is because it destroys the myth that they have long perpetuated about gay men: that they are all lisping, immoral, weak and cowardly. This myth and other convenient stereotypes have long served as their bulwark against attacks on their heterosexist, patriarchal grip on power in this country.

Psychologically, the destruction of this myth has long term, profound consequences for the hierarchy of dominance in this nation of ours - all of them healthy and all of them good for both women in general and gay men specifically.

Today is far more powerful than if 15% of the NFL all came out of the closet at once. Or if all the gay movie stars suddenly had the urge to be publicly honest about who they are.

It's far more powerful because that aging, rightwing marine sitting on his couch in southern Indiana never was a football player or a movie star.

But he was a marine once and that identification has been the single, most powerful tool to enable him to self justify his rank prejudices and aggressive opposition to positive, generational growth and change.

The destruction of Don't Ask Don't Tell takes the mask off. And what is left is the emperor with no clothes, clutching his Bud light and his remote control, suddenly very, very angry, very insecure and very unsure about his position of dominance in a new America.

It's a good thing Harry Truman didn't throw away precious political capital in 1948 by taking a potentially divisive stand on a risky social issue that could have derailed his whole agenda.

Since the country was entering a severe postwar economic recession that lasted five quarters.

And the Cold War was beginning with the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia.

And Ghandi was assassinated creating turmoil in India.

And the Soviet Union began to jam Voice of America broadcasts.

And the Arab/Israeli war broke out in the first half of the year.

And the Berlin blockade began.

And Truman's administration had to organize and implement the Marshall Plan.

And Truman himself was up for re election in November.

Damn good thing Truman didn't do something risky and politically stupid in the midst of all of these events in 1948 and issue an Executive Order desegregating the military.

Oh wait.

He did.

1) The overwhelming majority of the GLBT community will vote Obama/Biden. It is an imperfect ticket, but so are all of them. It's the best we've had in a long time, and NO ticket is perfectly aligned with an individual voter's particular, singular set of priorities.

2) GLBT voters are just as diverse as hetero ones. Many don't vote solely on GLBT issues. Many are equally as concerned with jobs, the war, the economy, civil liberty erosion, public education and US policies on torture. The gay communitiy is not some monolithic block, all moving lockstep in one direction. In other words, they are regular Americans.

3) The success of Obama/Biden means a return to sanity for all of us in many, many ways. The thought of McCain/Palin in power is a nightmare on a thousand different levels.

4) It is perfectly appropriate for BOTH gay and straight voters to be outraged, even in the middle of a close election, if the candidates they support issue mealy mouthed, two sided bullshit statements on issues concerning gay equality. That's what democracy is all about - speaking your mind, pushing your representatives to do the right thing.

5) Barack Obama himself has advocated that the gay community PUSH him to do the right thing. He has said, in unequivocal terms, it's not his job to be a gay civil rights leader. It's his job to get elected President and it's the job of gay civil rights leaders, and average gay and straight citizens, to push the country and him in the right direction.

6) It's perfectly legitimate to believe that our Democratic leaders should be FRAMING the issue of marriage equality better - that they have let the right frame the meme for too long and that framing is the only reason this still has any potency as a wedge issue. There is a basic lack of leadership in explaining to the average flyover voter that there is a big difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. Too many progressive politicians fall into the trap of following the meme the rightwing sets in place and talking about this issue in terms of religious beliefs. It is appropriate to keep hammering the men and women ON OUR SIDE, until they start explaining the basics of the issue properly to the American public.

7) Bigotry towards gays, just like towards African Americans, women, Jews, Muslims or any other group, should never be accepted by people who consider themselves progressives. On a discussion board such as this one, it is reasonable to hope that there be a non-merciful one strike rule.

8) Don't ask the LGBT community to shut up about issues that affect their family's survival. Even during an election cycle.

9) Let's all take the next month and work our respective asses off to get Obama/Biden elected. If you choose to express yourself politically by working against Prop 8 in CA, great. If you choose to work on the senate race in NC and get Liddy Dole banished for good, more power to you. We each contribute in our own fashion.

