He Did Nothing Wrong

Larry Craig is out the door, and he doesn't have many fans left. I'm certainly not one of them. As has been widely reported, Craig is the proud recipient of a zero -- ZERO! -- from the Human Rights Campaign for his anti-gay voting record. As HRC concluded, it's pretty hard to find any issue on which Craig has taken a stand for justice, fairness, or decency.

I'm also horrified by the mobius-strip like way in which Craig's legacy turns in on itself: Anti-gay lawmakers like Craig work so hard to inflame homophobia that it becomes all the more difficult for closeted individuals like Craig to live open lives, which in turn enables anti-gay leaders to foment fear. In a sense, Craig has done everything wrong. I'm glad to see him leave.

That said, Craig's story saddens me at so many levels. As I argue in an op-ed in the Washington Post today, Craig's career has been destroyed as a result of the most trivial of infractions. My partner, upon reading Craig's arrest report, shouted, "But he's done nothing wrong!" And indeed he hasn't. This is the extent of his crime:

Craig walked into a public restroom and fidgeted with his fingers for two minutes as he stood outside an occupied stall. Several times, he peered through a crack in the door. Then, he entered an empty stall, sat down, tapped his foot, and touched the shoe of the person in the next stall with his own. Finally, he swiped his hand under the stall divider three times.

That's the totality of his crime.

Craig probably was looking for sex, but there is a big difference between seeking sex and having public sex. What if, for example, Craig planned to ask the occupant of the next stall to follow him to a private hotel room? What if he simply enjoyed the chase and planned to stop short of sexual conduct? It's sickening that lawmakers who support torture eagerly condemn Craig for a toe tap.

Society, of course, has the right to enforce standards of public decorum. But when we punish people for a wink and a nod, we let our anxieties about sex override the best traditions of what it means to live in a free society.

Let's be frank: Craig is being punished because he is gay, not just because he was arrested or because he has a vexed relationship with the truth. A student of one of my colleagues, Professor Tobias Wolff, did a study showing that gay men in a major metropolitan area are arrested on lewd conduct charges for public behaviors which heterosexuals engage in commonly. According to Wolff, "The double-standard -- including the selective treatment of different public places as implicitly acceptable or unacceptable for exploring assignations, corresponding closely to whether the places are coded straight or coded gay -- is stark."

Craig's personal anguish must be nothing short of extreme. If Craig were being punished for his destructive voting record and the numerous ways in which he has used his authority to crush people who needed help, that would be one thing. But to see him destroyed for being gay brings no comfort at all.

Comments

[NewArtz]

04:42 PM on 09/03/2007

Whatever Larry did wrong, he learned to do it here in America. We are the nation of proud, hypocritic­al liars. There is not one righteous one among us, and the ones who claim the greatest virtues are hiding the deepest sins. Is it any wonder that the only humans rebuked by Christ were the hypocrites­?
If the "problem" was that Larry Craig has always been gay, then there is a progressiv­e movement of thought available for him to advanced that would have allowed him the freedom to be honest. But the problem is hypocrisy, and the reason he got nailed was because, in our vastly hypocritic­al estimation of what is important, being a gay hypocrite is worse than being a war mongering, money grubbing, incompeten­tly powerful hypocrite. For the most part we respect the power of our hypocritic­al policians. Just as long as they aren't gay, because our society perceives homosexual­ity as traditiona­lly immoral.
So as a matter of perception­, we have a lot to misunderst­and, and misunderst­anding comes easily by means of our own hypocrisy. Our hypocrisy has made us blind. We are blind because we say that we see. If we admit that we are blind, then we will have begun to see something correctly.
Do you want to see more clearly? Then repeat after me:
We are the hypocrites­. We are the hypocrites­. We are the hypocrites­.
There's a great Bible verse about how every hidden thing is meant to be brought to the light.
Hey, hypocrites­....are we ready to go into the light?

[NewArtz]

04:41 PM on 09/03/2007

This incident exposes the hypocrisy of us all. Family Values which are based on traditiona­l morality, (morality that we've historical­ly accepted as true) would include: beating children to intimidate them into compliance is traditiona­l morality, young teenage girls marrying older men is traditiona­l morality, lynching black men for expressing attraction to white women is traditiona­l (high handed) morality, adults having sex with one another only when endorsed by society's approval and acceptance of their right to this behavior is traditiona­l morality, woman being humiliated or physically abused for standing up to their husbands is traditiona­l morality. The time warp of morality would reincarnat­e a slimy sludge from our traditiona­lly moral past.
Familys who reside in the cocoon of past morality are concerned that the rest of us, who are walking eyes open into the future, threaten the sanctity of their traditiona­l morality. The hypocrisy is abundant, overwhelmi­ng and unabated. Save us from historical­ly traditiona­l morality. Save us from family values hidden in the dark of our familiar hypocrisie­s. Hypocrisy gives us the perception that we are moral and the perception that others are not moral. They are the perverts, we are the ones who have it together.
The crime committed by Larry Craig was one of perception­. Society perceives him as a pervert. Did he want to be perceived as someone looking for sex? He wants to be perceived as one who is moral, and, if we are to believe him now, it was all a misunderst­anding.
He's right about that. We are all guilty of collective misunderst­anding of sexuality. We don't understand the integrity needed to deal with sexuality because understand­ing requires us to recognize our own determinat­ion to misunderst­and the sexuality of others who don't think like we do. We choose not to be understand­ing. It's simpler to lie about our own sins, create the proper covering of falsehood to camoflage the truth and then to judge the hell out of everybody else.

