There's no denying that last night's presidential forum made history, stirred powerful emotions and provided a legitimacy to gay Americans as Americans in a way that would have been unimaginable even three years ago. But I couldn't stop feeling throughout this amazing two hour experience that I was watching a great air guitar performance rather than the real thing.

Forty years after every minority except us demanded and received full civil rights protections, we're sitting in fabulous suits in a stylish studio minus federal laws against discrimination in employment, housing, education and social benefits because of our sexual orientation and "outlaw" status. We are unable to build legally protected and honored families. And while Canada, Mexico and Europe are celebrating thousands of gay marriages, the majority of American states are passing bans against them.

And as gay friendly as the Democratic candidates appeared to be, all the front runners "in their hearts based on their religious beliefs" could not endorse gay marriage. And one of them, a rather buffoonish Bill Richardson, kissing gay gluteus maximus in an embarrassingly obvious way stumbled and fell over one of the most critical questions expressing his belief that homosexuality is choice.

Despite all the fine words and enthusiastic support for gay civil rights, all of the front runners made it clear that we are not them. For us a civil union is a bundle of 1,100 civil rights but not a real marriage. Obama, Clinton and Edwards "believe" that while we're welcome to sit in their churches, we are not welcome to be married in them.

My fear is that all we really experienced last night was a lot of preaching to a very well-dressed choir. As for the rest of America; well this was not CNN or ABC. it was LOGO and how many of the voters who need to be influenced were tuned in? Straight America will hear the Fox view of what occurred but will never be exposed to the substance.



As an aside, for me, the most remarkable aspect of the evening was that the candidates, for the most part, were actually able and willing to be themselves, to speak candidly and sincerely, to appear as something other than the sterile, pre-packaged public relations products that we customarily experience. This worked to the benefit of all--except for poor Bill Richardson who seem completely confused by the situation. Without the protection of media-friendly setting, Richardson shattered before our eyes. His foot quickly went in his mouth and just stayed there throughout his part.

Now let me do my best Elizabeth Edwards. Hillary is a candidate and a national figure because she is a woman and a former First Lady. Barak Obama is a candidate and a national figure because he's Black, handsome and kind of white. Nonetheless, they'll likely end up a running team and may even come close to winning the White House. But while they are working hard for the gay vote, it would be naive, in my view, to conclude that they will do much of anything to advance gay rights should they take the White House.

Sadly the only candidate who might actually lead Congress down a new pro-gay American path was not present last night: Rudy Giuliani. You may very much dislike much of what he stands for--and I do--but Giuliani acts on what he believes to be right and he believes that equality for gay Americans is right.

Who among the Democrats demonstrated leadership, vision, passion, decisiveness and referred to gay Americans as "we" rather than as a people apart? Sadly that would be the two candidates who have as much of chance of making it into the White House as I do. Kucinich and Gravel, especially Kucinich. Both men demonstrated qualities--honesty, vision, passion, candor, decency, ethical centers and moral purpose that seem to qualify them as naive clowns in the eyes of the media and most Americans.

So what was the point of this debate? To inform you who to vote for based on their position on gay rights? Then vote for Giuliani. He may suck on many other levels, but he loves his queers. And with regard to gay rights, he's probably the only one among the democrats (even though he's a Republican) who will actually accomplish something on our behalf once he takes the White House.

The Democrats have been back in power for eight months and have accomplished nothing. They've not delivered on one promise and we are deeper in the Iraq quagmire than we were this time last year. Oh, but they did pass a stronger wire tapping bill designed by George W. Bush further diminishing our right to privacy and our civil rights. That's showing Bush--just like they promised. And let's not overlook the plan they've implemented for getting us out of this abominable and immoral war--oh right, they still don't have one. First they told us they would have one if they regained control of Congress. Now they're telling us they'll have one as soon as they retake the White House. In the meantime Americans are dying meaningless deaths in an American-created anarchy on the streets of Baghdad.

Melissa Etheridge, the rock star said it best when she looked Senator Clinton in the eye and reminded us all that when Bill and Hillary first came to power some 14 years ago we were promised a new world and "instead our hearts were broken, the promises were ignored." Under the Clintons, our civil rights were ignored and the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell were enacted by Congress. In fact, the Clintons did more to diminish our civil rights than the current Bush administration.

