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.


.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. What I fear

is that now that AR has one anti-gay amendment on the books (against marriage), will they stop there? Met a lovely lesbian couple over the weekend in Eureka Springs who had just adopted a darling child. Will they have to give her up? I hope not. But with the right wingnuts on the rampage, who knows?

[WyLoochka]

2. I guess I don't understand

the significance of the argument between the use of the words civil union and marriage. Seems to me to be the same thing.

Why would it be such a terrible thing to leave the term "marriage" to the various churches and their denominations to sort out/fight out, while at the same time have the exact same benefits and full protection of the law with civil unions as people have with "marriage?"

Why get hung-up on a word? No one is ever ever ever going to be able to force the Southern Baptists/other Fundie sects, The Roman Catholics etc to accept same-sex "marriage." Why does anyone really give a hoot? Why fight these bigoted churches over what they claim is a "sacrament." Seems to be a guaranteed way to flush all the progress that has already been made right down the drain. It's fighting a battle that can't be won. Leave the churches to their doctrines and sacraments - don't interfere - don't make laws about them. It's the First Amendment after all, and no one can be forced to be a member of one of these sects. Why even care what they think?

If a couple joined in a civil union desires to be "married," why don't they just go to a church that will perform the ceremony? Then it would be a done deal - they'd be "married." The So Baptists and RCs would not regard them as such, but civil society in general, as well as many other denominations, have a lot of disagreements with these churches - so what? Just don't let them make the laws that everyone else has to live with. Take that power away from them, on this issue, by going for civil unions.

Seems to me the most important thing is equal treatment under the law and only the civil government can assure this, the churches can't.

[FaerieWizard]

5. Because the word does have meaning, the right has a point there

See my post below with the problems of backing down.

I'll give the right one thing, the word marriage does have meaning. However, it means different things to different people.

My parents were not married in the church, and we did not attend church due to my mother's southern baptist up bringing. Nevertheless, when I was a kid I did dream of growing up and getting married, not entering a civil union.

I abhor the words domestic partner, lifemate, etc. It makes me feel unequal. I want to be able to say I'm married and have it actually mean married. I'm not asking any religion to accept me as being married, that would be wrong. It's just as wrong for a religion to make their beliefs into a law and force it onto me. Some religions do accept gay marriage, aren't their religious freedoms being trampled on by these others?

When I see straights running to apply for civil unions and domestic partnerships, maybe I'll rethink my stance.

~The FaerieWizard
http://faeriewizard.faerietales.net

[justin899]

7. Because civil unions aren't legally equivalent to marriage

Civil unions confer NONE of the 1183 federal rights and they aren't portable. Furthermore, there is no singular legal definition of what a civil union actually is. Of the 5 states (soon to be 6) that offer civil unions, no two are alike and none of the others are as comprehensive as Vermont (which still lacks federal benefits).

[TaleWgnDg]

11. sonoradesertdem, you probably don't understand because . . .

sonoradesertdem, you probably don't understand because the issue hasn't been presented well . . .

Many folks don't understand it because the issue is never presented in a straight-forward manner without all the hand-wringing and emotional crap that it stirs up. And the rightwing has tapped into that -- they muddy it, confused it, twisted it to their own political advantage; thereby, using people for their rightwing political agenda. Then some of the churches and other religious folks enter the fray with further misinformation about twisted stuff as well to instill fear into people. Fear is a great motivator. Fear shuts down people's ability to cognitively think. As a result, people are too damn confused, mixed-up and ill-informed about this issue -- some to the point of emotional freak-out from fear.

All-in-all, it's no wonder that many States have passed laws and amendments to prohibit this or that regarding the living arrangements of families who are homosexual (including their children) . . .

First of all, remove religion from the mix for the moment. Why? Because it's all about law, not religion. Bear with me, here. It's about non-emotional, stoic, rational, reasonable law.

This issue is about law and what marriage laws grant to individuals. Our marriage laws grant legal duties, legal obligations, and legal benefits which have nothing to do w/ religion.

