The Democratic frontrunners and equal rights for members of the GLBT community
Full disclosure: If neither Bernie nor O'Malley is still in the race on primary day, I will write in a name.
This post began as a reply to the comparison of the positions of Jeb! (as I shall forever refer to him), Hillary and Bernie in this OP, as to the gay rights issue only. http://www.democraticunderground.com/128033005.
Bernie Sanders
The condensed version:
Bernie's stand on what I will, for short, call "gay rights" is not something into which he had to "evolve," not something on which he has "led from behind," waiting until it became more popular with voters, not something he lived privately, but denied while on the campaign trail, sacrificing a minority population to personal ambition. As the relatively new Mayor of Burlington in 1983 (took office April 6, 1981), Bernie urged the alderman to proclaim the day of Vermont's first gay pride parade Lesbian and Gay Pride Day and he marched in the parade; Bernie voted against DADT in 1993 and against DOMA in 1996. Overall, the Human Rights Campaign awards Bernie a 100% rating, and The Advocate asks if Bernie is the most LGBT-friendly candidate.
http://www.hrc.org/elected-officials/profile/senate/92#.VcImE_lDzIU
http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-most-lgbt-friendly-candidate
To elaborate:
In 1983, proclaiming Lesbian and Gay Pride Day and marching in the parade was far from a popular stand, even in Vermont. http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2015/06/30/32-years-before-scotus-decision-sanders-backed-gay-pride-march
(As this article by Nate Silver explains, Vermont, while very green, may be less blue than those who dismiss Sanders' admit. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/new-vermont-is-liberal-but-old-vermont-is-still-there/?_r=0 )
To put 1983 into a historical perspective, the first Stonewall riot, a watershed event in gay rights, had not occurred until June 1969, only 14 years earlier. The Names Project was not established until 1987, four years later. So, among heteros holding, or seeking, elected office, Bernie was a very early leader on gay rights.
Let me try to put 1983 into a human perspective as well: Bernie Sanders had been raising a son on his own, but not making much money to speak of--and no "steady" money at all--until he took office as Mayor of Burlington in April 1981. By that time, his son was 14 years old. Sanders had won that election by all of 10 votes. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-119927.html#.VcJK0PlDzIU
(Sanders and son at a political meeting.)
Yet, Sanders did not hesitate to take an unpopular stand, both by marching in Vermont's first gay pride parade and by urging aldermen to members to proclaim the day Lesbian and Gay Pride Day, on behalf of the city. In this poster/mom's book, THAT is political courage on behalf of a morally just, but unpopular cause.
?cb=1435691429
However, obviously, that did not mean that Bernie's stand on gay rights either began or ended in 1983. Obviously, he already felt strongly about gay rights by 1983 or he would not have risked his re-election. As Mayor, he continued to the practice. As a member of the House, Bernie opposed DADT in 1993, most likely because it did not go far enough and having Congress pass it (as opposed to issuing an Executive Order made the very imperfect DADT unnecessarily harder to improve, as described in this post, below. A small part of the defects of DADT is shown by the chart of discharges under DADT near the end of this wiki article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell
The DADT vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll474.xml
DOMA was another abomination, IMO, both moral and legal. DOMA stated essentially that each state could decide for itself, and only itself, who could marry in that state. HOWEVER, no other state had to honor that decision; and the federal government was going to recognize only marriage between man and a woman.
Since the founding of the United States, family law issues--who may marry and divorce, determining legitimacy of children, issues around adoption, etc. were ALL considered uniquely matters of state law, among those issues reserved to individuals and the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.* The federal government was supposed to be a government of limited powers, those granted it in the Constitution by the states and by individuals and family law issues were deemed to be no part of that grant. The Fourteenth Amendment issue is, to my mind, obvious and DOMA also raised issues under the Full Faith Credit Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
The notable exception to the complete power of states over marriage was the holding of perhaps the most liberal SCOTUS bench in US history in Loving v. Virginia (1967). The Loving Court 
held that a state's making entering into a racially mixed marriage a crime violated the Constitution. But, please don't conflate Loving with DOMA, even though both crossed the boundary of total state control over who may marry.
