thereby, placing "gay marriage" at lesser risk? Or has the entire issue been "let out of the bag" so that such choices may no longer be made? I'd opt for the latter because neither HRC or any other organization has control over litigants challenging their rights across America in courts now that "the cat has been let out of the bag" in Massachusetts. Thus, the direction should be vetted with that in mind.

I doubt it's that easy. I don't think HRC, or any gay rights organization, can actually "choose" how the gay marriage debate goes. The activists against GM are starting to work just as hard on getting CUs prevented- as a trend. It's all a matter of opportunities and accidents of sorts, running against the systematic sabotage of the interpretations and enforcement of the 14th Amendment by the Right.

However the issue turns, knee jerk discontent toward whatever position HRC claims is misguided and misdirected because "gay rights" needs voices whether "a middle road" in small increments with an eye on the issue of same-sex marriage, or a voice of no compromise toward same-sex marriage. After all, the "same-sex marriage" is not the end-all issue.

I'm starting to think that there is a tacit but serious disunity in gay activism at the moment. I'm not directly involved in any organizations of the kind, nor gay, but gay marriage is where- it seems to me- the thrust of the womens' activism is, and private parity (financial and such by employers) is where the mens' emphasis is. Goodridge and Lawrence seem in a way to have partitioned the overall effort into two. One way of looking at HRC's internal dealings is "Hey, we've done enough for the women and gotten something, getting more there is hard, so let's get back to getting stuff for the men". Gay men have larger numbers and more money overall...not that I want to be telling anyone that what HRC decided is right or best, just that that's part of the internal power dynamic. And HRC is right that Cheryl Jacques's "George Bush- you're fired!" campaign really didn't have a strong sense of the national political environment.

Instead the appropriate legal conclusion is equal protection of the law -- all laws -- for gays. No discrimination in law against gays -- across the board. Never lose sight of the forest for the trees.

That's true. Still, every non-privileged group in the country is fighting and suffering the Right's breaking down/minimizing all semblence of 'equal protection' (civil rights and the economic consequences)- getting it done right and enforced that's the defining struggle of our political age, and in that way gay rights is part and parcel of the whole. So gay rights will progress, necessarily, roughly at the same time and pace as other groups' advances- determined by the overall breakdown of the Right's power.