A president for us.

The election in 2000 will be the first in which gay, lesbian, and bisexual voters can do what groups traditionally do in America: use the presidential nominating process to maximize support for their issues.

We have not until now had the same role in presidential politics as African-Americans, feminists, gun control opponents, or religious conservatives. First, we weren't prepared. Second, we weren't fully welcomed. Both aspects of this have substantially changed in recent years. Indeed, we would have been able to play this role in 1996 if there had been a Democratic nomination contest then.

Now we are ready to become full-fledged players in the presidential nominating process. Cultural self-expression has a place, but it's not a substitute for political activity. It is now widely understood in the gay, lesbian, and bisexual community that political organizing is an important weapon we have used insufficiently.

At the same time--in part because so many of us are living honestly in this country as openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual people--the political perception that it is dangerous to be our friend has changed. Unfortunately, partisan factors become relevant here. Within the Republican Party it is still a liability to be too pro-gay, which in part accounts for the dearth of Republican support for Bill Weld's ambassadorial nomination. But on the Democratic side, outside of a few pockets of resistance in the Deep South, homophobia is no longer considered a necessary component for a would-be officeholder.

Two trends have been at work over the past 20 years. Homophobia has substantially diminished. The relevant fact is that most Americans are far less homophobic than they thought they were supposed to be, and now they realize this. Countervailing this direction is the mobilization of a very angry right wing, and thus we have the paradox of both a more generally favorable trend in the country as a whole and more virulent opposition in some quarters. The consequence of this has been a Democratic Party that has moved closer to full support for the rights of gay men and lesbians, while the Republican Party, buffeted by contradictory trends, is no more supportive of our right to be free of prejudice than it was 15 years ago.

Confirmation of these facts comes from the 1996 elections. No senator running for reelection in 1996 who voted for the gay and lesbian rights bill suffered any electoral damage because of this. Sixty House members who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act ran for reelection; none was defeated. The lesson of this for 2000 is that we need to start now to participate in the nomination.

The American system that evolved after 1968 is the most open in the world for selecting a chief executive. People who complain about the "Democratic" or "Republican" party choices for presidential nominees are talking about nonexistent entities. For nomination purposes the Democratic and Republican parties are those citizens who participate in the Iowa and subsequent caucuses and in the New Hampshire and subsequent primaries--no more and no less. The criticism that nominees are often chosen by a small number is a criticism of the majority of American people who, given the opportunity to influence the selection of presidential candidates, prefer to decline and then complain about the way things turned out. Indeed, gay, lesbian, and bisexual voters and those who are prepared to work closely with us in ending discrimination can have a significant impact because so many others ignore the process.

Up until fairly recently, efforts by gay, lesbian, and bisexual voters to participate fully have been resisted in varying degrees. In the Republican Party, sadly, the resistance continues to be overpowering. But on the Democratic side we have a very different situation--the ability to press the potential Democratic candidates to be explicit and aggressive in agreeing to those things that are required for us to become citizens with full rights.

Operationally, this means that gay, lesbian, and bisexual activists should refrain from committing now to any of the candidates. All the Democrats--Vice President Al Gore, House minority leader Richard Gephardt, Sen. Bob Kerrey, Sen. John Kerry, former senator Bill Bradley--have records that are generally supportive. All have supported a national gay rights bill. All have good records of opposing the consistent homophobia that came forward in amendments in both the House and Senate during the 1980s and 1990s that would have burdened the fight against AIDS. And all the candidates have deservedly received support from gay men and lesbians in the past.

What we should now be doing is seeking expressions of active commitment from them on the range of issues that remain: the ban on gays in the military, the prohibition against marriage, the failure of the federal government to recognize domestic partnerships, the continued existence of sodomy laws, and the right of gay, lesbian, and bisexual men and women to serve in executive and judicial posts without being disqualified because of their sexual orientation.

I hope that gay, lesbian, and bisexual Democratic activists will now step up discussions with the candidates, urging them to compete for our support over the next two years by their energy and commitment to ending the prejudice against us. If we use our leverage correctly, we can produce a Democratic platform and nominee in 2000 who will be more supportive--and will have demonstrated that support in concrete terms--of our fight than we have ever seen before. On the Republican side I am far less optimistic, and I fear 2000 will be a replay of 1996, with gay Republicans trying to claim as a victory a slight lowering of the volume of homophobic rhetoric. They have the chance to prove me wrong.

Then, in the summer of 2000, we will debate how best to advance our rights in a final election. And if we do the intervening work well, we'll have the chance in 2000 to support a candidate who, as a result of our efforts, will have demonstrated a commitment to ending the irrational prejudice that has blighted the lives of so many.