If his inital premise, that he was excluded because he didn't raise enough money, was correct (and there's no reason to dispute it, HRC didn't) we should all be concerned. It's bad enough that we lack sufficient public financing and thus the chance to significantly extinguish major candidates' need to raise tens of millions of dollars. The current system, as we are all painfully aware (Exhibit A: traffic jams in East Hampton caused by a whirlwind of political fundraising this past weekend), rewards big money candidates and the views of their wealthy donors disproportionately). To further weigh down the already tipped scale, along comes the national gay lobby group, operating their "Gay Issues Form" like a private club to which only the élite can attain membership. The Human Rights Campaign, citing Gravel's lack of fundraising, at first chose to silence Gravel by excluding him. (Gravel's protests and those of bloggers and those elusive folks HRC counts as members, presumably, change their mind.) You might think I would congratulate HRC for changing its stance on this, but instead I want to train an laser focus on their initial decision. It was strange and counter intuitive, not only because we expect HRC to be a vigorous supporter of free exchange of ideas, but also because Gravel is not an offensive character when it comes to our community. Gravel has been outspoken in his support of gay rights including gay marriage, and he has been included in all the major televised debates. In fact, Gravel seems like a candidate who HRC could support, unlike the current presumed favorite, Hillary Clinton, who still believes gay couples should be relegated to the wilderness where we wander as individuals, legal strangers to each other. In a democracy, more voices are better than fewer voices, something HRC did not appreciate. Why reward those who can raise $25 million but who won't take a stand in favor of gay marriage with even more 'free media' access at the expense of a lesser funded, also-ran whose candidacy might not be the winning one, but who will vigorously contribute to the discussion. (In our guts, don't we all believe that Edwards, Obama and Clinton are truly in favor of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, anyway? Who better than Gravel to challenge them on it?) Why was HRC afraid of a 12 year veteran of the Senate forcefully advocating for equality in marriage? He may not have been as polished, and he does have a quixotic YouTube video (which is leading those of the other candidates in views!) but he is a legitimate candidate with a history of holding high public office. See Mike Gravel's campaign website here. HRC made the right decision the second time when it caved to those who wanted an EXCLUSIVE "Forum on Gay Issues."

Related: There is good reason Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama have so assiduously courted the gay and lesbian donor base and voter bloc, it turns out that gay and lesbian Americans have twice the voting rate of their non-gay American counterparts.

92.5% of gay men reported that they voted in the 2004 presidential race, and almost 84% said they cast ballots in the 2006 midterm election. Among lesbians, the results were almost as impressive; nearly 91% said they voted in 2004; for the midterm, the figure was 78%. By comparison, the Washington-based Committee for the Study of the American Electorate put the turnout for all Americans eligible to vote at about 61% in 2004 and roughly 40% in 2006. (LA Times)