Clinton Will Likely Skip Gay-Rights March : Rally: President will probably instead meet with Democratic senators, his spokesman says. Event poses a political dilemma for the White House.

President Clinton--facing pressure to show support for gay rights at a march here April 25--probably will instead join Democratic senators at a weekend retreat 150 miles away in Jamestown, Va., his chief spokesman said Wednesday.

As an alternative to an appearance at the march, Clinton might issue a statement of support for its goals and perhaps meet with some gay-rights leaders, White House Communications Director George Stephanopoulos said.

But a decision not to participate could risk alienating gay-rights supporters, who are already uncertain what Clinton ultimately will do on the issue of gays in the military and who could turn the rally into a huge protest.

Billy Hileman, a co-chairman of the event, said marchers would be “disturbed and perplexed” if Clinton were unable to make a personal appearance.

“We don’t believe standing alongside gay men and lesbians would make a politically embarrassing photograph,” he said. “I think being alongside Sam Nunn in Virginia could be an embarrassment.” Nunn (D-Ga.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has opposed Clinton’s plans to open the military to homosexuals.

The march organizers have been urging Clinton since last December to make a visible statement of support through his participation.

Some gay-rights activists compare the event to the civil rights march organized by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963. They say Clinton should make the kind of statement that President John F. Kennedy would not when he chose not to participate in King’s march.

Some also have warned that, depending on Clinton’s actions, the event could turn from a celebration into a protest.

The march has put Clinton in a delicate political position because his presence would heighten tensions over an issue that the White House has been working hard to downplay.

And, although the event’s organizers have worked to bring in mainstream groups, including religious organizations, it also includes at least some of the more flamboyant and militant gay-rights organizations.

Clinton’s absence, on the other hand, would enable him to make a different political point: that he is willing to stand up to pressure from special interest groups even though they have supported him with their dollars and their votes.

Some leaders of gay groups have suggested that Clinton might participate through a videotaped appearance or address the marchers through an audio hookup, as President George Bush did in recent years during the annual anti-abortion marches in Washington.

But Stephanopoulos was skeptical about the latter idea, saying that Jamestown, east of Richmond, Va., at the mouth of the James River, was “a little far out.”

Hileman said the issue of Clinton’s appearance has become so important to march participants that it is “the single most asked question” on the march’s telephone information lines.

“We think Clinton in time will understand this event in terms of its importance in fighting prejudice and would regret it if he didn’t attend,” said Hileman, a high school science teacher from Pittsburgh, Pa.

Torie Osborn, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said the news concerning Clinton’s plans was “disappointing” but that she still holds out hope that he will attend.

She said march organizers decided that they could not limit attendance to supporters who would be less likely to offend some segments of the American public.

“Drag queens launched the modern gay-rights movement,” she said. “We are not ashamed of the diversity within the community. Nor, if we wanted to, could we control a very colorful and anarchistic and broad-based community.”

But Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who is openly gay, said an appearance by Clinton at the march could weaken the gay-rights cause by prompting unflattering news coverage of the President.