She's trying to hide her promise to the homosexual militants. Apparently to minimize the damage such a promise will do to her chances at invading the White House again, should she become the Demmy nominee.
She knows she's playing with political TATP (a very unstable explosive popular with jihadists) in making such a promise (and not pre-announcing the speech to the MSM, which indicates her underlying shame and embarrassment at having to promise pretty much anything to any ultra-extreme leftist group.)
The promises she makes, mentioned at the link: how do we know she's not speaking in code... how do we know her true agenda goes much, much further than that? How do we know she won't move to elevate certain persons above others? After all, she's part of a party that's trying its damndest to intimidate Christians into surrendering their First Amendment rights due to fear of being criminalized and jailed for simply "offending" someone by simply citing scripture from the Bible or expressing their personal beliefs in public.
And, mark my words: if she, God forbid, becomes President, she WILL force "gay" marriage onto America. If her "Liberal" comrades up here in Canada could do it, and they did, then she'll do it, too. In fact, her rhetoric, seen at the link, is exactly the same as that of the Canadian Liberals' . She also, you may recall, helped defeat a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as "one man and one woman", calling such a definition "discriminatory" and "writing discrimination into the Constitution". Of course this woman has an agenda to implement "gay" marriage onto America. I know this, as I saw the same stuff happen in Canada. I didn't make this up. The leftists are all the same, regardless of what country they live in.
From what I read at the link, it is striking... the mirror-like similarity between Hillary's rhetoric and obvious strategy, with its legislative "softening of opposition", slippery-slope steps and such, and the rhetoric and strategy successfully used by the Canadian Liberals to impose "gay" marriage on Canada without a democratic mandate to do so and after having already voted against doing so just a few years before actually proceeding to do so. Don't be fooled by this woman's claim to "prefer" "civil unions" over "gay" marriage. Note that she also refers to letting the "political process" decide for New Yorkers on the issue. Code words. It doesn't say anything about letting the people decide- just something about a "political process", whatever the feck that means.
It must be understood that this woman who wants to be President, this woman, whose election would make the uberperverted, lying pig Bill Clinton the First "Gentleman" of America (ewwww!), has a dangerous hard-left agenda. Just like the Canadian Liberals did. And we know that them moonbats are all the same, so...
Hmm... you know, the crazy-ass Liberals up here, they rudely, arrogantly say that being Canadian means "not being American". (I can't tell the difference between Canadian and American moonbats, though, so I don't understand why they'd think they're so different from their American counterparts!)
Well, I hope Americans ensure that America won't become Canada, as far as certain matters are concerned. Y'all don't want to transform America into some kind of "Liberal Canada-lite", right?
So remember, vote accordingly.
Vote to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. Vote Republican, not Democrat.
Fight Hillary. Fight the Democrats! They want to change America so drastically that when they're done with it, we won't recognize it anymore!
