Almost
immediately after the Human Rights Campaign announced that
Cheryl Jacques would be its next executive director
come January 5, the carping began. Some argued that
Jacques, a Democratic member of the Massachusetts
state senate, was too liberal for Republican-dominated
national politics. Others said her background as a
tough-on-crime prosecutor made her too conservative.
Still others complained that Jacques, who came out of the
closet in 2000, lacked gay-rights experience.
“State politics has prepared me for
everything,” Jacques says, laughing.
“You learn to have a tough skin, and do the right
thing no matter what the detractors say. I felt that I
helped improve the quality of life in my district, and
being reelected many times has rewarded me. I’m not
going to allow critics to distract me.”
Like her predecessor Elizabeth Birch, Jacques
comes to HRC as something of Washington, D.C.,
outsider. Also like Birch, Jacques and her partner,
Jennifer Chrisler, are raising twins, Timmy and Tommy.
Nobody is more familiar with the politics of the
Massachusetts legislature than you are. How do you
think it will grapple with the marriage decision?
It breaks down into three camps. There are those like me
who want to use the 180-day window period that the
court allowed to start preparing for granting marriage
licenses. Let’s get the department of health to
start preparing the right paperwork. Let’s start
educating city and town clerks, who issue marriage
licenses, on how to handle same-sex marriages. The
second camp wants to do nothing. They think that the court
made its ruling, and it should simply take effect in
180 days. The third group will do anything it can to
thwart the ruling. They know the only thing they can
do is pass an amendment to the state constitution, a
three-year process. I do not believe that in the end
they will have the support to prevail. It was only a
year ago that a similar measure was overwhelmingly defeated.
In your new position, what will you do to make sure it
happens that way?
Our job is education. After same-sex marriage is
legalized, the vast majority of people will realize
that nothing bad happened, that the sky did not fall.
For a small minority, it will be one of the most wonderful
days in our lives because we are now equal. We have to move
that message forward to the rest of the country.
But Massachusetts voters are so much more tolerant than
much of the rest of the nation.
The fundamentals are the same. The reason my
state’s voters support marriage rights is
because we’ve done a good job educating them that
this is a civil institution, not a religious one, and
that gay people are part of the our community. We have
to keep educating about the bread-and-butter issues of
hospital visitation, financial protection, raising
children. There are definitely parts of the country that are
harder nuts to crack. But we don’t need to win over everyone.
How will your leadership style differ from that of
Elizabeth Birch?
I have to step on the shoulders of a giant and help HRC
soar to new heights. I’m so fortunate to have
come along in this job at a time when the organization
has never been stronger. I will be at the center of a
storm in the next chapter of gay rights, and I have to find
ways to inform Americans that equal rights are good
not just for gay people but for everyone. For
instance, I think that in tough economic times, when we
are at war, we can really make the case that we need
everyone’s contribution to help us pull
through. We can’t afford to have some people
held back by discrimination in building our tax base and
contributing to our economy.
That sounds good, but how do you translate that into
legislative victories in Congress? Birch is the
first to acknowledge they have been hard to find
in national politics.
We have to redefine victory. Legislative accomplishments
are important, but they are not the only thing that
matters. We have to contribute to victories at the
local level too. As I told the HRC staff, we
don’t even know how many lives we have impacted. If
it hadn’t been for the Millennium March in
2000, I might not have written an op-ed in which I
came out. About a year ago I sat next to [Massachusetts]
supreme judicial court [chief] justice Maggie Marshall
at a women’s bar [association] event. I showed
her photos of our kids and she heard our story. Maybe
that made a difference in her opinion.
But at some point you are going to have to win over more
members of the Republican Party.
There are the [U.S. Representatives] Gordon Smiths and
the Chris Shays who are very good on our issues.
It’s important to remember that not all
Republicans are opposed to gay rights and that not all
Democrats are on our side. We are going to work very
hard to win support from anyone who will listen.
On a personal level, what did the court decision mean to you?
I stood at [the Omni] Parker House [hotel] and watched
[attorney] Mary Bonauto with the seven couples behind
her in a horseshoe arch, and there was not a dry eye
in room. That certainly included me. I was thinking
that some day my children will be studying this historic
event in school. We were making history.
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.