10) If you're straight, you ARE the gay and lesbian community. Your sister could get thrown out of the army. Your nephew could lose his job in a fragile economy. Your son and his partner could have an overzealous prosecutor try to take their kids away from them. You are them and they are you. Gay and lesbian equality is YOUR issue too.

Susan Mikula is an artist.

They live in Massachusetts and commute to NYC during the week.

Happy couple, huh?

Rachel routinely stands up for us.

She is a resolute voice for those who value justice and liberty and truth.

She never, ever gives up.

Don't you think, just maybe, that the one very small thing you owe her (and tens of millions of your fellow Americans like her) is the commitment to, at the very least, support only Democratic leaders who respect and value her relationship enough to take a public stand in favor of civil unions?

Isn't that an incredibly low bar to set for ourselves as Democrats, since an overwhelming majority of the country favors civil unions and a great number of Republicans do as well?

Rachel and Susan are lucky enough to live in a state that recognizes their relationship legally and allows them to marry, should they so choose.

But millions don't.

There are about a zillion other issues that are equally as important in the grand context of all of our lives, and many of us have lines we won't cross when supporting politicians. Some of won't vote for anyone who voted for the IWR. Some of us cannot in good conscience vote for anyone who would make abortion illegal. Some of cannot vote for politicians who favor private school vouchers and prayer in school. Some of us cannot vote for politicians who are not keen stewards of the environment. Some of us cannot stand by and watch the consitution shredded. It angers and pains us.

In regards to this one issue, in the year 2008, isn't the very least we can do for our fellow gay and lesbian Americans to demand that our Democratic leaders, and those we would install in positions of power, reach the very, very low threshold of full support for civil unions?

Civil unions are really nothing more than second class families, with no federal recognition. It is not a high benchmark to set for a Democrat, even for one from a conservative state.

Isn't it absurd that we even have to have this discussion on a putatively progressive message board?

We at our best, all of us, when we take up each other's causes as our own and fight tirelessly for our common humanity and our mutual bond as free citizens and stand firmly for what is both right and just.

Doesn't that endeavor make all of us, after all, not only better citizens, but better human beings?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer 1: I am voting for the Democratic ticket regardless of whom Obama picks (well maybe not OJ Simpson or Sam Nunn) , but that doesn't mean all of us don't have a right and an obligation to speak out.

Disclaimer 2: I don't know how Rachel Maddow feels about the Veep candidates. I heard her make both mildly positive and mildly negative remarks about Tim Kaine the other day. I am merely using her (sorry Rachel) as a public figure we all know to make a point about standing up for each other.

H supporter: Congratulations. Looks like Barack has it nailed down. Hopefully this will all be over soon and we can turn our sights to the Republicans.

O supporter: Your candidate lost! Can't you get it through your thick head?

H suppoter: Uh, yeah, didn't I just say that?

O supporter: Now, you're being just like Hillary Klintoon. Twisting everything around. You can't even tell the truth!

H supporter: The truth for me is that it was a hard fought campaign and we're at the end of it and I will support Obama as our nominee.

O supporter: You're living in a fucking Hillaroid different dimension. And don't tell me you support him, I know what you've been writing all along. We're on to your games.

H supporter: Are you not processing this? I previously was advocating for my candidate, just like you. But, the nomination is over. Hillary lost. Barack won.

O supporter: What, do you think we're stupid? This is another Clintonian trick. No one is falling for this mind fuck. You really think we're that stupid?

H supporter: I don't think you're stupid necessarily, but I'm beginning to think there is something very wrong with you.

O supporter: Wrong with me? I'm not the one who's been championing a two bit corporate lying whore!

H supporter: I've supported the person I thought best for the job. Now that she's lost, I"m supporting the guy left standing: Obama. I vote for and support the Democratic nominee.

O supporter: There you go lying again, Hillfuck. Are these your orders from Hillaryis44? Because it's pretty transparent what you're doing.

H supporter: Uh, what I'm doing is trying to move on to the general election.

O supporter: Bullshit. You're trying to change the subject. She's destroying Obama's chances right now. Has she conceded yet?

H supporter: I'm just a voter. It's not like I'm in the upper echelon of her campaign. I can't tell her to concede.

O supporter: Exactly. You don't want to her concede. You want to destroy Obama.

