Hillary Clinton had this to say about this incredibly important ruling:

"Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states."

Barack Obama had this to say:

"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."

Seventy-five words and fifty-four words, respectively, about a 172 page ruling that time will surely find to be the definitive ruling on marriage equality. This ruling will be cited in every marriage case that will be argued in the future. The thoughtful, well written decision provides the pathway to ending the last vestige of civil discrimination in America. Yet, our Presidential candidates couldn't even muster the effort to acknowledge its importance. Disappointing would be a mild word to describe my feelings about them on this issue.

Not long into the oral argument before the California Supreme Court in March over whether gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry, Chief Justice Ronald M. George showed his hand.

Three times he quoted from the court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp that struck down a state ban on interracial marriage, a high point in the history of a prestigious and influential court.

"The essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice," Chief Justice George said, quoting Perez.

Without doubt, this is the next step in America's journey to live up to the founding principle that all men are created equal. After the Perez decision in 1948, it took the U.S. Supreme Court until 1967 to overturn the remaining unconstitutional laws banning interracial marriage. Even then, public support for interracial marriage was incredibly low.

Today, America is closely divided on the issue. But we know where this is headed. It is in keeping with the tradition and history of America. After all, our nation has a history of making people equal.

Yet, our candidates fail to speak about it in real and honest terms. "I believe marriage is an issue best left to the States" is a very common position.

This all boils down to one thing. Fear.

Our candidates, our politicians, our political parties all fear the pushback from the Religious Fundamentalists in America. They fear that criticism so much, that they lack the courage to take action that would invite that criticism. By doing so, our candidates make the Fundamentalists stronger and perpetuate a society where gay and lesbian citizens remain at the back of the bus.

Neither candidates' statements are even on their website with other statements and news releases. Again, we are invisible. On the heels of the most significant victory for equal rights for gays and lesbians, we are invisible to the two most visible political figures today.

Rather than bow to non-existent criticism from an extreme political faction in America, our candidates should honor values that we all share; love, acceptance, and understanding. Honoring those values will require embracing the message sent by the California Supreme Court, embodied in this excerpt from the majority opinion:

"...retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise - now emphatically rejected by this state - that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

Lane Hudson is Director of Communications and Strategy for Faith in America, a non-profit seeking to end the misuse of religion to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians. Learn more at www.faithinamerica.com

House Democrats are reportedly resigned to removing the Matthew Shepard Hate Crime bill from defense authorization legislation.

Congressional Quarterly reports that House Democratic leaders believe they lack the votes to pass the measure.

The Shepard Act would add sexuality to the list of categories covered under federal hate crime law.

CQ which covers Capitol Hill extensively quoted unnamed House aides as saying House members on the conference committee are rewriting the defense bill and will likely recommend leaving out the hate crime provision.

That has apparently sparked differences with Senate conferees who want the Shepard Act to remain. Nevertheless it is expected that a compromise will be reached where the act will not be part of the spending bill.

"It looks like it’s got a lot of trouble,” George Miller (D-Calif.) told CQ. "so far, nobody’s come up with a whip count that says it could pass."

There are a couple problems with this situation. First, it doesn't even make sense. The House of Representatives was able to pass a fully-inclusive stand alone hate crimes bill this year. It defies logic to tell us now that they don't have the votes now that it is attached to the Defense Authorization bill. If anything, it should make it significantly easier to pass.

After all, this is legislation that I'm told is supported by about 80% of the public in opinion polls. It's also named after a kid who was beaten to death and has become an icon in American history. But, the Democrats are scared that Bush may veto the bill and they'll get blamed for trying to starve soldiers. There go the Democrats again. Scared of our own shadow.

This is shaping up to be a complete sell out of any campaign promises that Democrats made to the gay community. Repeatedly, officials within the Democratic Party promised hate crimes legislation and an Employment Non-Discrimination Act. If this report is true, then they are batting zero.

Honestly, the Democratic Majority has been a string of disappointments for those who were hungry for change following twelve years of almost exclusive Republican rule on Capitol Hill.

In addition to the disappointing (at best) handling of these issues, it doesn't stop there. In a New York Times editorial on December 2, it became clearer that House Democrats were ready to fund $28 million in abstinence-only programs. That amounts to nothing more than a handout to right wing groups that are blind to the fact that these programs do not work. Further, they completely ignore LGBT youth and specific issues that they need to be aware of.

Not only do Democratic leaders in Congress need to cease their fear of The Right, they need to start doing the right things. Thus far, I've been willing to give them time to find their footing and grow into their newly won majority. My patience is wearing thin and so is America's.

