(Washington Blade editorial cartoon by Ranslem)

There he goes again. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who once extolled the virtues of centrism, now wants us to believe — in an unintentionally hilarious rewriting of history — that he’s more liberal than Hillary Clinton and a “profile in courage” when it comes to fighting for marriage equality.

In a not-so-subtle jab at Clinton, O’Malley in a February speech said, “History celebrates profiles in courage, not profiles in convenience. The dignity of every person tells us that the right to marry is not a state right, it is a human right.”

A Clinton aide last week, responding to a Blade inquiry, affirmed that the 2016 hopeful views same-sex marriage as a constitutional right. That statement marked a change from her earlier position, articulated in an infamous NPR interview last year, that she viewed marriage as a state issue.

Clinton, like President Obama and Martin O’Malley and many others evolved on the issue.

The problem with O’Malley is that he’s had more positions on marriage than all the 2016 hopefuls combined. And after pushing for civil unions right up until 2011, he now wants voters to believe that he’s a pioneer on the issue. What nerve!

Let’s revisit O’Malley’s actual record rather than listen to his calculated amnesia.

In 2004, O’Malley told a Baltimore TV station, “I’m not opposed to civil marriages.” Also that year, he emailed a plaintiff in the state marriage lawsuit that read, “I’m just supporting something I strongly believe in,” referring to marriage equality. But by 2006, O’Malley’s position was shifting and he said, “I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a fundamental issue of the state’s public policy, and a decision that ultimately should not be made by a single trial court judge.” When confronted by gay activists after issuing that statement, O’Malley disavowed any previous support of marriage equality.

After a 2007 Maryland court ruling limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, O’Malley issued the following statement as heartbroken gay residents were busy cancelling their weddings and mourning the court’s misguided decision: “I look forward to reading the court’s full opinion, but as we move forward, those of us with the responsibility of passing and enforcing laws have an obligation to protect the rights of all individuals equally, without telling any faith how to define its sacraments. I respect the court’s decision.”

Privately, O’Malley had assured gay rights activists and plaintiffs in the case that he supported marriage equality, only to reverse course and ultimately invoke his Catholic religious beliefs to justify his support of discrimination.

From 2008-2010, O’Malley publicly backed civil unions as bills to legalize marriage equality were defeated in committee. He was even booed off the stage at a private LGBT donor gathering after advocating for civil unions over full marriage rights.

In 2011, O’Malley finally said he would sign a marriage bill if passed. “I have concluded that discriminating against individuals based on their sexual orientation in the context of civil marital rights is unjust.” That bill ultimately failed.

It wasn’t until New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo embraced the cause of marriage equality as a civil rights issue — and well after Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler did the same — that O’Malley evolved yet again. Whereas Cuomo made it clear even before he was elected that he supported full marriage rights and then lobbied for the needed votes to pass it, O’Malley was — until 2012 —the reluctant advocate, offering meek, private assurances of support but refusing to publicly embrace the cause, even after winning a second term in a landslide.

Though he eventually came around to full support and was instrumental in preserving the law after it went to referendum, O’Malley was late to the marriage party and certainly doesn’t deserve credit for its success.

O’Malley has, for years, embodied the poll-driven milquetoast politician who checks the wind before staking out a position. Now he wants us to believe otherwise.

“We have the ability as a party to lead by our principles or are we going to conduct polls every time we try to determine where the middle is on any given day,” he told NPR this week.

We should welcome O’Malley’s more progressive positions without forgetting his disappointing record of saying one thing in private and the opposite when the cameras are rolling.

Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade. Reach him at knaff@washblade.com.