For those folks who think GLBT equality is here and Pride is irrelevant, think again.

In a few weeks, Democratic candidates for president will engage in a debate on gay rights.

The front-runners – Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson – have to “debate” gay rights because none will simply agree that the Constitution prohibits treating persons differently because of sexual orientation or marital status.

About the only person who seems to “get it” is Elizabeth Edwards, John’s wife.

Why can’t all the presidential candidates simply say that the Constitution prohibits differential treatment, period. After all, even the Supreme Court suggested so in Lawrence v. Texas.

A few weeks ago, the Democrats appeared before the NAACP. None of them said the Constitution allows states to engage in bias against blacks.

No one had a problem with the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which held that a state cannot deny blacks the “right to marry the person of their choice.”

Imagine the outcry if any of these presidential candidates told the NAACP what they say to us when we ask them what their problem is with regard to same-sex marriage: “I’m just not there yet.”

What if Clinton said, “A black woman and a white man should be allowed to live together as domestic partners. But I think marriage is between a white man and a white woman. Mixing the races isn’t sanctioned in the Bible. It’s not in our tradition. Imagine how difficult it would be for a biracial child to grow up not having two parents of the same race.”

I don’t think Clinton or the others would get much applause. Instead, they’d be booed, boycotted and shunned.

But if they say the same things to a gay crowd, they can take it “for granted” that they will have GLBT support. Who else do we have?

And they’re right. Chances are they would make the next appointments to the Supreme Court, and they would be more likely to appoint gay-friendly jurists.

But if all candidates could simply agree that the Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from engaging in bias based upon sexual orientation and marital status, there would be no need for a debate.

That’s because it would be obvious that: the military cannot prevent gays and lesbians from serving; public and private employers cannot discriminate against GLBT employees; businesses cannot engage in anti-gay business practices; states cannot prohibit persons of the same sex from marrying.

Why this is so difficult in 2008 is beyond us all.

As Americans, we need to move on. The reality is that all Americans have more to worry about than two men or two women marrying. It’s whether we will continue to have the freedom we’ve taken for granted.

And that’s why it’s so crucial in this election year that we elect a president who unites, rather than divides, us.