For example, in Massachusetts same sex marriage is legal and is based upon sound and rational and reasonable facts and law. The Massachusetts marriage laws have never been based upon religion, never in it's entire history:

"Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly secular institution. See Commonwealth v. Munson, 127 Mass. 459, 460-466 (1879) (noting that "in Massachusetts, from very early times, the requisites of a valid marriage have been regulated by statutes of the Colony, Province, and Commonwealth," and surveying marriage statutes from 1639 through 1834). No religious ceremony has ever been required to validate a Massachusetts marriage. Id." (Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, ___ Mass. ____, SJC-08860, November 18, 2003, italicized emphasis added.)

Please read that above quote from the Goodridge court decision very carefully, very closely because it recites the history of marriage in Massachusetts. And that's what the law relies upon. It relies upon facts, factual history, case law, legislative made law, and the constitution.

A religion in Massachusetts cannot marry people without the state government granting someone within that religion authority/power to perform a marriage ceremony, period.

Each and every state in America (via its constitution and legislative made law) grants certain individuals in their respective states the authority (and power) to perform marriage ceremonies, whether religious ceremonies or otherwise. Again, it is within the power of the State to so grant this authority. No religion in America has the power or authority to perform a marriage ceremony UNLESS it is granted that power/authority by the State government.

It's never EVER been the other way around in America, NEVER.

Second of all, marriage in and of itself grants each marriage partner certain benefits, obligations, and duties in both state and federal laws. As opposed to non-marrieds who can never partake in these benefits, obligations, and duties conferred upon marrieds. This is the turning issue in this entire ill-informed "debate" . . . benefits, duties, obligations, and privileges granted in law to marrieds only, both in state laws and in federal laws. There are approximately 1,400 State and federal laws that are granted to marrieds-only. For a shortened overview of these state and federal laws, please see: http://www.glad.org/rights/PBOsOfMarriage.pdf (this requires Adobe Reader).

Finally, in America where all people are treated equally, where we do not discriminate against groups of citizens, and where citizens cannot be denied due process of our laws, we cannot under our federal constitution deny the marriage laws to some and grant those same marriage laws to others.

And one last thing, here's where religion enters into it: same sex marriage will not take away any religions' right to say "NO!" to marrying a homosexual couple. If it's within a religion's religious tenets to prohibit same-sex marriage, then that religion may refuse to marry homosexuals under our first amendment religious freedom clause. It's pure fiction to fear that any State in the U.S. can force a religion to marry anyone against their religious beliefs. Religious freedom is express in the U.S. constitution's first amendment.

And that's it, in a nutshell. Family law as to same sex couples and marriage as well as any religion's constitutional right to discriminate against same-sex marriages by refusing to marry such couples if it's within their religious tenets.



edited to add: justin899 (post #8 in this DU thread) explains that "civil unions" will never be the same as "same-sex marriage" because there is no way that each and every State in the nation will pass the same (approximate 300 plus) State laws as all the other States as to "civil unions" to kick in State legal duties, obligations, privileges, and benefits. As well as there's no way that the federal government will pass laws to kick in all the duties, obligations, benefits and privileges of all the 1,100 plus federal laws that marrieds-only now have in federal law. So, in short, no matter how its framed, so-called "civil unions" will never be the same as marriage.

There's an abbreviated chart about this very issue -- a comparison of marrieds-only versus civil unions versus no-marrieds: http://www.glad.org/rights/Marriage_v_CU_chart.pdf (requires Adobe Reader).

In addition, there's U.S. Supreme Court case law that over-rules "separate but equal" which may be analogous to "civil unions" as equal to marriage; therefore rule "civil unions" as unconstitutional. (See, e.g., Plessy upholding segregation in the public schools as long as "separate but equal" and Brown v Board of Education over-ruling Plessy.)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[WyLoochka]

12. Thank you for the

time you took to patiently explain. NOW, I have much more understanding about this issue.

Accepting civil unions as the end result would be tantamount to accepting "separate and not equal." And that is just not acceptable.