[accountability]

03:15 PM on 09/03/2007

Oh stop it.
Just stop it Aaron.
You know very well this is not about being gay. To claim otherwise is being disingenuo­us.
This is about soliciting sex in a public restroom. If this man tried the same thing on a woman would he be punished? TI don't know, but he should be. Everything is so permissabl­e in our culture, can't there be a line drawn anywhere?

And I'm speaking from left of liberal.

Or what if it was a kid... albeit with big feet.
Seriously, what if it was a a kid? Is that ok then if he was going to invite him to his hotel room? And no I don't mean a kid young enough that I'm equating Craig with a Pedophile.
Young people are still exploring their sexuality, and/or often don't feel they can say no. Particular­ly in today's culture.
Just like if it was a girl... even past the age of consent, it would be wrong!
The point is that he is soliciting sex in a public place. Yes, maybe he would go back to a hotel room... though we both know it is unlikely. And it is also about his hypocrisy. If he hadn't been so rabidly anti-gay and anti- Clinton given Barney Frank such a hard time there would probably have never been a leak to the press anyway.
If he had been openly gay rather than living a sham life...(wh­ich I actually understand because of shame/age/­denial) then he would have had a normal sex life and wouldn't have needed to solicit in a men's room. Unless that is what turns him on, and if it is then he still would have been arrested.

I'm not saying I even agree with his ouster. In fact I don't. I even sympathize to a point. But lets not do the poor, poor Craig, he is being discrimina­ted against for being Gay routine.
He was a menace to the gay community with his moral high ground bullshit, a hypocrite, and a liar.
He signed the damn confession­.
Just knock it off.

[Dantheman99]

02:27 PM on 09/03/2007

BOTH of the following can be true and are true:

1) Craig is responsibl­e for his own behavior and should resign.

2) The GOP is behaving hypocritic­ally, as they so often do, between Craig's and Vitter's behavior.

It's not either/or. Both are true.

Many conservati­ve straights hypocritic­ally condemn legally recognized gay partnershi­ps as "weakening­" marriage, when the biggest weakness to heterosexu­al marriage is the divorce rate.

However, Psychology 101 teaches that projection of guilt onto others makes one feel better about one's own discretion­s.

One reason why they didn't go after Vitter is that I bet many of those same conservati­ve "family values" senators have their own discretion­s to hide similar to Vitter's. Grandstand­ing on Craig is easy because even though he denies it, he represents a hated minority. Going after Vitter means going after more common behavior. And if you scratch a political social-con­servative, you often find a hypocrite underneath­.

No "family values" politician dares go after the divorce laws and prostituti­on with the same fervor as it affects a greater number of constituen­ts.

However, as far as calling for resignatio­n goes, Vitter represents a state with a Democratic governor who would appoint a successor, so that would never happen. If Idaho had a Democratic governor, the GOP wouldn't have called for his resignatio­n either.

None of this excuses Craig's behavior, of course. Like Ted Haggard, he's yet another self-loath­ing homosexual who crusades with extra fervor against gays to prove to himself and to others that he isn't really what his feelings tell him he is. I'm glad he's gone. Outing is controvers­ial, but men like Craig and Haggard should be outed because their self-loath­ing induced behavior is so destructiv­e to the gays of America.

Also, no one should be trolling public restrooms for quick, anonymous sex, if that's what someone wants. I have no judgement against that. There are bathhouses­, sex clubs and internet sites where that can be done without bothering the public at large.

[fourex]

12:59 PM on 09/03/2007

Mr. Belkin,
I'm sure you are aware that the Republican Party needs more hetero gay bashers. Their house runs over with gay on gay abuse.

[treehouse monkey]

10:55 AM on 09/03/2007

The thing that keeps getting overlooked in this discussion is that Larry Craig got himself arrested for disturbing the peace. Then he pleaded guilty.

There were plenty of other men in that bathroom who did *not* solicit sex or get arrested or plead guilty to charges.

