Hillary Clinton's Gay-Marriage Problem

[MNBrewer]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-gay-marriage-problem/372717/

Hillary Clinton didn't refrain from supporting same-sex marriage for political reasons—before last year, she earnestly believed that marriage equality should be denied to gays and lesbians. That's the story the 66-year-old Democrat settled on when NPR host Terry Gross pressed her on her views. The admission is easily the most significant in the interview with the former senator, secretary of State, and presidential candidate, though much of the subsequent media attention has focused on the perception that there was a "heated exchange" where Clinton "lashed out" at her interviewer.* The mild tension stemmed from persistent questioning as Clinton obfuscated on an issue that could damage her chances in a 2016 primary but is relatively unlikely to hurt her in a contest against a Republican, given that her coalition is so much stronger on gay rights than the opposition.

In a primary, Clinton could be forced to explain a longtime position that a significant part of that Democratic political coalition now views as suspect or even bigoted. Most famously, the Silicon Valley left forced the ouster of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for a 2008 donation he made to an anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative. That same year, Clinton ran for president while openly opposing gay marriage. If she is to be believed, she also opposed gay marriage as recently as 2013, long after a majority of Americans already held a more gay-friendly position. Would the subset of Democrats who thought 2008 opposition to gay marriage should prevent a man from becoming CEO in 2013 really support the 2015 presidential campaign of a woman who openly opposed gay marriage until last year?

Doing so would seem to show inconsistency, yet there's a strong argument to be made that Clinton's anti-gay-marriage past shouldn't drive decisions to support or oppose her. No one doubts she will be a strong supporter of gay equality if elected president, now that all the political incentives to take that position are aligned. She has advanced gay rights other than marriage at times in her long career. And she has never come across in speeches or interviews as an anti-gay bigot. There is, however, a vocal segment of the left that is invested in likening people who opposed gay marriage to racists who opposed interracial marriage. There is also resentment from gays who feel that the Clintons wronged them in the past.

Finally, there is widespread amnesia among Democrats more broadly, who reflexively assume that Hillary Clinton has of course supported gay marriage in her heart of hearts for years. They will experience disillusionment when they discover the truth, especially if they first catch Clinton disingenuously obfuscating. Younger voters in particular are likely to be caught unaware, and then as embarrassed by Clinton's slowness to change her mind as they are about the positions of their own grandparents, who they'd never select to run the federal government.

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. Honest question ...

would you rather have a President that personally does not support SSM; but would faithfully enforce/not oppose laws that would make it a reality ... Or, a President that came out early; but, has done nothing to advance the cause?

I ask because ... as an African-American, I am frequently posed with that choice in politicians.

[NYC_SKP]

2. We don't need to settle.

She should go away. She only supports matters based on selfish motives, IMHO.

K/R

[DURHAM D]

3. Conor is a right wing hack and a bad writer

but what else would one expect from Andy Sullivan's little buddy.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Stop hating on Hillary

She boldly took a brave leadership stance on gay marriage after only 51% or so of Americans favored it. She could have waited until 75% or even 95% were in favor.

[bluestateguy]

5. The author is making this much too complicated

In 2016 there will be two candidates, one will be Hillary who favors gay marriage along with %55-%60 of the American public. The other will be a Republican who will oppose it. Voters will choose accordingly, or base their vote choice on other issues.

Obama was a gay marriage opponent in 2008, flip-flopped in 2012 the other way. Nobody cared.

[MNBrewer]

6. Obama was the last gay marriage opponent I will ever vote for.

[Fearless]

8. That's what they said in 2004. It wasn't true then either.

Minus the last two sentences, the rest is patently untrue and/or conjecture.

[Kurska]

7. As far as I'm concerned there are two kinds of people on gay rights issues.

Those who support my rights right now and those who are oppose my rights right now.

Hillary is in the good guy camp and it is inconceivable she could ever go back. I'm not playing some right wing hack's divide and conquer games.

Welcome to the right side of history Hillary.

[Fearless]

9. Hillary has done everything possible to make herself appear to be the ideal candidate

Unfortunately during the process she has missed the entire point. She doesn't have points of view. She has talking points. It has become increasingly evident over the past 10 or so years that she will say and do anything that she feels will grant her the position that she wants, the presidency.

I'm reminded most poignantly of this attempt, coming as Obama began running away with the nomination. It, I feel sums her up pretty well. If something someone else is doing is working, take it and incorporate it into the conglomeration of "beliefs" held. It's not that I'm saying that she is the Borg Collective of the Democratic Party, but thankfully, with a primary contest still undecided, resistance is not futile.