If any of the Democratic candidates truly oppose gay marriage, they've lost my vote. If they publicly oppose gay marriage for fear of losing voters, they are, in my opinion, misguided for the reason stated in the subject line above.

Maybe Dennis Kucinich is the best choice after all, one thinks, but then, one thinks for 4 more years of a Republican Presidency, featuring one of the horror shows now running for that privilege, and fear does become an unfortunate but real consideration.

Still, that doesn't excuse the other Democratic candidates' waffling on this vital civil rights issue.

He didn't say "...and I don't make promises I can meet", did he? He must have said "...can't meet."

The kind of quote you reported sounds more like Dubya at his best -- something our friends at Slate.com refer to as a "Bushism".

All one had to do was watch the body language on the panel. Melissa Etheridge went from nearly leaning forward out of her seat with Kucinich to slumping back on the sofa with Richardson. It was comical.

If one were voting strictly on "equality" (i.e. full-blown marriage) for lesbians and gays, one would vote for Dennis Kucinich. Then again, if one were voting for the most real, least political candidate, one would probably vote for Dennis Kucinich.

I think you are right. I think that even if Obama, Edwards and Clinton were for gay marriage, they would be afraid to say it now, thinking it would hurt their electability in the general election. Based on what I saw in the Clinton years, I wonder if Hillary isn't okay with it in her heart of hearts. But perhaps she needs to evolve either in her thoughts or in her politics.

I thought Margaret Carlson, once she got in the groove (which didn't take long and seemed to have something to do with reading the prompter) was a great moderator. She did a good job of clarifying questions when they just weren't getting (didn't want to get?) them. She only had to do that a couple of times. She was a great choice by Logo-HRC.

Anyone have the results of the on-line voting (Who is your candidate?) on the bottom of the t.v. screen? I haven't checked yet.

This election is about so much more than gay marriage, but I thought the event last night was a wonderful advancement in our country's path to maturity (as Gravel or Edwards might have called it!)

... of why I'll have to hold my nose when it comes time to vote, should I decide to vote for the Democratic candidate. The sheer lack of integrity and courage shown by their non-answers almost makes me throw up with disgust.

Either people, all people, are equal under the law in this country or they aren't. We can't pretend to have it both ways. Didn't we have this exact same conversation during the Civil Rights days?

All the top tier candidates claim to support the separation of Church and State. Yet they allow religious beliefs from certain quarters to dictate this issue.

I'm not gay, nor do I play one on television, but the hypocritical logic used in this debate makes me worry that we will as a country never grow and pull our heads out of our nether regions.

That was my typographical error, and I've fixed it. Thanks for catching it.

I'm gay, I have a partner, and this is simply not the most important issue for us. I've never understood why the gay establishment chose to take this issue on before we even have a nationwide employment non-discrimination act, for example. Talk about misplaced priorities. (Yes, I know HRC is working on employment non-discrimination, but that effort is amazingly low-profile compared to the whole marriage mess.)

It's just not tactically smart. It alienates even some people who are sympathatic to gay rights. Like it or not, a dwindling but still considerable number of straight people just aren't ready to consider same-sex relationships as being on-par with theirs. This whole BS debate plays right into the hands of the Christian right.

I understand that there are important legal privileges that come with the designation of marriage. I also know that long-term couples can create a reasonable facsimile of marriage through other legal arrangements. Why take this on when there are other, more urgent battles to fight (the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for example)?

The most ardent proponents of gay marriage have an unseemly craving for middle-class respectability. They desperately long for every last vestige of establishment acceptance, and have latched onto the moonlight and magnolia romance of marriage like a drowning man grasping for a life preserver.

Besides, what's wrong with civil unions? Shouldn't every "marriage" in a secular republic be a civil union? There aren't too many issues that make me feel like a Marxist but this is one.

...is true and, I think, implicit in the answers given by the three leading candidates. The country as a whole, for many reasons, isn't ready for gay marriage. A stronger, national civil union law is much more achievable. I do wish they could be more explicit in saying so, but it's a political reality that they have to be a little more careful with their language if they expect to get elected.

Tim, I think your reaction to Kucinich is regrettable, but typical in this culture. He spoke, warmly and affectively. I found his remarks sincere and moving and from the heart. But men aren't supposed to speak like that in this culture, unless they've just come through some devastating tragedy, and then, they're only allowed to mumble "I love you." to a family member, Dad, or buddy. Anything else is suspect.

Those are semantic differences. The issue is not respectability it's living wills, medical proxies, probate, custody, estate law, medical insurance, rental law, mortgages, pension law and the like. Call it whatever you like and I don't care if you're more or less respectable than the roided out guy who lives down my street with 2 female strippers in his house.