Believe me, far far more of the public were against interracial integration then than were against Gays serving openly in the military in the early 90’s under Clinton. And more than 70% of the general public are for ending the ban now in 2008 — including the majority of service members in the military itself. Still, Obama waffles on it more and more as election day draws near.

This man has no scruples or guts at all. Old Harry Truman would be ashamed of him. This is what happens when we elect a mass media politician. They focus all of their attention on the largest demographic and ignore the rest. Just like television programmers and the corporate news media — it’s the numbers, not the individuals who count.

“Pogovio” wrote: “ If Clinton had vetoed DADT, we would have gotten Sam Nunn’s legislative exclusion of gays from the military (before, exclusion was just ad hoc military policy, not law).”

So would Nunn had succeeded in imposing his own version of total exclusion of Gay service members (which would have been impossible and which is basically the same thing we have now in the military) if Clinton would have, like every other president before him, threatened vetoing future legislation important to Nunn and his repulsive gang of Dixiecrats? I guess we’ll never know that because we still can’t find anyone with enough guts to fight for us. Exactly, how great a electoral gain was it for Truman to do what he did for Blacks? Not much I expect. He had a lot more White votes to lose compared to the small number of Black votes he would gain. And he sure made a lot of enemies because of it. But he did it because it was the right thing to do.

It’s also funny that you forgot to mention that Sam Nunn was on Obama’s short list for vice president. Hmmmm…how Obama could ever consider someone as vile and bigoted as Nunn says a lot about a future Obama presidency. Nunn is the same swine who joined with Republicans to tear Clinton down and who certainly undermined his term in office.

“Pogovio” also wrote: “And back then, DOMA was seen not as particularly anti-gay, because almost no gays were talking about marriage, or even civil union.”

Really? Check your GLBT history book. The Hawaii Supreme Court had already ruled that the Hawaiian State Constitution did not preclude Gays from marrying — unfortunately, the high court stayed their ruling and gave the state government time to amend the statute law, and later, to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow only the legislature to define marriage. Judicial cowardice at its best.

DOMA was a “Chicken Little, the sky is falling!” stupid overreaction to the possibility of same-sex marriage equality spreading to other states. Even the most dim-witted homophobic lawyer in Congress fears that DOMA may not pass the smell test. Most legal scholars believe that DOMA violates both the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE of the FIFTH AMENDMENT and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution. A repeal of DOMA would make same-sex marriage universal in effect — even if it was legalized in just one state. It may eventually lead to all state’s anti-marriage equality constitutional amendments being overturned in federal court. So they tried to head off that possibility with DOMA — which, as I mentioned earlier, most legal scholars believe is unconstitutional because the US Congress has, in essence, subverted the Good Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution– which is not within their power.

As far as Gays being too busy with other things, rather than concerned about protecting their families by fighting for legal recognition of their unions (as “Pogovio” suggested)…well, that is just hogwash. The Hawaiian court decision was all the buzz at the time in 1993. It set such a legal precedent that most constitutional lawyers have no doubt that it helped open the door to Vermont’s Civil Union decision and eventually led to the Massachusetts High Court legalizing marriage equality in that state.

Hawaii was the first anti-gay legal partnership prohibition domino to fall. And even though it got back up — for now — it added impetus to the marriage equality movement that cannot be overlooked.

“Pogovio”, I have no idea whether or not you are in a committed relationship, or if you ever had been in one, but many of us who are partnered believe that fighting for our marriage rights are just as important as fighting for all the other rights we have also been denied. One is not mutually exclusive of the others.

You might also note that the marriage equality struggle has already occurred or is currently taking place in most states that already provided many of the other rights you mentioned. So it is incorrect to say that other rights had to take a backseat to our struggle for marriage rights.

As far as federal rights go, there are no federal marriage licenses but repealing DOMA is essential to the codification of those same-sex marriages already performed that must be recognized under federal law in order to receive federal benefits. Federal employment protection against discrimination in all states for all citizens must be passed by this Congress. Freedom to serve openly and not be forced to lie about who you are in the military is a matter of not just fairness but truly is an issue of national security in a country that cannot afford to lose anymore qualified service members.

In conclusion, it is difficult to put other “non civil rights” issues facing this country first when we in the GLBT community, who represent tens of millions of fellow Americans, are not even treated as if we are citizens of this country. Equality first and foremost. That is the main reason this country came into existence. Why should we settle for less in our own lives than our founding fathers would have expected for themselves and their families?

We are Americans too. But we cannot make that claim if we are not accorded the same rights as other citizens. Who are we then? We cannot allow ourselves to be treated like strangers in our own house. America is our home too. Don’t ever forget that.