IMO, the Loving case should have been a "no-brainer," given the history of the Civil War amendments to the US Constitution. DOMA, however, was not trying to protect or expand civil rights under the Constitution in order to protect a minority. Rather, DOMA was seeking the opposite: to restrict the rights of a "discrete and insular minority, DESPITE both legal tradition and the US Constitution. It sought to deny people a fundamental human right, solely because of being gay.
DADT was a very ugly law, having no purpose other than to discriminate against a small minority who had done no wrong. IIRC, Justice Kennedy called DOMA a "vindictive" law.
Obviously, constructing a rationale for opposing DOMA on about a half dozen Constitutional grounds should have been easy. Nonetheless, only 15% of House Democrats voted against it. Bernie Sanders, however, was among the few who voted against it. And, last year, DOMA was indeed declared unconstitutional. However, as with DADT, justice delayed is often justice denied.
On the downside, Bernie did say that we had to respect each other's "lifestyles," but, given it was 1983 and the personal risk to him and his son, I can forgive the clumsy, incorrect word choice.
As stated, Sanders record in the House and Senate has earned him a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign.
Hillary Clinton
The condensed version:
Taking the wrong stand on gay rights until it was relatively very safe for a politician to take a public stand, aka, triangulation; and, IMO, "leading from behind."
To elaborate:
Elaboration must begin with President Clinton, not because I am a sexist woman, but because Hillary took specific ownership of her husband's actions in office vis a vis the GLBT community--before she tried to distance herself.
Pres. Clinton could have simply signed an Executive Order revoking St. Ronnie's Executive Order banning gays from the military. On the same executive order, Bubba could have required equal treatment of members of the military, regardless of race, religion, orientation, etc. (Truman integrated the military racially by executive order--and, IIRC, in an election year, to boot.)
However, for political cover for himself, Bubba chose to consult two Republicans, Powell and Morris, who came up with DADT, and then to have Congress pass DADT. By tradition supposedly, once Congress has acted as to the military, it takes Congressional action to change Congressional action. So, having Congress pass DADT made improving on harder. That would have been fine, if DADT had been the ideal solution, but in both theory and practice, it was far from ideal. Additionally, Clinton not only signed DOMA, but praised it. These actions had resulted in quite a few gays I know and have seen posting on message boards voting for Nader in 2008. (No interest in another Nader debate, thanks. Just making a statement from personal knowledge.)
Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.
I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".
This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.
I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/clinton.html IOW, as I sign a bill that is discriminatory, as well as morally and Constitutionally/legally wrong, I emphasize that I oppose discrimination of every kind.
During the Presidential primary of 2008, a small group of gays approached Hillary, saying that they had worked hard to help elect Bubba and then he betrayed them. Her reply? "I thought we did very well." (emphasis is mine) As to the propriety of mentioning Bill Clinton in connection with Hillary in general and her 2008 campaign strategy to "embrace" his entire administration, please see http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778412
According to politifact, in 1999, Hillary said that she opposed DADT. However, politifact does not tell us whether she was to the right or to the left of her husband on DADT.
As far as other GLBT issues:
In 1996, the year Bill Clinton signed DOMA and 3 years after the Hawaiian Supreme Court decision, Hillary Clinton said:
My preference is that we do all we can to strengthen traditional marriages, and that the people engaged in parenting children be committed to one another and to the child. We also have to be realistic and know there are others who can do a good job, as well, of raising children.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/16/hillary-clintons-changing-views-on-gay-marriage/
Whether the others who could raise children included gays is left unsaid. Certainly grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles, married and single, had been awarded custody of children by courts and single people were adopting, but some churches and denominations were objecting specifically to gay singles and couples adopting children.
In 2000, 7 years after the Hawaiian Supreme Court decision and 4 years into DOMA, when running for the NY Senate, Hillary said:
id.
Marriage has got (sic) historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.
In 2003, 10 years after the Hawaiian Supreme Court decision, and 7 years into DOMA, she said:
id.