As emotionally satisfying as the LOGO Forum may have been for many us--and I did experience a tear or two myself--we must ask ourselves what was accomplished by this peculiar Gay-Democrat love fest.

According to a new poll just released by Connecticut's Quinnipiac University many Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania voters--states that could easily decide the next presidential election--are less likely to support candidates backed by gay rights groups.

More than a third of Ohio voters view the support of gay-rights groups as a negative in deciding among the White House hopefuls. The same is true for voters in Florida and Pennsylvania--although the margins there are smaller.

Just 10 percent of Ohioans said gay backing would increase their chance of supporting a presidential candidate, while 54 percent said it wouldn't make a difference.

"In Ohio, a gay endorsement appears to cost a candidate more votes than it gets," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Connecticut university's polling institute.

He noted that 26 percent of Democrats said they would be more likely to vote against gay-backed candidates, while 13 percent said such backing would win their support.

"In a state like Ohio, where there is the expectation that the presidential election may be decided, and the last two elections have been close, you're talking about a lot of voters here represented by these numbers," Brown said.

"I think you're seeing a significant base of voters that still hold to traditional values. And they don't want a candidate that supports nontraditional (values)," said David Miller, vice president for public policy with Citizens for Community Values, the group that successfully pushed a 2004 amendment to Ohio's constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Giuliani has tripled his lead among Ohio Republicans, to 29 percent compared with 11 percent for former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and Arizona Sen. John McCain. Last month, it was Giuliani 24 percent, Thompson 18 percent and McCain 14 percent.

Ironically Giuliani, a documented racist and the conservative Republican who would most certainly further the Republican agenda to diminish the integrity of our Constitution and further erode our democracy is the most gay friendly of the leading candidates.

Hillary Clinton, clearly the favorite among the LOGO Forum's dazzling gay celebrity audience has worked some spooky magic on us. As an example, in February of 2000, Hillary Clinton told the press that had she been in the Senate at the time, she would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. "Marriage has got historic, religious, and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman," Clinton said.

In other words, the power queers gave a standing ovation to a candidate who has very recently declared us to be historically, religiously and morally inferior to herself and her adulterous husband.

The good news is that as the Forum's moderator pointed out, Hillary looked fabulous in her coral-colored jacket.

New York Newsday reminds us that "Twenty-five years ago, long before Rudy Giuliani became mayor of New York City, he made a decision that advanced the cause of gay rights nationally.

As the Justice Department's number three official in 1982, Giuliani authorized the hiring of the first openly gay lawyer for a prosecutor post requiring a security clearance, according to records and interviews.

That precedent-setting but little-known action, combined with his successful push as mayor for domestic partnership, hate crime laws in New York, pubic support of New York's gay community and appointments of gay judges, make Giuliani an anomaly: a front-runner for the GOP nomination who is a top champion of gay rights."

The bottom line is that Rudy Giuliani--I man I would never vote for--has done more to advance gay rights than any of the Democratic candidates--even the front runners.

At the end of the day do we vote for a certain loser who says all the right things about gay rights or do we back a potential winner who merely pays lip service to gay rights and hope for the best? Are we all familiar with a Pyrrhic victory? Because last night we may very well have witnessed one.

And maybe the reason women and blacks and all other minorities have scored federal legislation protecting them from discrimination in housing, employment, family and education while some 40 years later we're still second class citizens in every way imaginable is because we''re so damned polite and obsequious. And maybe it's because we confuse the fantasy world of television and movies with reality.

All the Democrats have to do to win our love and adoration is show up at our party--but then they go back to real life and we're left to clean up an endless mess of homophobia, teen suicide, disenfranchisement and don't ask, don't tell.

I for one was deeply moved by a lot of what happened last night, but I have serious doubts as to whether or not anyone who needed to be moved in a more positive direction noticed or cared. And lacking a real commitment to equality from all the front runners, I'm not so sure they will care once they have my vote.

After they got my vote in 2006, the walked away from every commitment they made.

As I've said before,these terribly polite love fests with Democrats struggling to regain power may feel awfully good, but rage at the machine may be what is needed so that gay Americans are at long last provided the legal protections taken for granted by the rest of America. Are political love fests, extremely well dressed celebrity queers politely applauding and well-mannered LOGO forums the road to equality?

"Power can be taken, but not given. The process of taking is empowerment in itself." Gloria Steinem, American writer, feminist and activist for women's rights.