Margaret Carlson moderated with three additional questioners — HRC president Joe Solmonese, rock musician Melissa Etheridge and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart — who all asked some of the most difficult and probing questions the candidates have faced this election cycle.

Six of the eight declared Democratic candidates appeared, one at a time, to answer questions.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was asked whether he thought homosexuality is a choice, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was asked what place he thinks the church should have in government-sanctioned civil marriages and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked what is at the heart of her opposition to gay marriage.

Representative Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel both favor gay marriage and made that point clear last night.

The panelists tried to draw out Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson on their opposition to expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

None of them budged, all saying instead that they think gays and lesbians should be afforded the rights of married couples through civil unions.

"It's not for me to suggest that you shouldn't be troubled by these issues," Obama said when a panelist asked if he could understand why gays would see that stance as unfair and unequal. "I understand that, and I'm sympathetic to it. But my job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day-to-day basis for loving, same-sex couples all across the country, that those are recognized and enforced."

The position of the candidates is a calculated one in a country that is divided on the question. A recent Gallup poll found a slight majority of Americans support the idea of a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to between a man and woman.

Etheridge and the other panelists were at pains to challenge long-shot contenders Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, who both spoke strongly in favor of gay marriage.

"I've been told not to fawn over you," Etheridge joked with Kucinich.

Some of the candidates appeared stunned at some of the questions.

Former Sen. John Edwards appeared to be caught off guard when asked about anti-gay comments his former political strategist accused him of making in 2004.

"You have said in the past that you feel uncomfortable around gay people," Etheridge asked the former Democratic vice presidential nominee. "Are you OK right now?"

Edwards smiled and quickly said that the accusation leveled by Bob Shrum was not true. "Someone else said it. It's not true," Edwards said.

Richardson seemed to struggle to explain how he'd voted for the Defense of Marriage Act while serving in Congress. He now opposes it. He said that in his heart he's now committed to what is achievable — civil unions — but that the country is not ready to accept gay marriage.

On the question of whether people are born gay, Richardson said he's not a scientist. "I don't like to … answer definitions like that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else I don't understand," he said.

Critics took aim at New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson for his response to a question from singer Melissa Etheridge, a panelist, about whether being gay is a matter of choice or biology. Mr. Richardson initially said “It’s a choice,” but later walked back his comment in a statement from his campaign: “Let me be clear — I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice,” he said.

Richardson released a statement moments after the event, saying that he had misunderstood the question and that he does not believe people choose to be gay.

LOGO, the gay cable network that was one of the forums sponsor asked Alan Van Capelle Executive Director of The Empire State Pride Agenda for his thoughts on the evenings events.

Mr. Van Cappelle said,

"It has been suggested to me that I should be pleased at how far our civil rights struggle has advanced. I should take comfort that time is on our side and that the question of whether marriage equality will be the law of the land is no longer one of if but rather one of when. While I agree, I remain unsatisfied with some of what I heard last night.

Even though all of the candidates spoke passionately about equality, and despite some very tough questions from the panelists, none of the frontrunners stepped forward in favor of marriage equality. No matter how much they try to convince themselves that civil unions provide equality, the problems gay and lesbian couples are having in New Jersey prove civil unions are not equal.

There is no such thing as partial equality. You either have equality or you don’t. Period." —Staff

Related: May/2007