The frontrunning Democratic presidential candidates -- including my man Howard Dean, who I like partially because he claims to be down with equal rights for all -- aren't endorsing gay marriage. Disappointing. It's more disappointing that they're probably right not to come out (har har) in favor of it, since more than half of my fellow citizens oppose the idea. Politics, after all, is still politics, and mainstream America, after all, is still dumb.

But it's interesting to see *how* the candidates opposed it:

Kerry: "I do not support (gay) marriage itself because . . . of how I view the world culturally, historically, religiously." (*eyeroll*)

Dean: "Marriage isn't the federal government's business" (cop-out) and "marriage has a long, long history as a religious institution." (True, but Howie, don't get all religious on me in the future or you're gonna lose my vote.)

Lieberman: "I'm not ready to give a snap judgment on this...Marriage has a special status in our culture, our heritage, our history." (*eyeroll* again)

For once, I gotta go with Al Sharpton: "That's like saying you give blacks, or whites, or Latinos the right to shack up -- but not get married...It's like asking 'do I support black marriage or white marriage'...The inference of the question is that gays are not like other human beings."

Word up.

I do wonder if the three candidates who supported gay marriage (Sharpton, Braun, and Kucinich) aren't just playing the politics game themselves, trying to differentiate themselves from the frontrunners. Kucinich opposed gay marriage as a candidate for Congress in 1996, for instance.

I should say that all the candidates I've mentioned at least support civil unions. Edwards and Graham wouldn't even show up to the forum.

I hope sometime in my lifetime this debate will seem as ridiculous as arguing whether women should be allowed to vote.