More on the Human Rights Commission (HRC) . . . update . . .

[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.


.