On the campaign trail in New Hampshire, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has reiterated her support for the interstate portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Although the story in the Concord Monitor erroneously identifies Clinton as supporting repeal of sections two and three of DOMA, the quotations attributed to Clinton in the story make clear that she actually said she would support repeal only of section three. (Section one is the short title that merely declares that the act shall be known as the “Defense of Marriage Act.”)

Section three, which Clinton would repeal, defines “marriage” as an exclusively opposite-sex relationship for purposes of federal law and is said to bar federal recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships.

Section two, which Clinton continues to support, purports to allow states to disregard same-sex marriages formalized in other states notwithstanding any recognition that the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause might require. Clinton calls this provision necessary at least for now in order to forestall attempts to add a marriage amendment to the Federal Constitution.

The political assessment underlying Clinton’s explanation for supporting section two is questionable. Federal marriage amendments have struggled to achieve a simple majority in either house of Congress, let alone the two-thirds margin that would be necessary for submission to the states for ratification.

More persuasive is not Clinton’s political analysis but her the substantive claim, at which she hinted, that each state should have the prerogative to decide for itself whether to recognize same-sex unions. But Clinton failed to explain why this particular issue should be left to state variation while other matters of human rights or equality are not.