A few days ago we wondered when Sen. Clinton was going to comment on the recent decision by New York’s highest court which ruled that the state constitution did not necessarily mandate homosexual “marriages.”

She finally commented on the ruling on Saturday, sort of, bravely issuing a statement through her spokeswoman:

“Senator Clinton supports full equality for people in committed relationships, including health insurance, life insurance and pensions, and hospital visitation and believes we have to keep working to reach those goals.”

Not exactly the Gettysburg Address of gay rights. Did she condemn the decision? Or does she support it? She could have been talking about anybody in a “committed relationship,” including elderly heterosexual couples or Chelsea and her latest boyfriend.

Hillary also just happened to be appearing in San Francisco around the same time as when the statement was issued, but she still wasn’t ready to take a stand - even while among friends – and she ignored shouted questions from reporters about her state’s ruling.

Needless to say, Hillary’s mealy-mouthed statement has sent many homosexual activists into a dramatic tizzy. Their complaint is the usual, that while she secretly supports their agenda, she is refusing to “come out” publicly in favor of their number one issue, gay marriage.

Her longtime gay nemesis, Alan Van Capelle of the Empire State Pride Agenda, said that:

“I am glad Senator Clinton supports specific benefits for people in committed relationships, and one day I hope she will stand with Eliot Spitzer, Alan Hevesi, Dennis Rivera and hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who are working to make sure gay and lesbian people have the freedom to marry.”

Homosexuals can try to flush Hillary out on this issue, but she really doesn’t need to take a principled stand on same-sex marriage. Where else are gay voters going to go? John Kerry? John Edwards? Mark Warner? A Republican?!