Well, marriage means something different. You know, marriage has a meaning that I think should be kept as it historically has been, but I see no reason whatsoever why people in committed relationships can’t have many of the same rights and the same respect for their unions that they are seeking, and I would like to see that be more accepted than it is,” Mrs. Clinton speaking to WNYC on the difference between gay marriage and civil unions.
I am, you know, for many reasons. I think that the vast majority of Americans find that to be something they can’t agree with. But I think most Americans are fair. And if they believe that people in committed relationships want to share their lives and, not only that, have the same rights that I do in my marriage, to decide who I want to inherit my property or visit me in a hospital, I think that most Americans would think that that’s fair and that should be done,” Mrs. Clinton, in an interview with CBS, on whether she still opposed same-sex marriage.
In 2006, she said her position had always been that marriage was a state issue.
She did not come out for equal marriage until 2013. (President Obama had done so in May 2012, a Presidential election year.)
More on Hillary's positions on this issue here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/
Martin O'Malley
Condensed version: Hard to say, because I know of nothing prior to 2012.
To elaborate:
O’Malley’s speech highlighted his record in Annapolis and legislative victories, including minimum wage laws and laws in support of LGBT rights.
In 2012, he signed a bill legalizing same sex marriage in Maryland, joining seven other states in enacting marriage equality. The law survived a statewide referendum held later that year, which marked the first time marriage rights in the U.S. were extended to same-sex couples by a popular vote.
In May 2014, he signed into law the Fairness for All Marylanders Act, extending housing, public accommodations, and employment protections to transgender citizens and visitors of the state.
http://www.advocate.com/politics/2015/05/30/marriage-equality-pioneer-martin-omalley-anti-hillary-candidate-president
That's all she wrote.
*Historical notes: In 1992, the District of Columbia had adopted the nation's first type of civil union statute. In 1993, the Supreme Court of Hawaii had ruled that the state must show a compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage. Other jurisdictions were following suit in granting rights to gay couples. So, DOMA was very much an issue of a federal statute frustrating, at the federal level, the intent of a state or local law without any constitutional justification for so doing. For more historical info and context, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Nicely done, merrily!
Bookmarking because I have been attacked more than once in GD P for comparing their records and have seen people repeatedly lie about Bernie's support of lgbt rights.
supposed to compare their records on the issues. I've never heard of such a thing in political discussion.
All new rules for this primary. No one should challenge. No one should mention this or that. No one should bring up the past. Everything is off limits, except this current primary campaign's message, carefully crafted by hundreds of advisors.
Bernie's heartfelt and consistent record on the side of justice is a strength. Hillary's record of fudging, triangulation, flip flops and war advocacy is a weakness. Small wonder some DUers want to pretend that comparisons of records is off limits.
People can make up all the fake new rules they want. Doesn't mean the rules have a shred of validity or that anyone else has to obey the trumped up rules. Why in the name of all that is sane should a majority of DUers follow the arbitrary rules manufactured by a minority of DUers?
I heartily recommend ignoring that noise and posting as though you never saw it.
However, easy for me to say. I try to stay out of GD: P. Good luck there.
Thanks for the rec and kind words.
Of course, Clinton has since evolved on LGBT rights, as many have. That's wonderful. But the problem is, she only came out in support of marriage equality after it was not politically risky to do so. In fact, by 2013 - the year Clinton announced her full support for marriage equality - Democratic support for same-sex marriage was the norm, not the exception.
On such an important moral issue that affects my life and the lives of thousands of other Americans, making decisions in this manner is rather despicable. Additionally, Clinton's habit of doing what polls deem politically popular is the reason why so many voters find her inauthentic. Now, if Clinton were the only option for the Democratic presidential nomination, I would understand why we should support her despite these flaws.
But she isn't the only option.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving Independent in the history of Congress, is also running for the nomination. And unlike Clinton, his record on LGBT rights is historically excellent.