H supporter: Hold on there, that's not what I want nor did I say anything remotely like that. Actually, just the opposite.

O supporter: We're not falling for your slick, Billary bullshit.

H supporter: Are you having the same conversation I'm having?

O supporter: Hillbot, I'm looking forward to the day you and your candidate are history.

H supporter: Well, again, all I can tell you is congratulations. Looks to me like Barack has it nailed down. Hopefully this will all be over soon and we can turn our sights to the Republicans.

O supporter: You ARE a Republican. You and that pant suited harpy bitch!

H supporter: I really don't know what else to tell you. I'm voting for Obama. Hillary has lost.

O supporter: Yeah, right. Listen to yourself. Why are Hillaroids so fucking nasty and divisive?

H supporter: You have a nice day, now.

O supporter: Has she conceded yet, Hillfuck?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: I realize there is venom from both sides. This is just one encounter amongst many in the twilight zone. But, one which is alarmingly frequent.

and I had one of those transcendental moments I think we all have at times.

The radio was on and they played Daniel Day Lewis' acceptance speech for the SAG Best Actor award he won tonight for "There will be blood."

He gave a moving tribute to Heath Ledger and dedicated the award to him, and his voice broke as he talked about the scene in the trailer at the end of Brokeback Mountain when Ledger is alone and broken.

And I was right there with him, because I was flooded with memories of how I felt when I first saw "My Beautiful Laundrette" twenty some odd years ago and how Day Lewis' performance made my heart catch in my throat, because I was finally viewing a relationship up on the silver screen that bore some resonance to my life. The movie stayed with me for weeks, months after I saw it. It was validation; there was no longer just Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr and endless other heterosexual couples swooning their way into movie history, now we took our rightful place in the pantheon. Hollywood (or the English version thereof) had finally recognized that regular guys and regular girls, regular people not caricatures, could fall in love with each other. It had finally realized that gay men were not just the Tony Randall character that makes everyone laugh, but were strong, three dimensional, flesh and blood people who had relationships, great joys and great anguish, in their own right.

Day Lewis' performance in that movie is chilling. He understood it. He got it deep down in his bones.

And as I listened to Day Lewis and his tribute to Heath, I realized why this election is so important to me.

I entered my teenage years during the presidency of Richard Nixon. I realized it was society that was wrong, not gay people that were wrong, during the presidency of Gerald Ford. I somehow survived the war that Ronald Reagan declared on me and my friends. I was at one of the very first meetings of Act Up. I saw my friends savaged by their own government through two horrible Republican administrations lasting twelve years. I had great hope during Clinton's tenure, but he disappointed at times, and was, in the end, not the one we could rely on to go to war for us. The last eight years of Bush speak for themselves, unfortunately.

I am weary of not having a President who understands me and my family. I think, as gay men and women, it is the very least we can expect of our leaders. We have payed faithfully into the system while living second class, Jim Crow existences. We have played by the rules and been handed virtually nothing in return, not even the very basic validation of our relationships and the families we create.

We have learned to live in the shadow of our own country, leading our lives with both the inevitable joys and sorrows without governmental imprimatur or acknowledgement. We do not, in any way, need government nor politicians to validate who we are. But, still, hanging there, like a gloomy cloud, is that constant reminder: the gnawing sense of injustice and inequality. The sense of being not-quite-citizens.

I am weary of presidential candidates who ask for our vote and then betray us by legitimizing the people and groups who would be our mortal enemies.

I want a leader who I can believe in. I want a country I can believe in.

The scene in Brokeback Mountain where Ennis (Ledger) returns to meet Jack's parents and goes up to Jack's childhood room and finds his old denim jacket at the back of the closet stays with me as a constant metaphor for our lives.

It is the ongoing loss we all share.

Someday, we will have a President who understands that scene, really gets it in their gut, and realizes that it is intolerable for a country that prides itself on liberty, justice and equality to treat a large group of its own citizens with such contempt and disrespect.

Someday, we will have a President that angrily and passionately fights for the memory of the millions of Jacks, so that future lives will not be broken and lost to ignorance and hatred.

Someday, we will have a President that acknowledges, and is a champion for, GLBT youth.

We will have that President someday.

I know it deep down in my bones.

Putting aside the controversial part of what Obama said, his claim that Reagan was an entirely different type of President than Nixon or Clinton has validity. His error was in identifying which type of leader he himself would be.

There are essentially two types of Presidents in our history:

The first we can call the Movement, ideologically based leader, Presidents who are extremely partisan in nature, divide the country, inspire great love and fanatical devotion from their own party and great hatred from the opposing party. They come into office riding a wave of discontent and desire for change, often after a perceived great failure from the predecessor. Think of Jackson, FDR and Reagan. Jackson was our first real populist, he was elected as the first real Democrat, the first "man of the people" - a viceral response to the failed leadership of what Jackson framed as the corrupt Eastern elite, personified by John Quincy Adams.

FDR also took the country by storm, advocating a broad agenda of change in response to the broken policies of Herbert Hoover. The emergency of the Great Depression endowed Roosevelt with extraordinary leeway to implement a massive change in how the federal government worked. FDR was an extremely partisan leader, who was loathed by the opposition party. Many people today can remember the bitterness that their Republican parents or grandparents felt towards FDR.

Reagan was a reverse Roosevelt, ideologically. But similar in that he too was wildly partisan and set out to implement an agenda undoing the work of his predecessors. Obama is very wrong in his analysis of Reagan as a unifying force: he was enormously divisive. He preached about the ills of "big government" and viciously stripped away many of the safety nets the poor and the sick had relied on for decades. Reagan's agenda was overwhelmingly partisan, and he, like Roosevelt, inspired fanatical devotion from his party and enormous hatred from his opponents on the left.

The second type of leader is the Co-opting President. Interestingly enough, Co-opting Presidents are not usually fanatically popular with their own party. The opposition party loathes them and they usually get reelected in landslides. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton fall under this label. Richard Nixon ran as a center right, law and order Republican, a throwback to the Eisenhower era. But he actually governed as a moderate, using liberal ideas when needed and adapting in a fairly non rigid way, ideologically, to his role as President. He instituted wage and price controls, he launched Food Stamps, he opened the door to China. Red meat rightwing Republicans loathed him. Bill Clinton, as we all know, also coopted some of the agenda of his political foes. He took welfare reform and made it his own. He attempted to cut spending and he balanced the budget. He was adamantly in favor of free trade. True to the tradition of co-opting Presidents, the opposition party hated him with such fervor that they at times embarrassed themselves with their own venom.

The interesting thing about Barack Obama's political anaylsis is that he compared his leadership style, and the mood of the country, to the 1980 election which swept Ronald Reagan into power. But he has been campaigning not as a Reagan/FDR partisan, but as the epitome of the "Coopting" model of the presidency, promising to reduce partisanship, work diligently with Republicans and attempting to ease the divide he thinks this nation faces.

(It is really John Edwards, not Barack Obama, who fits the mold of being a very ideologically based, movement, partisan leader in this cycle - a Roosevelt type of politician.)

History shows us that if indeed this is a massive change election, where the country wants to reject the past and move forward, a movement based leader, not a co-opting one, should take the White House in '08.

If this turns out to be not one of those times, then Barack Obama fits the bill, because if you examine who he is and what he advocates, he will be a President in the style of Nixon and Clinton, a Co-opting leader, who tries to walk right down the middle of the partisan divide.

So, Presidential candidate Henry Booth really wants to win the State X primary.

He and his advisors have done the math. He needs the good ole boy, white male vote to pull it off.

His opponent, Florence Dowell, has the black vote pretty well wrapped up, and she and Henry are competing for the white Democratic vote, which will swing State X one way or the other.

Henry is a center/liberal kind of guy. He's pretty good on most issues, pro choice, was against the IWR, is a fiscal moderate. But he desperately needs State X to give him momentum for the nomination.

He knows the good ole boy white vote in State X is quietly racist. Old school bigotry. Nothing overt, as that isn't accepted anymore, but privately held views, hardened in stone.

Henry and his advisors decide to hire Chet Strummer to sing at Henry's big fundraising event down in State X. Chet Strummer is a very famous country singer, with a tawdry racist background. Chet was in the Klu Klux Klan when he was a younger man, and publicly, as an entertainer, had fought hard against busing and affirmative action. He comes from a family that had staunchly opposed integration a generation earlier.

