By Carol Felsenthal - 05/15/12 10:52 PM EDT
If anyone needs more ammunition for the argument that Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonTrump: 'I’m just flabbergasted’ by Clinton-Lynch meet AFL-CIO head: Trump’s ‘a fraud’ Sanders skirts Biden's claim that he'll endorse Clinton MORE is planning to run for president, add her silence on the issue of gay marriage as the subject monopolized the news last week.
Were the secretary of State to endorse gay marriage, she would be the third Obama Cabinet secretary to do so: Education’s Arne DuncanArne DuncanIn search of the surest Common Core exit route The opt-out movement and the coddling epidemic Senate approves Obama education chief MORE and HUD’s Shaun DonovanShaun DonovanOvernight Healthcare: New momentum to lift ban on gay men donating blood White House makes last-ditch plea for opioid funding Overnight Energy: Coal industry group backs Trump MORE have gone public with their support. And likely more will follow. Still, I’ll wager that Clinton will continue to search her soul until after the last vote is counted on Election Day 2016 or, at the latest, until after the last dance with First Gentleman Bill at the inaugural ball in January 2017.
Clinton being uncertain about the merits, the rightness of gay marriage is about as believable as Obama, for the lion’s share of his presidency, struggling to square his religious beliefs with same-sex nuptials.
The secretary of State obviously has other concerns on her mind. For starters, there’s the Iowa caucus in 2016. When Clinton the “inevitable” lost Iowa in 2008, she never recovered. She won’t be making that mistake again.
While Iowa, the proverbial swing state, has legalized gay marriage, it remains a volatile issue there. In 2010 voters there removed three Iowa Supreme Court justices who upheld the 2009 unanimous decision to allow same-sex marriage. Clinton can certainly see as well as anyone that Obama’s personal support of gay marriage could hurt him in Iowa this time — he easily won Iowa four years ago — and even possibly cost him the election.
When Clinton addressed a United Nations human-rights group in Geneva in December 2011, she said, movingly, “…. being LBGT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.” But she specifically did not mention gay marriage in the United States or elsewhere.
Her own husband, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act — which defines marriage as a “union between one man and one woman” — into law in 1996, shortly before his reelection day in 1996, now supports same-sex marriage. I have no doubt that he wants Hillary to be president — mostly, in my opinion, to further burnish his own legacy, and to get back into the co-driver’s seat. If Bill ClintonBill ClintonTrump: 'I’m just flabbergasted’ by Clinton-Lynch meet Overnight Finance: Obama signs Puerto Rico bill | Trump steps up attacks on trade | Dodd-Frank backers cheer 'too big to fail' decision | New pressure to fill Ex-Im board Conservative group asks for probe of Lynch-Clinton meeting MORE could run for a third term, he’d also still be evolving.
Clinton is far from alone in having to pretend to be not quite ready to say she believes in something she obviously believes in — has anyone ever heard so many strong Democrats advocate states rights?
Tim KaineTim KaineHispanics on Clinton's VP shortlist could help her win votes The Hill's 12:30 Report Clinton’s 9 most likely VP picks MORE, running against Republican George Allen for the Senate seat in Virginia, can’t come out for gay marriage if he hopes to win; neither can Bob Kerrey, or at least not completely — he said that he supports “marriage equality” but it should be left to the states — who’s running for the Senate in Nebraska and whose last major job was president of the decidedly edgy and progressive New School in New York; neither can Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskillClaire McCaskillThe Trail 2016: Meet and greet and grief McCaskill: I wonder if people voting for Trump are embarrassed VA opposes bill aimed at helping vets in mustard gas experiments MORE, who’s running a tough race for reelection. She can only go so far as to say it’s a matter best left up to the states.
And then there’s Democrat Joe DonnellyJoe DonnellyOvernight Finance: Trump threatens NAFTA withdrawal | Senate poised for crucial Puerto Rico vote | Ryan calls for UK trade deal | Senate Dems block Zika funding deal Senate Democrats block Zika agreement ahead of recess Post Orlando, hawks make a power play MORE, up against Tea Party darling Richard Mourdock for Sen. Dick Lugar’s seat in Indiana. Donnelly opined that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
It’s worth noting that the ever-strategic Clinton did seem last year to endorse New York’s gay-marriage law, though she offered no country-wide endorsement, appearing to advocate that New York is unlike the rest of the country and that when it came to the state she represented in the Senate, she did not need to be stuck in quite the same quandary as her president.
If reporters have been pressing Hillary Clinton on her view in light of her boss’s change of position, I haven’t seen it. I guess we’re giving the obviously overworked, overscheduled soon-to-be-former secretary of State a pass — for now.
Felsenthal, a journalist based in Chicago and author of Clinton in Exile: A President Out of the White House, is a contributor to The Hill’s Pundits Blog.