The final piece in this puzzle is the effectiveness of gay rights organizations. They raise tens of millions of dollars a year from dedicated activists. Thus far, there is very little to show in Congress that their approach is effective. LGBT leaders need to decide if they are going to be inside the beltway political lobbyists who care more about cocktail parties or whether they are indeed civil rights organizations dedicated to principle. Will they use this as another opportunity to raise money or will they go to Capitol Hill and raise hell for being lied to?

We will soon see.

I haven't forgotten that the House Ethics Committee Report on the Foley scandal gave us clear evidence that he knew that Mark Folely was engaged in unethical behavior with House Pages. In spite of this, he did nothing to stop Foley from continuing his inappropriate actions.

Below is a local news report in Illinois in the wake of the Foley scandal where Hastert does what Republicans do best, blame Democrats and the media for their troubles.

Yesterday, Karl Rove. Today, Dennis Hastert. This could be a good week.

Secondly, DOMA, I believe that DOMA served a very important purpose. I was one of the architects in the strategy against the Marriage Amendment to the constitution, and DOMA gave us a bright line to be able to hold back the votes that were building up to do what I consider to be absolutely abominable and that would be to amend the constitution to enshrine discrimination. I believe marriage should be left to the states. I support civil unions as I’ve said many times with full equality of benefits and so I think that DOMA appropriately put the responsibility in the states where it has historically belonged and I think you’re beginning to see states take action. I think it’s, I think part three of DOMA needs to be repealed because part three stands in the way of the full extension of federal benefits and I support that. So that’s the first.

She pretty much said that banning equal marriage is discrimination, which makes me wonder why she isn't better on issues of equal rights. But, that's a completely different issue.

The commerce clause of the United States constitution makes it clear that each of the States shall respect the laws of other States. Accordingly, it wouldn't be a stretch for her to advocate repealing that provision of DOMA.

Recent news articles in Newsweek and the Washington Blade showcase the tremendous support that Hillary is receiving from the LGBT communities around the country.

The question remains with regard to what we are getting for our support. Very little time has been spent addressing LGBT rights during the previous Presidential debates and forums. This Thursday, Logo Network and the Human Rights Campaign will host a forum with the Democratic Presidential candidates. (Joe Biden never committed and Chris Dodd recently canceled.)

Here is a comment which doesn't make me think that any candidate will be pressed towards taking positions in support of our movement toward equal rights.

The purpose of this forum is not to provide gotcha moments, because that doesn’t serve anybody well,” said Jonathan Capehart, a gay Washington Post editorial page writer who will serve as a panelist for the forum.

But you do want to get the candidates talking about these issues in a way that’s human and not overly rehearsed.

I hope the panelists will consider pressing Hillary on this point. Accordingly, I hope Hillary will show the courage to expand her position and show the LGBT community that she is truly willing to fight for equality.

The first thing I set out to do was to invite each of the Democratic Presidential campaigns to send a representative. Every campaign agreed to have a representative attend the Caucus meeting. However, only one campaign actually did.

Sensitive to the perception that the demanding reputation of gays and the impatient reputation of bloggers could be a toxic mix, I made it clear to each campaign that the meeting would be informal and they would be welcome to simply introduce themselves and show that their campaign cared enough to show up.

That only one representative showed up is a blatant sign of disrespect to not only the LGBT bloggers who are here at YearlyKos but all LGBT bloggers.

Senator John Edwards's blogger did apologize for not being able to make it. No one else has bothered. But, no worries, I'll be making it clear to each of them that their absence was noticed.

I did not advocate for Senator Gravel's inclusion because I believe that he will be a serious contender for the Democratic nomination. I sought it for two reasons.

Second, while the progressive blogosphere has been able to coalesce around many issues and affect change, the smaller world of LGBT bloggers had yet to firmly come together to affect a decision by one of our national organizations or a policy that directly affects us. I believed that this was a moment where we could identify an injustice and work together towards correcting that injustice.

Ultimately, both goals were accomplished. Senator Gravel will be a part of the forum and will add a valuable perspective that no other candidate will. Also, the LGBT bloggers have reason to be proud for helping to reverse an injustice committed by those whose mission it is to advocate for us.

In addition to giving major kudos to the Human Rights Campaign for having the wherewithal to reverse its decision, I'd like to congratulate the work of the bloggers who helped in this small, yet significant effort: Queerty, Pam Spaulding, Sara Whitman, Alex Blaze, Bil Browning, Michael Crawford, and any others I forgot to mention.

I'd like to add one point and then bring you up to date on the ridiculous shenanigans that are going on about this. Catch me after the jump for the rest.

He called Alexis Blizman, the head of Equality New Mexico to apologize for the slur. He sought and promptly received appropriate cover for his verbal diarrhea. Ms. Blizman asked the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defemation (GLADD) not to publicly call out Richardson on the comments he made on the Imus show. Effectively, she shut down the process for which we hold folks accountable.

