Senator Hillary Clinton said the following about gay marriage in 2004.
I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.
Presidential candidate Clinton said the following in January of this year.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality represents America at its best: just, fair and moving toward equality. Now we have more work to do. I’ll fight to ensure lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans have full equality under the law, and to end discrimination in employment, housing, schools, and other aspects of our society.
There are three possible ways to interpret these two statements.
- Hillary Clinton sincerely opposed gay marriage in 2004, but changed her mind and sincerely supports gay marriage in 2016.
- Hillary Clinton favored gay marriage in 2004, but for tactical reasons, pretended to oppose it in order to effectively oppose a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
- Hillary Clinton has no strong convictions on gay marriage one way or the other, but takes whatever position is most politically expedient.
I don’t criticize anybody for changing their minds. I see a lot of things, including gay marriage, differently from how I saw them 12 years ago, and very differently then from how I saw them 12 years before that.
The problem with Hillary Clinton is that there are so many things about which you have to ask the same kinds of questions.
Did she vote in favor of giving President Bush the authority to invade Iraq because she sincerely believed that was the right thing to do, or for tactical political reasons? How about her statements during his husband’s administration in favor of putting more people in prison and cutting people off from welfare?
Her supporters tell me that she “had to” do and say these things. How, then, can they tell the difference between what she really stands for and what she “had to” pretend to stand for?