Sanders voted against DOMA, one of the few members of Congress to do so, at a time when such a stance was not politically popular. Four years after DOMA passed, Sanders helped champion Vermont's decision in 2000 to become the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions. This set a national precedent for LGBT equality achieved via legislative means. In 2009, when Vermont became the first state to allow marriage equality through legislative action rather than a court ruling, Sanders expressed his support once again. Truly, Sanders has been a real leader on LGBT rights, even if this leadership isn't recognized in the way that Clinton's current support is.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-novak/on-lgbt-rights-bernie-lea_b_7662682.html
Today’s Supreme Court decision was a monumental moment in American history, as it guaranteed the right for gays and lesbians to get married and established full marriage equality.
Many politicians offered their words of support, including President Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Yet it is important to remember that Obama and Clinton both opposed marriage equality as late as early 2012. It is a testament to the work of thousands of activists over decades that the political class was pulled towards supporting equality.
There is however one prominent politician who did not wait so long to call for full gay equality: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
In a letter he published in the early 1970’s, when he was a candidate for governor of Vermont from the Liberty Union Party, Sanders invoked freedom to call for the abolition of all laws related to homosexuality:
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Saturday he has been waiting for the nation to catch up to his support for same-sex marriage.
Sanders’ remarks come a day after Friday’s landmark 5-4 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
He argued he was well ahead of the historic decision, unlike Hillary Clinton, his main rival for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.
...
Sanders at the time served in the House of Representatives, which voted 342-67 in favor of DOMA. The Senate voted 85-14 in favor, before former President Bill Clinton signed it into law.
“That was an anti-gay marriage piece of legislation,” he added of the law that defined marriage at the federal level as the coupling of one man and one woman.
Sanders on Saturday praised Americans for creating greater opportunities for same-sex couples. Friday’s Supreme Court ruling, he charged, was not possible without national pressure for gay rights.
“No one here should think for one second this starts with the Supreme Court,” Sanders said.
“It starts at the grassroots level in all 50 states,” he said. “The American people want to end discrimination in all its forms.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/246370-sanders-i-was-ahead-of-the-curve-on-gay-rights
Most Americans now support legally allowing gay and lesbian relationships, same-sex marriage, and personal marijuana use after decades of shifting public opinion. But one Democratic candidate for president, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, was calling for many of these changes decades ago.
In a 1972 letter to a local newspaper — which was recently resurfaced by Chelsea Summers at the New Republic — Sanders wrote that he supported abolishing "all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)" as part of his campaign for Vermont governor:
These stances were far removed from public opinion at the time, according to Gallup surveys on marijuana and gay and lesbian rights. In 1972, 81 percent of Americans said marijuana should be illegal — which suggests even more would favor the prohibition of more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin. In 1977, the earliest year of polling data, 43 percent of Americans said gay and lesbian relations between consenting adults should not be legal, while 43 percent said they should be legal.
...
But it took decades for the American public to come around to majority support on these issues: It wasn't until 2013 that a majority of Americans supported marijuana legalization, the early 2000s that most consistently responded in favor of legal gay and lesbian relations, and 2011 that a majority first reported backing same-sex marriage rights.
Sanders has carried many of these positions to this day. He was one of the few federal lawmakers to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal ban on same-sex marriages, in the 1990s. And while he told Time's Jay Newton-Small in March that he has no current stance on marijuana legalization (but backs medical marijuana), he characterized the war on drugs as costly and destructive.
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/7/8905905/sanders-drugs-gay-rights
Equal pay for equal work by women. (Mar 2015)
Bush’s tracking citizens’ phone call patterns is illegal. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender. (Mar 2001)
Rated 93% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 97% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery. (Jun 2008)
ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays. (Jun 2009)
Prohibit sexual-identity discrimination at schools. (Mar 2011)
Endorsed as "preferred" by The Feminist Majority indicating pro-women's rights. (Aug 2012)
Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender. (Jan 2013)
Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools. (Jun 2013)
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm
I posted them in GD P but was told by a Hillary supporter it was "TLDR-- more is not better".
I can't argue with that! 
Except when an "adult" does it it's not cute at all.
Here's some free advice, which, as Huckleberry Finn might say, is worth every penny you pay for it.
Don't worry about what "they" say. There is no "winning the internet." Even if you do, no one will admit it. Even if someone does admit it, you won't get a prize for winning.
http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/386:_Duty_Calls