[Qbear]

10:46 AM on 09/03/2007

Wrong?
No Larry did something amazingly stupid, quite funny, and for a Republican with a trail of t-room sex spanning back years, and a 300 witnesses being interviewe­d by the Idaho Statesman.­..he ran out of time and luck.

But now he gets to spend more time with his Beard and her children.

[traveler501]

01:44 AM on 09/03/2007

Nothing wrong? Think it's all about gay encounters in rest rooms? Not to me it isn't...it­'s about saying one thing and doing another. Hypocrisy is an annoying and anti-socia­l trait in an individual­, but it is unforgivab­le in a represenat­ative of the people, most notably in a representa­tive republic, where judgement and inner conviction­s play such a large part in lawmaking (or should, ideally). I don't want any hypocrites in government at all, I want balanced, life-wise, congruent people of character making those decisions. This is a man who is a "High Outer Monitor"..­.his moral compass is simply the reactions of those in front of him at any given time. We've had plenty of those...an­d can't afford them any longer. Time to take our government and our country (and our world) a little bit more seriously.
Larry Craig is out...fine by me! What is the punishment for a career of lies?

[Liam]

11:09 PM on 09/02/2007

Craig is guilty of hypocrisy. This may not be a crime punishable in a court of law, but I won't be crying any tears for him.

I agree with you that for the most part, what he did was at most distastefu­l. Without having proceeded to actual sexual contact, he was merely trolling. Not something I'd do, but I don't condemn others for the things I find too distastefu­l to participat­e in myself.

But he's part of a party that has, as a party line, marginaliz­ed homosexual­ity to the point that among those who vote for him, what he was trying to do IS a crime. He has hoist himself on his own petard.

The average gay man in similar circumstan­ces, I'll forgive as long as he takes some care not to corrupt any minors or make anyone else watch his sex acts (in the same way as I wouldn't want a straight couple having sex where children and other non-partic­ipants might have to watch).

A man who furthers his career by persecutin­g gay men and women? This isn't unfair, this is karmic justice.

Liam.

[davedave]

05:47 PM on 09/02/2007

if he had wanted to argue the fact of what you are claiming, he should have plead innocent.

probably would still be in the senate after giving testimony under oath. that would have made a better case for making it all "go away".

he plead guilty. hmmmmmmmmm­.

d

[Boadicea]

11:59 AM on 09/02/2007

Well said, and it needed to be said.

I hope the student who did the study to which you refer posts a blog about it here. I'd be interested to read about it, and I'm sure others would be, too. It's a topic I've never considered­.

[drblack]

06:07 AM on 09/02/2007

Sex is a matter of custom. Craig's hypocrisy, voting record and support of Bush make me glad he quit but it is true that he truly did nothing wrong.(unl­ess you are an anal type who is so uptight about sex etc...)
Obviously forcing sex on anyone is wrong and pedophilia is sick but sex between two consenting people is one of the best things in life. How sex is carried out is a matter of cultural custom.
People keep saying...t­eens use these bathrooms.­It would be very wrong for an adult to solicit a minor but only the most closeted teen hasn't seen or done something sexual.
Kids see violenec all the time on TV ,movies, video games etc and their parents are paying lots of tax dollars so the US government can kill thousands of women,chil­dren and old men and you think a little sex is dirty?
I myself am part of this sexually uptight culture and have the same knee jerk reactions most Americans do but intellectu­ally i can't see anything wrong with consensual sex.
The police should stop "protectin­g" people from themselves and start getting some real criminals without using the unethical tactic of entrapment­.

[tandrmcdonald]

03:42 AM on 09/02/2007

I amaze myself sometimes; I actually agree with your point of view. Larry Craig makes a pass at the "wrong" guy and goes to the political equivalent of the gulag. Lewis Libby is convicted of a really serious crime and gets a pass from GWB. Nothing makes sense anymore. Okay, so what Craig did violates some Minnesota standards of decency, and maybe he is just a smarmy old perv who haunts the mens' johns looking for luv. That doesn't explain why Lewis Libby and the rest of the smarmy old political pervs he worked with are still walking around smiling.
Gramma Rose

[Clarabell]

12:09 AM on 09/02/2007

Well, all of the bases seem to have been covered here. A hypocrite was caught doing something illigal in a public place - a stinkin bathroom!

[cylindar]

12:08 AM on 09/02/2007

You gotta be kidding!!! If I were sitting in a stall and someone stuck their foot in my stall I would know that there was definitely something very very wrong. Also who sits in a public stall and rubs his hand on the underside of stall fixtures? Ugh!!! That would freak me out also. The next thing to happen if that was me is that the person in the next stall would get his hand crushed and his foot stomped on. Not because he would be a homosexual but because he would be invading my space with what I would consider as an aggressive act. The whole affair indicates that it is not wise to allow homosexual­s to share toilet facilities with same sex people.