ask these two to stop saying same sex marriage is a state issue. The federal government can and MUST address this issue. Every state in the union could legalize same sex marriage, and we would still not be privy to any federal rights.

Tell them to stop avoiding the issue, and take a freakin' stand.

What I wouldn't give to be able to corner them on the subject. 

Lisa

My partner and I live in a bible-belt state that has declared "marriage is a contract between a man and a woman".  I wonder seriously if the federal government will ever "upgrade" us to first class citizens.  Political candidates want our votes, but after the election they abandon us.  I hope these panelists grill them! 

During the 2004 election season, I gave time and money, like many people, to elect Democrats. No more. Not until they have some integrity on a range of issues, including gay rights (human rights, really). Some might say these three are just being politically prudent. I think they're actually being politically shortsided and, moreover, ethically compromised by not taking principled stands on issues of fairness and citizen rights. (Didn't they learn after the 04 election that not speaking from firmly held values results in most people thinking you're a flip flopper.) I get further incensed when I read about how Edwards and Obama are such 'good men,' 'principled men,' etc., when they simultaneously are a-ok with perpetuating discrimination. Ugh.

I am so sick of these three holy presidential candidates. They are the three most 'popular' because they have raised the most money. They're in corporate pockets and have nothing radical to say. This nation is in dire need of radical changes. I think it is total BS that gay people are going to tune in and that these three are going to be presented as the only candidates that should matter to the gay comunity. It's crap. I would never vote for any of them because they have done virtually nothing to advance gay rights.

 I want to see Dennis Kucinich there. I think gay people should get to hear the democratic presidential candidate who has actually been standing up for gay issues for his entire political career. This is a man who supports a FEDERAL amendment to allow gay MARRIAGE. He should be the candidate backed by the entirey of the gay community.

 To read for yourself all of the wonderful things Dennis has to say about gay rights here:http://kucinich.us/issues/gayrights.php

 And if you are so motivated please join me in emailing LOGO and asking them to invite ALL presidential candidates not just the ones who have the fundraising to declare that they are the only viable candidate. Gay people need to hear what ALL of the candidates have to say, especially considering the only three that have been invited are horribly wishy washy, have records of denying gay people full rights, and say nothing about gay rights in the issues sections on their websites.

 If we aren't a priority to them why should we care what they say now to try and get our votes?

 Kucinich For Peace '08

Really? Melissa Etheridge as a featured participant at a political event? Really? Is Joe Solomonese going to be there because Lance Bass wasn't available?

Regardless, I'm still pleasantly surprised that this event is happening. And perhaps Melissa Etheridge will lay bare her inner pundit.

If they're still pandering to us then we still count for something. A lot of the Democratic base would probably prefer that they ignore us. We're a wedge issue, a weak spot. Them even acknowledging that we should have rights of anykind will cost them votes...especially Democratic votes in the south. People would rather shoot themselves in the foot than allow us rights.

If we give up on them, they WILL give up on us. It won't be worth it to stick their necks out at all. Especially with so many gays concentrated in metro areas which would be liberal even without gays. It's absolutely pointless to take a stand and keep losing. Leave that to the Green Party.

The best we can hope for is a President that won't push for a federal [i]ban[/i] on gay marriage and will veto one if it comes up. And one that won't meddle with the Judicial Branch if a court rules that not allowing gays to marry is illegal. It was, after all, a judicial ruling that forced states to recognize interracial marriages.

Beyond that, we actually have to do the dirty work of changing the minds of voters. And I mean, voters outside of San Fransisco and NYC. Come live in South Carolina and see how much you'll appreciate the Democratic party.

Honestly, at this point, I'm so disillusioned as to believe that the reason the top contenders agreed to show isn't to court the gay vote but to show the rest of the people that, even at a gay event, on a gay network, with a gay audience and gay questioners they'll still stick to their guns and NOT be for gay marriage. 

On a more hopeful note...does anyone else think the the Edwards' daughter, Cate, pings?  Just me and my ever hopeful mind?  Okay.  ;)

Our country is facing difficult times, now and well into the future.  We have the threat of terrorism, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, an environmental crisis, a Supreme Court taking a right turn, and a very corrupt Administration in office that thumb its nose at the rule of law. 

 So what do most people here care about?  If you're not for gay marriage, then you're not the candidate for me.  There are more pressing issues, ladies.  Politics is about prudency, pragmatism and practicality.  It's about a consensus.  While many here may demand that the candidates set in stone their support for gay marriage, the political reality is that it will be the end of their candidacy.  At this early juncture, you can not take such a divisive stand that will alienate half the country (and potential supporters).   

These Democratic candidates can not/should not speak to the gay community and the gay community alone.  They must appeal to blue dog Democrats, moderate Republicans, disillusioned Republicans in Kansas, in West Virginia, in South Dakota, etc. 

I think all these Democratic candidates have good intentions.  They don't want to see gays as second class citizens.  They don't want to change the Constitution to ban gay marriages.  They want gays to serve openly in the military.  That should tell you enough about their state of mind and how they plan to run the country. 

Changes don't happen overnight.  It took about 100 years for the Jim Crow laws to be declared unconstitutional. 

So if you don't vote for the Democrats because you say they don't speak for you, what is your alternative?  Giuliani? an authoritarian absolutely against gays in the military and will continue to pursue Bush's foreign policy?  or Mitt Romney who will tell you he likes gays on Tuesday and then proceed to change his mind on Wednesday?  Will you not vote at all?  If you don't, and the Republicans ascend to the White House again, for the next 4 years following the election, please don't exercise your free speech to rail against a GOP White House.  You didn't earn it. 

So what do most people here care about? If you're not for gay marriage, then you're not the candidate for me. There are more pressing issues, ladies.

Yeah, well that's what Mary Cheney said. She voted for Bush, because apparently he was going to be the "best" candidate on the pressing issue of terrorism. And look how that turned out.

I'm going to be voting Democrat, partly because my political sympathies lie to the left anyway, and partly because they are, if not perfect, the most progressive party currently on gay issues. But the issue of gay marriage is very important to me, and I make absolutely no apology for that. I don't see it as an issue in isolation. Those rushing to say "the ends justify the means" and "I'm going to vote for this anti-gay candidate even though I don't like his stance on that issue, because I think he's a good candidate more broadly speaking" might want to consider that if someone's an asshole on one issue, it may conceivably turn out that he is an asshole on a broader range of issues.

I don't think it's remotely realistic to think that we'll get a pro-gay marriage candidate in the White House this time. It may not even be realistic to think we'll get someone who is openly pro-civil unions. When it comes to the presidential election, I will vote pragmatically for the most gay-friendly candidate that I think can win. I won't waste my vote on some pro-gay marriage fringe candidate out of frustration that the Dems don't yet broadly endorse gay marriage. But like I say, I make no apology whatsoever for caring about the issue, and thinking that it IS important and pressing. If we as a community don't care about it, then who will? Well, apart from all those red-staters who voted to ban it in perpetuity.

Hey, I'm not even American, so I couldn't really care less. I'm bored and I just wanted to see if Rhianna was still hanging around.... 

Not Only But Also

I really don't understand why people here say they'd never vote for Clinton, Obama or Edwards. Face it: it's going to be one of those three or one of the Republicans. It may be true that the Democrats haven't done a lot so far for the LGBT community. But do you prefer a conservative republican?

Concerning LGBT rights, the question should not be "who's the ideal candidate" but "who's most gay-friendly". I think the Democrats should get our full support against the Republicans (and not only because of LGBT-related issues). Which does not mean we can't critisize them.