The issue of gay rights has long been a contentious one in American politics. The Republican Party has used being against gay rights as a successful "wedge issue" or "hot button" issue for decades now -- pretty much since when the gay rights movement truly gained a political foothold. So some Republicans are likely quite gleeful over the prospect of holding a debate on the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" (DADT) policy, which forbids openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military. They think -- and one cannot really fault them for thinking this -- that the issue will be a winner for them politically, as it has so often in the recent past. Especially, they reason, if the Democrats are suicidal enough to bring it up in an election year.

But what these Republicans haven't really come to grips with is the fact that it is 2010, and not 1993. And in the intervening seventeen years, counting from when DADT was enacted into law and signed by President Clinton, American public attitudes have changed dramatically on the issue. Republicans ignore this at their peril.

The entire frame of the debate on gay rights has moved so far in the past two decades that it's really astonishing to realize what people were fighting about back when DADT was made law -- and what is seen as not even a contentious position today. Take civil unions, for instance. Back then, civil unions were on the cutting edge of the gay rights wedge of issues, and most Republicans were strongly against them. Today, the battle has shifted to gay marriage, and nobody wastes time arguing about civil unions, since supporting civil unions is now actually the "fallback" position -- "I support civil unions, but I still feel strongly that a marriage is between a man and a woman, period."

But while gay marriage has not exactly gained majority support from voters (as evidenced by recent referenda in California and Maine), allowing gays to serve openly in the military has actually become a lot less contentious, and has garnered a lot more support from the general public.

Without getting into the pros and cons of the idea of overturning DADT itself (which I do support overturning -- but having never been gay, and having never served in the military, I don't feel I can adequately argue the case), I have to say that politically the situation is a lot different today than when Clinton signed DADT.

Clinton, if you'll remember, didn't want DADT, his real goal was to allow gays to serve openly. Congress -- controlled at the time by Democrats -- did not agree, and the entire issue was an early distraction for Clinton's first term in office. He eventually accepted the compromise of DADT as "half a loaf," and likely expected the issue to move forward incrementally afterwards (which did not happen, I should point out). But, for 1993, even DADT (it was originally called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue," but was later shortened in political parlance) was seen as radical change. And all the change that was politically possible at the time, since there was no majority of voters in favor of allowing gays to serve openly, and no majorities in Congress in favor of it, either.

While it remains to be seen if there exist majorities in Congress willing to back overturning DADT today, there is definitely now a solid majority of voters out there who are now on board with allowing DADT to expire (I've seen polls in the 60-70 percent range). Meaning that the country is in a different place now than many Republicans may realize.

Of course, 2010 is an election year, but not a presidential election year -- meaning the congressional elections will be held on a much more local playing field. The biggest races will be statewide, not nationwide, in other words. And there are still plenty of states in America where being anti-gay-rights will certainly help politicians on the right, and plenty of House districts as well where such a stance for a Republican (or a Democrat, for that matter) would actually help in an election race.

But Republicans, in opposing overturning DADT should be more concerned about just pleasing their base voters. I say this for two reasons. The first is the growing slice of the electorate who are "moderates" or "centrists" or "independents." More and more, and not just on a national scale, these are the voters who determine elections. And many independent voters are a lot more tolerant of gay rights than the Republican base. They are uncomfortable with politicians who appear too bigoted, to put it bluntly.

Which brings up the second reason why Republicans should be careful. Because the subject is one that (certainly historically) lends itself to some pretty over-the-top language from the anti-gay-rights side of the political divide. The more Republican candidates fire up their own base by rhetorical excess on the issue, the more they may drive independent voters away from them.

But, as I said, I don't think the Republicans may fully understand this, which could wind up benefiting the Democrats. Some Republicans have been in office for such a long time that they remember how much political hay they successfully made by demonizing gay advocates back in the 1990s, and they may be tempted to attempt the same sort of thing in the debate on DADT this year.

Democrats aren't completely cohesive on the issue, either, meaning that it may not be as potent an issue as they may be thinking right now, either. I have to point this out in all fairness. Not every Democrat in the House and Senate today is on board with repealing DADT, I would venture to guess. Meaning it may be impossible to actually change the law in Congress this year, no matter what President Obama is calling for at the moment. Passing something through the House which gets rejected by the Senate would be progress on the issue, of a sort. So would attaching something to the military appropriations bill which put the brakes on enforcement of DADT by the Pentagon (but which fell short of actually repealing the policy outright). This may be politically all that is possible this year, especially in the Senate.

But even if doing away with DADT isn't possible this year politically, I really think that the issue is going to play a lot better for Democrats than most Republicans may realize. Because while there are certain regions of the country where anti-gay rhetoric still plays well politically, nationwide attitudes have shifted markedly. And moderate and independent voters who may be leaning toward voting Republican this year may be frightened away from doing so, if the fire-and-brimstone message is what they see from their local candidates.

For me, I am most interested in the irony of the political situation. Because while, seventeen years ago, gays in the military was a big wedge issue that sparked off a frenzy of Republicans using it in election after election as a rhetorical club against Democrats; this year the issue may in fact be used as a wedge issue successfully against Republicans, if the Democrats play their cards right. Democratic candidates may be the ones eagerly "asking" their Republican challengers what they think on overturning DADT, and when Republicans "tell" their positions to voters (especially if they go overboard in doing so) such Republicans may get exactly the opposite response they've previously gotten, or that they expect. Which would be ironic, indeed.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant