Hillary Clinton’s Team Puts Kibosh On 2016, Marriage Equality Chatter


With her tenure as Secretary of State winding down and talk of a potential 2016 presidential run ramping up, wonks of all variety are trying to pin down where Hillary Clinton stands on political spectrum, particularly in terms of marriage equality.

According to most people, her LGBT-inclusive politics and common sense, Clinton stands alongside her husband and daughter in supporting full marriage equality. She’s just been keeping quiet because of her role at the State Department.

Maggie Haberman writes at Politico, “[Her circle] indicated privately that she feels … because of her role as the country’s chief diplomat that it was appropriate for her to stay out of this,” but that as soon as she’s in the clear and “she’s given the right opportunity, that she will end up with the rest of her clan.”

Freedom To Marry’s Evan Wolfson told Haberman, “I really expect that we will hear from her explicitly when she’s left the State Department.”

Clinton’s team must have gotten a little squeamish about the matter, because Haberman updated her post with a note from the Secretary’s spokesman, Philippe Reiss: “Since the day she entered the State Department, Secretary Clinton has made providing greater benefits and support to the gays and lesbians who serve our country as diplomats a top priority. As Secretary, she is 100% focused on the job at hand, and nothing after that.”

Regardless, Fred Sainz from the Human Rights Campaign is confident any and all Democratic candidates will support same-sex marriage in 2016: “It is a forgone conclusion that every candidate as a result of the president’s leadership on the this issue [will be for gay marriage].”

This is assuming, of course, that anti-gay Democrats like Mark Clayton and Daniel Boman don’t run.


  1. Fester says

    She had lots of chance to speak in favor of marriage equality before she went to the State Dept., but she didn’t.

  2. Grover Underwood says

    her positions in 2008 were pretty much no different than Obama’s were

    the position of the national Democratic Party is that of marriage equality; if she runs, I’m confident that she’ll adopt that position

  3. Stephen says

    I think she could win….that is if the Dems dont screw the next four years up and turn everyone off.

  4. Nat says

    She’s used her role to shed her image as being polarizing. She’s built up enormous credibility with foreign leaders. She’s also well-liked by many in the military establishment. Her husband is the most popular living ex-president. And she’ll have an economy that will likely be booming in 2016.

    Unless she’s too tired, she’s running.

  5. Chitown kev says

    Yes…I want Miss Hillary to run in 2016 but I want her to get her rest first but…yes, there are many signs that point to a run in 2016.

  6. anony6 says

    Typical Hilary. I would like to like her more, but her reluctance to take any risk that may cost political capitol is off-putting. Even when the risky choice is right. Obviously she can’t weigh in on domestic issues as secretary of state, but as others have noted, she has had plenty of time before she was SoS.

    Hilary is very bold and outspoken, on safe and established issues and positions. While such a characteristic is admirable and needed, it falls short of the more forward standard set by leaders like Gov. Martin O’Mally, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and Sen. Alan Grayson to name a few.

    In several ways, the Democratic party has moved forward from many of her positions. Will she adopt? I think she will. If not though, her clout and an election win could move the party back on some issues.

  7. Diogenes Arktos says

    I think her silence on marriage equality as Secretary of State has been intentional. It very much helps her worldwide LGBT-friendly campaign for her to be completely silent on the issue. Some countries are pushing back on her campaign by twisting it into marriage equality. Sorry, you can’t ask for marriage equality without LGBT acceptance – and it’s detrimental to the cause.

  8. jd says

    Ugh. I’m really shocked at how ignorant some of these comments are about American government. Secretaries of State are basically banned by duty from entering the fray of domestic politics. It isn’t codified anywhere that I know of, but it simply is not done. It’s like asking why she didn’t campaign for Obama this year. There is no mystery here, no question as to why it hasn’t happened or whether or not it is intentional. Beyond speaking for the department, Secretaries of State do not get involved in domestic politics, period. If you don’t know this, you shouldn’t be commenting about it.

  9. only her hairdresser knows for sure says

    That swept back hairstyle looks presidential, efficient, practical and says I’m a serious working states person, not a big-haired, over-coiffed Repub empty suit.

    Anyone who doesn’t realize HC is a friend of the gay community is too stupid to vote. Sorry if I have offended the not-too-bright in the gay community.

  10. andrew says

    Love Hillary. Voted for her in the Pa primary in 2008. She has been a great First Lady, U.S. Senator and Sec. of State. She will be 69 years old in Nov 2016. I think that is retirement age, Too old to take on the arduous job of POTUS. We should look to younger leadership. I got nothing against old people, I am one. But we need new young energetic blood in our national government.

  11. Jonathan says

    Didn’t anyone see Sec. Clinton speak at the Geneva convention? She made a huge epic speech on the world stage to say that Gay Rights and Human rights and that the US would continue to try and catch up/lead the way. I just find it hard to believe that everyone is so quick to judge her on this non issue. Google the speech. Watch it all. You won’t regret it!

  12. Alex K says

    I forgot if it was Ellen’s show or some other afternoon show, but Hillary was making her pitch for her 2008 run-up, and was saying how much in favor of civil unions she was if they offer equality of benefits, and this was a states’ issue. Of course, that is completely disingenuous because “civil union,” “domestic partnership,” or “Petco marriage license between Rover and Fifi” are disparate, confusing, and can never equal real marriage. She was asked- and I remember this very well- if she was only saying she was against same-sex marriage to help her politically, but didn’t really feel that way. Hillary took great pains to make it absolutely clear: she was against same-sex marriage because she truly feels that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

    The problem with Hillary- and she’s not the only one- is that if the latest poll said gay people need to be “relocated” at special camps where they would be re-educated, resulting in the “correct” sexuality– yeah, I know– improbable– but if that’s what the polls and focus groups said, then that is what Hillary would be for. Not reassuring, is it?