“But only Obama (and John Edwards) supports full repeal of DOMA, including the provision that says each state can choose to ignore gay marriages from other states.”

Why do you or anyone else buy this meaningless excuse for policy?

It is not impressive that candidates support the repeal of DOMA that will allow states to recognize gay marriages, when over HALF the country has amended and legislated (and many have done both) to prevent it from happening.

IS it supposed to be laudable that our relationships will be sorta accepted in 10 states – if all ten states don’t have a DOMA of their own (CA does) and maybe has a same sex relationship law that isn’t as generous as the next state?

Oh, this is an enormous mess, don’t forget it. The brave and visionary candidates are allowed to get away with making hollow promises of meaningless solutions by LGBT pundits that are too afraid to rock the boat.

Want to be impressed by a Democrat? Ask one to campaign in Florida to stop the amendment from passing in 11/08.

That would signal a commitment to change and integrity.

In the past I supported Kucinich (perfect on our issues) and Richardson (best track record on our issues), but concluded that neither could get elected, which believe it or not, is really quite important.

Everyone goes into this with a little bias on candidates. Mine is that I am one of the ones who got thrown under the bus by the Clintons. I worked my heart for Bill in 1992, leading an army of LGBT volunteers to help him win my Southern state. When I had a minute with him one on one he thanked me and inquired a little about me. I told him I was working so hard for him because he promised to sign an executive order to allow gays to serve openly in the military. He told me that I go could to the bank with that, which I conveyed to every gay person I knew, which motivated them even more to work and vote for him.

The rest is history. If DADT didn’t kill me with the Clintons, DOMA did.

An added feature which I didn’t fully know at the time was how much crossover power Obama has. He has the potential for a 1964 or 1932 kind of victory, which will certainly be most helpful in our quest to pass all the gay rights legislation that has been waiting for years.

I love all three of our candidates. I am excited about the high voter turnout in IA (and apparently today in NH as well). I watched both the GOP and Dem debates last weekend and was so proud of all 4 of the Democratic candidates. I think we have a real chance to win and I hope that our community can unite behind our nominee (regardless of who it is) to turn this country around.

But only Obama (and John Edwards) supports full repeal of DOMA, including the provision that says each state can choose to ignore gay marriages from other states. Clinton won’t go that far and also has stopped short of criticizing her husband for signing DOMA and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” into law.

Even though the differences on gay rights aren’t huge, Clinton and Obama represent starkly different choices. She is the party’s establishment candidate and a well-known quantity. Her hard-nosed pragmatism is admired by some as a can-do approach, and criticized by others as overly cautious and calculating.

In probably the most important moment of last fall’s HRC-Logo presidential forum, Hillary seemed completely unmoved by Melissa Etheridge recalling in personal terms how gay Americans felt “thrown under the bus” in the 1990s when Bill Clinton failed to live up as president to the promises he made to gays as a candidate.

If anything, Hillary is even more cautious than her husband and if elected would face Republicans with knives at the ready on gay issues. Despite many opportunities, she has not given gay voters any reason to believe she would show more leadership on gay rights than her husband did. Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us.

Like Clinton, Obama offers a historic candidacy with the potential to transform American politics. Unlike Clinton – rightly or wrongly – Obama does not polarize the public. Hillary would begin a general election with 46 percent unfavorable ratings – a very small margin to win, not to mention to govern.

Except on marriage, Obama has hit all the right notes on the gay rights issues of the day, and he has refused to pander. He has chastised conservative black pastors and white evangelicals alike for opposing gay rights and aggressive HIV prevention. Obama is the only candidate who talks regularly about gay rights, including civil unions, in front of national audiences, and he is the candidate best suited to reach out to independents and Republicans in the general election and in fulfilling the promises he has made as a candidate.

I’d support any candidate that says a federal judge in Oregon is going too far by not honoring the limited domestic partnership law that was to be effective on January 1.

Any candidate that has enough courage to defend same sex families from the ongoing harm that is being inflicted upon them is worthy of my vote.

If they can’t stand up for me, I can’t – and won’t – stand up for them.

They don’t have to advocate marriage if that scares them somehow…but they do have to act in our defense much more than Kerry/Edwards did in 2004 while 11 states amended.