Things that work this way are unacceptable and reek of smoke-filled back room politics. In today's age of internet driven communication, it's politically naive to think such an approach will be effective and lasting.

After this was brought to light through Crain and Ocamb's reporting and subsequent blog postings around the country, Richardson appeared poised to respond with an apology. However, that apology is very much in question at this time. There are unconfirmed rumors that another gay rights organization is continuing to provide cover for Richardson and advising him against acknowledging his mistake in an appropriate way.

If this is the case, it dangerously continues the old school way of approaching such issues and will eventually come back to bite both in the ass. Let's end the shenanigans. An apology is appropriate and any organization that suggests otherwise is doing a disservice to the LGBT community.

HRC said that Gravel would be excluded because they had set a threshold to have raised $100,000 to be invited to the forum. According to Senator Gravel's spokesman, they met that threshold on July 9, the day before HRC announced the forum on their website.

He has a post up on Huffington that give his own personal take on the whole controversy. You've gotta admit....he's for us.

This is just nuts. HRC needs to go ahead and let the guy participate.

As Queerty.com pointed out, former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel is not happy about it. They've got a great quote from him and here's just one part of it:

That this kind of censorship should come from the community that I am the greatest advocate. It is not absurd, it’s to the edge of stupidity.

I'm gonna have to side with the old fella on this one. What kind of message is the gay community sending to candidates who are supportive if we reward them with a snub? Further, they've invited candidates who have mixed records on issues of equality. Seems a little perplexing to me.

I understand the need to keep these forums to a reasonable standard of political plausibility and the such. But, the fact that Melissa Etheridge is co-moderating the debate with HRC President Joe Solmonese kind of throws that out of the window. I mean, she's great, but moderating a Presidential Forum? That's a stretch for me when you're excluding candidates with positions like Mike Gravel.

HRC and Logo Network should reconsider their decision.

I even attended a breakfast that his campaign had in Washington to woo gay supporters. I was impressed by his willingness to specifically address gay issues, which many Democrats find uncomfortable, even with an all gay audience. He even said during that breakfast that he was going to be on the phone that day to lobby legislators in New Mexico to pass Civil Union legislation that was under consideration.

However, when we hear things like this, it reminds us that we still face huge obstacles. We lack many of the legal protections afforded to the rest of the population. Even when we win those rights, responsibilities, and protections, we'll still have to work to win the hearts and minds of the rest of America. We need political leaders to be a part of that process. When they make comments like this, we take a step back from achieving equality.

Richardson contends that, since this happened a year ago, that it's unfair to talk about it now. If he had just apologized and kept his mouth shut, then maybe it would go away. Unfortunately, he felt it necessary to offer further justification by using the time issue. That stinks to me.

I think Governor Richardson is a good person and a great Governor. There is no room in this race for any Democrat who harbors any kind of homophobic ideas. It's 2007 and the time for discrimination in any form is over.

Along the way, they inspired other activists and won the hearts and minds of many people. They also experienced injury, frustration, exhaustion, and threats. But with every milestone reached along their journey, Carrie and Elisia's dedication grew with each mile traveled.

Together, they planned their itinerary, reach out to LGBT organizations, made calls to the press, wrote speeches, and mended flat bicycle tires. I admire them immensely for their dedication to equal rights.

I saw the documentary that Keith Wilson made about their 2004 "Rainbow Ride Across America" last night at a screening here in Washington. After the screening, Carrie, Elisia, and Keith joined the audience for a conversation via Skype. They said something that really bothered me.

There was no national LGBT organization that helped fund, promote, or support in any way their efforts to raise awareness on marriage equality. The response they were given was that their timing was off and it wasn't time to raise awareness. I'd like to know exactly who told them that because they were incredibly wrong. Let me remind you that in 2004, THIRTEEN states passed constitutional amendments to discriminate against LGBT families. Doesn't sound like bad timing to me!

I'm sure that in those thirteen states, millions of dollars were contributed by national organizations. However, there was nothing for these lesbian grannies. Not even gas money for their RV support vehicle.

Having worked for a national organization and being in contact with activists around the country, I know what kind of resources are available and how the money is spent. I won't suggest raising a stink for the short-sighted error in judgment that left these ladies to fend for themselves. I will, however, suggest that one or more national organizations adopt them and their cause.

Carrie and Elisia are effective spokespeople on this issue. If they were given proper support in the areas of organizing and press outreach, they could reach large audiences across the country. What they have done so far without this kind of help is amazing. I know there are millions of dollars literally being thrown at issues in our community. Surely, somebody in this movement can find some support to throw their way.

I don't know if they're up for a third cross country trip, but I'd like to see them do it. The only difference is I want hundreds of thousands of people to hear their unique message. We as a movement need it.