Word of Ole Chet's singing at Henry's fundraiser filters down to the black community, where many are enraged. They demand that Henry's campaign remove the racist country singer from the roster.

Henry's campaign refuses. Henry issues a statement which reads:

"I have clearly stated my belief that African Americans are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to white religious leaders about the need to overcome the racism that persists in some parts our community so that we can confront issues like sickle cell anemia and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country.

I strongly believe that African Americans and the white community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Chet Strummer's views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."

The Henry Booth fundraiser goes off as planned. It is a huge success, and thousands of good ole boys and their wives and sons and daughters turn out for it.

And, surprise, Chet Strummer doesn't just sing at it. He is the Master of Ceremonies from beginning to end. And at the end, he addresses the racism issue, declares he isn't a racist, and then proceeds to launch into a diatribe against affirmative action and talks about the "cultural heritage" of white people and how it is under siege in this country. He touches on every white supremacist code word he can touch. The crowed eats it up and the event is a big hit.

The blacks in State X are furious. They demand an apology from Henry Booth, but never receive one. Henry Booth blithely goes on campaigning, and the event is soon forgotten in the heat of succeeding campaign events.

And Henry Booth's poll numbers pop up nicely. Looks like he might just bag State X after all.

Would you vote for Henry Booth?

I adhere to that and believe it entirely.

I also think that idealism nurtures the soul.

And I don't find the two notions incompatible.

There are many religious gay people.

There are many religious, African American, gay people.

There are many churches and religions that embrace gay people.

While religion far too often has been used as the justification for holding
hateful and prejudiced beliefs, and while, yes, there are many black churches
that preach virulent homophoba, this POLITICAL debate, in the secular
world, should NOT be framed as the church vs. the gays, which is a
truly offensive dynamic and one which perpetuates wrongheaded
stereotypes, in and of itself.

This is where the Obama campaign has it wrong. He is not running for
Preacher-in-chief. He is running for President. This should
not be about bringing together two "sides," this should be about forceful
leadership.

The kind of leadership that explains, in no uncertain terms, to the
homophobes, both church attending and non, that their bigotry has
no place at all in civil society or human law.

Do not present this as if there were some kind of moral equivalence
between advancing human rights and opposing them.

There isn't.

He lives in a small apartment off of 5th on 86th st, but his Dominican illegal
housekeeper was "Fabreezing" the back bedroom. French houseguests had apparently
overstayed their welcome and spewed pomme frites and ketchup all over the bed while watching the Jerry Lewis Telethon.

So, anyway, we both had time to kill and we were talking about the election and he mentioned that if Dennis Kucinich wins he plans on sending a plague of locusts to attack Missouri.

Why Missouri?

"It's still a bellwether state isn't it," God mused, an almost rhetorical question, as he flipped the ashes from his joint out the window of my 87 Camry. "I've always
enjoyed fucking with bellwether states - they have this ungodly sense of self import."

Does God have something against Dennis Kucinich?

"Well, I usually like Vegans who marry up. But there's something about him that irritates me. He whines a lot and he kind of reminds me of Alan Keyes. If there's a presidential race, well... THERE he is."

God passed me the joint.

"Did you like my little Alan Keyes karmic moment?"

"You mean when you made his daughter a lesbian?"

God chuckles to Himself and stares out the window. "I crack myself up sometimes."

We sit in silence. God says, softly, "This whole '08 thing has your country in a frenzy. When are they ever going to learn?"

I looked at Him. "Who's going to win?"

He smiled. "This time.... the one who is supposed to."

"What, you trying to redeem yourself for George Bush?"

God outright laughs. "Everything goes in cycles, my son. Even the United States."

He glances at his watch. "Rosita should be done by now."

"Would you like me to drop you off?"

"No, I can walk it. Need the exercise."

God starts to climb out of the car.

I watch him, a little anxiously. "This election will turn out ok, won't it? I mean, I'm not going to have to move to Canada or anything?"

God leans back in the car. "Put it this way. I don't plan on having to really use those locusts."

As he grinned at me, I noticed something I'd never seen before. A little American flag pin on his robe, turned upside down.

"Goodnight," He said. And disappeared down 86th.