What is your take on the argument that civil unions can be used as sort of - way stations - along the long hard road to full marriage equality federally? Can this be part of a viable strategy? Would it slow the process down or expedite it?

I'm for strategies that expedite. But all levels of government - federal and state - are so chock full of fundies, it's difficult to figure out how to speed by, around or through them.

[TaleWgnDg]

13. It's inevitable that same-sex marriage will become the law

of the land in America. However, timing is the issue. Timing includes all the roadblocks on the way to that goal. Rightwingers are part of that roadblock.

The law works very slowly. More slowly when the issue is social change, social acceptance. Court actions and laws are meant to force people to do what they refuse to do otherwise.

It took slavery from its beginnings in 1619 through the Civil War up to President Johnson to sign the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in the mid-1960s to grant effective rights to blacks. Women, on the other hand, have failed to achieve full rights in the law under our constitution because the Equal Rights Amendment failed to be ratified by only one state that was necessary in the 1970s.

When will same-sex marriage be law in America? After my lifetime, I believe. Maybe during my kids lifetime. In the meantime, effective lobbying and advocacy is needed to sway religion-into-law rightwingers from pushing injurious stuff into law. That's what the Human Rights Commission does, it lobbies D.C. politicians, as messy as that is.

All that said and done, will not stop gays from litigating their way to same-sex marriage. However, there may be serious impediments in the litigation road. For example, what if this rightwing congress passes laws to prohibit federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court from hearing these cases? What if GWBush packs the U.S. Supreme Court? And what if a federal constitutional amendment passes to prohibit same-sex marriage? If so, then the timeline gets greatly extended.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[GodlessBiker]

3. The rather strong response to HRC was not a knee jerk reaction.

HRC's actions of late are the final straws in a long series of actions, dating back to the endorsement of D'Amato, which make it clear that HRC is more interested in appeasing powerful figures than challenging them. Perhaps it is their proximity to power and their fear of losing access to the trappings and luxuries of power that motivates them, but the execs at HRC are not listening to what I think are the majority of gay voices out there who are sick and tired of appeasement.


Perhaps HRC should change its name to VRC, the Vichy Rights Commission.

[Christian30]

14. The Resignation of Jaques and the report in the Times

were the last straw for me. I have always thought that HRC was a bit too "middle of the road" for the good of the LGBT community. It's funny because I received a solicitation from them the day after Jaques resigned but I would never, ever give them a dime. There are too many organizations who are willing to pursue a progressive agenda, like Lambda Legal, Nat'l Gay and Lesbian Task Force and others, to waste my dollars on HRC and its politics of appeasement.

[FaerieWizard]

4. The danger of the softer approach . . .

First, some people have already argued for a banning civil unions claiming civil unions is just a re-defining of marriage or gay marriage called another thing. So arguing for civil unions is pointless, even though the polls show many would support it. It would most likely be banned in time if the right has their way.

Second, to back down would show far too much weakness. What would stop the right from saying, hey look how easy they backed off gay marriage? Keep the pressure on and they'll give up on civil unions too. They'd probably be right.

~The FaerieWizard

[UncleSepp]

6. Marriage as a legal term is important IMO

Now IANAL but I think that the deal with the word marriage is that if two people have a married status, then any existing laws or contracts dealing with married status apply without further modification. If two people have status as domestic partners, every law or practice referring to married couples would have to be specifically examined and legal or contractual obligations determined on a case by case basis.

[justin899]

8. You nailed it...

That's the problem and there is no way in hell congress will ever amend thousands of laws to include civil unions. They will never be equal to marriage and even if they did amend most laws they could always come back later and take rights away from civil unions without affecting marriage rights.

[TaleWgnDg]

9. All of the above . . . that I indicated and . . .

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 incorrect, overall.)





.

[renaissanceguy]

10. At this point,

all we can do is go forward on the path that we've started. Sure, civil unions *might* have been a safer route to go, but we will never know that. Any backing down on our part now (even if it is strategic) will only appease the right wing. I mean, think about it....in the public's eye, it will look like we backed down because of the right wing pressures.