Let me play devil's advocate: He's gay.

I was admittedly less than thrilled at my choice of candidates last November. I ended up going with Bob Barr (and am now disappointed after discovering he introduced the DOMA). But there were some things that Obama was saying that I was excited about. Of course, I naively thought that he might actually follow through on his promises. Oh me of too much faith.

Despite Obama's claim to reverse the ridiculous "don't ask, don't tell" policy instigated by the Clinton administration, he's pushing it off.

From his candidate website:

Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

Add to that "more than 50" Lt. Dan Choi, who has been discharged for being gay. In a time where more and more people are ok with or just don't care that people in the military are gay, even openly gay, why do we still have this policy?

John Oliver has the answer.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Dan Choi Is Gay
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Another victory for equal rights

Maine has followed Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut in recognizing all citizens' rights to marry.

Earlier today, Maine's legislature approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and less than an hour later, Governor Baldacci signed it.

"I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."

New Hampshire is next in New England to vote on a bill for marriage equality today, though it no news yet. A similar bill has already been introduced in Rhode Island, but is not expected to pass this year. The DC city council has passed a preliminary measure to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states.

I am personally overjoyed at this news for a variety of reasons. But the biggest reason that it's so exciting is that finally citizens are starting to realize that equality really is for everyone. I continue to be confused by opponents of same-sex marriage who protest on the basis of religious rights.

First of all, making marriage an equal right for all does not lessen the "importance" of marriage for other people. Most of the same-sex marriage legislation does not give special dispensation for gay citizens; it just doesn't define marriage between a man and a woman. Straight married couples' rights do not disappear with the creation of equal rights for all.

Second of all, the government is not forcing churches to perform ceremonies for gay couples. There already are churches that perform committment ceremonies for couples who cannot be legally married. Nowhere in any legislation is there an attack on any church or religion.

Third of all, why do people keep contending that the government should "protect marriage?" Where in the Constitution is that obligation enumerated? It's not the government's job to protect the "sanctitity" of a religious ceremony or institution. That's sort of what the free exercise and establishment clauses in the First Amendment are about.

I have more snarky comments, like how straight couples should take a look at the divorce rate before talking about the sanctity of marriage. But the bottom line is really, same-sex legislation to me is a lot like hate crimes legislation. Do I think that the government should have any involvement? Absolutely not. But until all people really are treated equally, we need some reminders of TJ's words.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Hate crime protection undermines equality

In a landmark case, Allen Andrade has been convicted of first-degree murder for the bludgeoning death of Angie Zapata and sentenced to life without parole. The murder conviction wasn't too much of a surprise, because there was so much evidence against him, as well as the part where he confessed. The surprise was that it took the jury only two hours to reach a verdict, and to brand the killing as a hate crime. Andrade is the first in the States to be convicted and sentenced in a hate crime against a transgender person.

In 2005, Colorado added "transgender" status to its list of groups under the protection of "bias-motivated crimes," also known as hate crimes. Colorado is not alone in its thinking. While most, if not all, states who have hate crime statutes offer protection for gay and lesbian citizens, transgender citizens are usually not included. New Hampshire recently passed a discrimination law adding the language "gender identity" and "gender expression," and earlier this week, the New York Assembly passed the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act.

On the one hand, I see these changes as steps forward in our justice system. Groups of people who have been historically mistreated and harassed are now protected under the law. But the whole concept of hate crimes smacks of unconstitutionality to me. "Equal Protection" should be just that- equal. I don't agree that certain groups should have added protection simply because they're different. I realize this view is not shared by many in the GLBT community. But I can't help but feel that if gay people ever want to be equal, they've got to stop hiding behind the law. How can we claim that marriage should be equal and protected for all citizens, and at the same time claim that a person who is harmed because of his sexual orientation deserves different treatment? I don't know that a straight person killed because of his orientation would be afforded the same courtesy.

It's a sticky situation. I acknowledge that our society as a whole doesn't seem to be ready to accept the GLBT community as mainstream. I understand that there are citizens out there who feel the need to force their opinions upon those with whom they disagree. But I also think that if the GLBT community wants equality, they're going to have to give up the special protections.