Too pro-gay for the party? Democratic firebrand Paul Hackett dropped out of politics after party leaders pressured him to make way for a "safer" U.S. Senate candidate in Ohio. Did his vocal support for marriage equality doom his candidacy?

When Paul Hackett threw his hat into the ring to try to unseat incumbent Republican U.S. senator Mike DeWine of Ohio this November, he seemed to be the ideal candidate to help the Democratic Party win back control of Congress: He's articulate and outspoken; a vocal opponent of the Republican Party and of President Bush; and, as a veteran of the war in Iraq, a qualified critic of that increasingly unpopular conflict.

And the straight 44-year-old from Cincinnati is not afraid to rock the boat by taking a stand on controversial issues--including vocal support for marriage equality.

But Hackett dropped out of the race on February 13, claiming top Democratic Party leaders asked him to make way for Ohio Democratic insider and U.S. representative Sherrod Brown--a man, Hackett says, not known for demanding big changes.

"The Democratic strategy on a national level is 'We're just going to sit here and hope the Republicans self-destruct. We're not going to advocate, we're just going to cross our fingers,'" Hackett tells The Advocate. "It's a large part of why I got involved. I was sick and tired of seeing Democrats lose and not stand up and fight for anything. On a national level, they are more interested in protecting their own dwindling power base than taking risks."

Democratic leaders, including Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, deny ordering Hackett to step aside but admit expressing their desire to avoid a costly primary between Hackett and Brown. They urged Hackett to make another run for the Ohio congressional seat held by Republican Jean Schmidt, a seat Hackett almost won in a 2005 special election.

But Hackett instead quit politics altogether, disappointed and disgusted with his party. "When I articulated all my views on gay rights, the war, guns, and everything else, they would grimace every time," he says. "I'd hear 'Loose cannon.' I don't think speaking honestly on any of the issues should characterize you as a loose cannon."

Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean was himself considered a loose cannon who some say was pushed aside for the safer, more predictable John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election. The DNC declined to make Dean available to The Advocate to comment on this story, but spokesman Damien LaVera says there is no concentrated effort to cast aside outspoken candidates who favor same-sex marriage or take other controversial stands.

"This party is the party of opportunity. We always have been and always will be," says LaVera. "And we believe the LGBT families should be full participants in American society, politics, and any other part of American life. The kind of candidates that we want are the strong Democrats who will stand up for Democratic values all across America."

But LGBT families were far from "full participants" in the DNC's Annual Report to the Grassroots, released on the same day Hackett quit, which contained no mention of LGBT voters or issues. That exclusion came on the heels of the revelation that the DNC had eliminated its long-standing director of gay outreach.

But LaVera says a fact sheet issued the day after the Grassroots report shows the Democratic Party is as gay-inclusive as ever and that all outreach director posts were eliminated by Dean in favor of an untried new outreach program grandly titled the American Majority Partnership. "We did not do as good a job as we should have in rolling it out, so there was some misunderstanding," LaVera says. "The fact is, we are bringing more resources to bear than ever before."

Brett Wagner isn't buying that message. The gay former congressional candidate says two dozen California Democratic Party leaders tried to force him to drop out of the race for the seat representing California's 24th district. They accused him of misappropriating campaign funds during his first run in 2004, an unproved allegation he says was just a smoke screen. "I've seen a pattern emerging in both recruiting candidates and perhaps convincing candidates, one way or another, to withdraw from races--both gay candidates and those friendly to LGBT issues," Wagner says. "Homophobia still lurks in some of the darker corners of our party."

Wagner has since dropped his bid for Congress to run instead for the Santa Barbara County beard of supervisors. But not because of party pressure, he asserts; he wants to focus on local politics.

John Marble, a spokesman for the gay political group National Stonewall Democrats, says the party needs more candidates like Hackett and Wagner. "Democrats can be for family issues while supporting marriage equality," he says, adding that Hackett could be "a template for other candidates to use. It's a very murky area if you are a new candidate running for public office."

But Marble is realistic about what will happen in this year's midterm elections. "I don't think [Democrats] are trying to get away from our issues, but on the marriage issue there might be a timidity when politicians and strategists aren't sure how to address it," Marble says. "I'm sure some would rather it go away and not have to deal with it, but thanks to the Republicans, it's going to be in the public sphere, and Americans are still figuring out what they believe."

Stonewall has no intention of giving any support to candidates who don't support LGBT interests, Marble says. But it might still stand behind someone who stops short of supporting same-sex marriage as long as he or she is in favor of civil unions and domestic partnerships. "In almost every circumstance, whatever a Democrat's position, it will be 100 times better than their Republican opponent," he explains.

Indeed, the Democratic Party has to be realistic about backing who they believe can win a particular race, says Robin Brand, senior vice president for politics and strategy at the the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, a group that raises money for openly gay candidates. "When you are looking at races on the national level, there are fewer and fewer competitive seats," Brand says. "These races are incredibly expensive and competitive, so you really have to make sure that these campaigns are viable."

Whether a Democratic candidate should speak out on gay issues "depends on where you are running," adds Brand. "In Massachusetts or New York, in Oregon or California, it's probably not a problem. If you are running in Texas or Oklahoma or Georgia, possibly.

"The Republicans did use gay marriage to motivate their base, and obviously that strategy is still in play," Brand continues. "How are we going to deal with that? I don't know if we have answered that question. It's important to stay focused on the issues that really matter. What you see the Democrats doing is talking about how the Republican Party used this as a tool to distract voters from other issues they care about. I think they will start calling Republicans on that tactic, and voters will start to get it."

Hackett, however, says simply calling Republicans on their antigay tactics won't be enough to resonate with voters. "The Democrats are going to miss an opportunity in 2006 if they don't stand up and stand for something and quit being fearful," Hackett says. "[Same-sex marriage] is an equal rights issue. It's a constitutional issue. But the Democrats don't want to take the effort to explain that or take the effort to fight for that. I think it's weak and emblematic of a greater problem, of not being able to stand for anything. What is more basic than equal rights?"

Hernandez is a staff writer for the Los Angeles Daily News.