It’s been four years since the “Winter of Love,” when Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the City Assessor to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Nationally, Newsom was blamed for George Bush’s re-election. Locally, it secured his standing with gays and most liberals – and frustrated his progressive opponents. In 2004, Howard Dean was a “radical” for supporting civil unions; today, it’s the “moderate” stance for anyone seeking the presidency. We’ve had gay marriage in Massachusetts for four years (and the sky hasn’t fallen), and we now have civil unions in Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Oregon. More and more Californians support marriage equality, and the right-wing keeps failing to get enough signatures for a ballot initiative. The legislature has twice passed a marriage equality bill – only to face the Governor’s veto, but I’m optimistic that the state Supreme Court will soon mandate it. But despite such strides in the last four years – and San Francisco deserves a lion’s share of the credit – we still face a major obstacle: the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which must be repealed entirely.

On February 12, 2004, Mayor Newsom set off a firestorm – 4,000 couples came to City Hall (often lining up for hours in the pouring rain) to have their relationships recognized as equal under the law. Political insiders – even gays like Congressman Barney Frank – called it a “stunt,” but there’s no denying the effect it had on the average San Franciscan. Because of this move, Newsom will always be popular in the LGBT community – and it’s why the Left could not get a viable candidate to challenge him for re-election. While there are many other reasons to oppose the Mayor, it made us all proud to live here.

Nationally, it didn’t look good for Newsom. Senator Dianne Feinstein publicly blamed him for costing John Kerry the White House – and pundits predicted that his statewide ambitions were toast. But they didn’t consider that the “Winter of Love” – along with generational shifts – would change perceptions of gay marriage, and that within ten years Newsom would have been seen as visionary. In the last four years, we’ve had incredible progress – not just legally, but in the hearts and minds of the American people.

Massachusetts was the first state to achieve marriage equality, and the news four years later is remarkably uneventful. A statewide poll conducted in May 2005 (one year after its implementation) found that 62% support gay marriage – and a whopping 84% said it had no negative impact on their quality of life. Attempts to repeal it by a constitutional convention failed – and the soonest it can show up on the state ballot will be 2012.

While no state has gone that far, others have taken the more politically “palatable” – but less sufficient – route with civil unions. Connecticut passed it in 2005, New Hampshire did so in 2007, and Oregon was the latest to join this year. In New Jersey, the Supreme Court ruled that its domestic partnerships violate equal protection – and ordered the state to either grant full marriage rights or civil unions. The legislature took the easy way out, but my analysis of the court ruling finds that New Jersey will inevitably have to follow Massachusetts.

And the same can soon happen here in California – where the 4,000 couples who got married in San Francisco wait for a Supreme Court ruling to come out this year. The plaintiffs lost at the Appellate Court level, but that decision expressly opened the door for granting marriage equality. If the Supreme Court finds proof that sexual orientation is a trait that people cannot change (or “immutable”), they’ll have no choice but to throw out the ban on same-sex marriages. And it would yield more victories down the road.

But hoping for a favorable court decision – which is never a guarantee – has not stalled incredible progress in the Golden State for same-sex marriage. In the last two years, the legislature has twice passed marriage equality – only to get vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. There wasn’t much debate the second time around, as Republicans appeared resigned to acknowledge the inevitable. Maybe because the public is steadily shifting away from them: a Public Policy Institute poll in 2005 found Californians split 46-46 on same-sex marriage. Other polls show similar movement as well.

It’s quite a change from March 2000 – when California voters passed Proposition 22 by an easy 61-39 margin. Exit polls at the time showed that age was the main correlation as to whether voters supported it – so we knew it was only a matter of time for the tide to turn. But nobody thought it would move this fast. The Knight Initiative was a statute (not a constitutional amendment), and it only barred California from recognizing out-of-state gay marriages. So with public support, it is still possible to achieve real equality.

Nevertheless, progress at the state level is fruitless without a complete repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Passed in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton, DOMA restricted all federal benefits – including civil unions – for same-sex couples. Even in Massachusetts today, gay and lesbian couples cannot benefit from federal tax privileges, immigration rights or Social Security benefits. It also allowed states to not recognize out-of-state gay marriages (like California with Prop 22), which jeopardizes the rights of any couple who crosses the border into Nevada.

Electing a Republican President will perpetuate the status quo – or even make things a lot worse. Electing a Democratic President would help to a certain extent. Barack Obama would repeal DOMA entirely – paving the way for states to pass full marriage equality. Hillary Clinton would repeal Part 3 of DOMA (regarding federal benefits), but defended leaving “marriage up to the states” – and that “states have taken action on their own.” But without repealing all of DOMA, we’re never going to have full marriage equality.

And that's something the gay rights movement needs to make as a #1 priority.