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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Mr. Belkin you are profoundly and succinctly correct.
This is a case, both sad and pathetic, of a troubled man with the repressed character flaws and shame found in many of his generation.
In this instance particularly the 'sting' did not progress far enough to warrant anything legal to ensue. He was cowed by virtue of his political status and the shame, humiliation and consequences of being caught, perhaps, attempting to solicit an encounter.
Further, as so many here wish to cite hipocrisy as the reason for this rightous stroke of "justice", nothing could be further from the truth of the concept.
Hypocrisy, if it exists at all in this case and I am not sure it does, is not a crime, nor is it a standard to which any of us, as human beings, would want our lives and livelihoods held dependent upon.
Thought, and errors of character and consistency are not yet crimes in our society, let us hope that they never are.
There is not a single politician who could stand up to this sort of standard and retain their office.
Degrees and qualities of hypocrisy are individually determined and as such highly subjective, what deserves sharp rebuke in one person's ethos may not deserve mention in another's.
Are we now to judge all of our leaders, friends, coworkers, aquaintences by such standards, ostracize and otherwise punish them for such flaws and inconsistancies in a broad, intollerant and general way?
Is it not hypocrisy manifested to accept one form and rebuke another as a matter of policy?
I am not speaking here of individual choices of trust and association but of a general social construct to which all must adhere.
Who will be left standing?
Larry Craig was not asking for someone he met in a public place to follow him to a private place. Read the police report and you'll see he had a connecting flight.
Having sex in a public place or soliciting someone to do so is a crime, regardless of whether the people involved are male or female.
Larry Craig did not resign for being gay. Public support turned against him because he plead guilty to a crime and tried to keep the plea quiet.
More importantly, Larry Craig is a hypocrite and a liar. He denied being gay when he clearly is. He denied having sex with other men in public places when he clearly does so.
Moving forward, you'd thing the Republicans would apply the same standard to David Vitter, right? Moralizing hypocrite, adulterer, and criminal, just like Craig. But, no, Vitter gets a standing ovation from the same Senators who insisted Craig had to resign. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because the hypocrite Republicans have no problem with a moralizing liar when he's paying women instead of meeting men in public rest rooms? Maybe because Louisiana has a Democratic governor so Vitter's replacement if he resigned would not be a Republican, unlike Idaho, which has a Republican governor and will replace Craig with a Republican? What, Republicans who say one thing but do another based on tactical political considerations? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
Craig might have been completely truthful when he said he isn't gay. He might be BISEXUAL.
I'm really glad to see that I'm not the only one wondering what on earth was illegal about what the former senator did. I agree that his punishment (and I believe Aaron Belkin was referring to his being arrested and charged, not being abandoned by his Republican party) was because the behavior exhibited was homo and not heterosexual. Politicians get caught frequently harassing, propositioning, etc. members of the opposite sex and are rarely charged w/ a crime. Yes, it's scandalous, but rarely illegal. He was ran out of office, however, because he can no longer credibly champion the cause of conservativism. It's pretty difficult to rant and rave about "morality" and the homosexual "agenda" when you yourself appear to want to engage in homosexual sex. While it may be awhile before openly gay politicians are elected in some states, such as mine, Barney Frank gives me hope that we're on the long road to tolerance. When will these conservatives wake up, smell the coffee, and realize that our sexual preference is something innate, the same as our gender and skin color. And guess what else: I think that's ok w/ God!
He did a lot wrong:
1. Became a Republican.
2. Bashed gays.
3. Denied being gay.
Good article.
Let Senator Craig's example serve as warning to all the other gay Republicans out there - no closet is big enough to hide you. The police know all of your code words and they are coming to get you. They will punish you as cruelly as you can imagine by exposing you to the light of day when they catch you.
Run & hide, little church mice.
"For the land of the free
and the home of the brave"
Craig is a pariah of his own design. His universal despicablity was compounded by his stupidity to a degree that permits no one to argue on his behalf. (Except, ironically, Aaron here, who applies a feebly zealous rationale.
The simple fact is that Larry the Lech is a manifestly unprincipled idiot, who managed to simultaneously alienate gays and straights, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservati
George Washington had his detractors and David Duke had his supporters, but no politician in history has managed to inspire the level of consensus that has surrounded the honorable Gentleman from Idaho. It was a Bizarro-World masterpiece from beginning to end.
Craig's homosexuality is, at worst, an ancillary sin--even from a homophobic perspective. His main problem was that he wantonly and stupidly violated the prime directive for folks of his ilk. He failed to extricate himself from an easily escapable and utterly untenable situation. He was ludicrously incautious, and when he inevitably got caught, he copped to a chickenshit charge, which had the eminently predictable effect of a self-abnegating publicity stunt.
At the end of the day, the right-wing apparat is essentially indifferent to the panoply of freaky-deeky predilections that inform the lives of so many of its officials, but this was like J. Edgar Hover showing up for a press conference in a ball gown--a Code WTF.
Being gay certainly didn't help Larry's cause, but his hapless tour de force after the fact: the fatuosity and self-loathing, the antic indignation and gormless tactical response rendered him utterly unreliable on one side of the political spectrum and absolutely irredeemable on the other.
He is a lying, public-toilet pervert.
His Republican friends didn't force him out of the Senate because he is a pervert. In fact, some of them might agree your partner and you:
"But he's done nothing wrong!"
His Republican friends forced him out of the Senate because (1) his perversion was done in a public place, (2) he was caught by a police officer who doing nothing other than sitting in a restroom stall, and (3) he got caught lying about his perversion and hypocrisy by the public.
If you want to defend his perversion, it seems obvious that at the very least, instead of seeking to have sex with an unknown person sitting in a public restroom stall, he should have been more discreet. He could have easily found one of those grinning Republicans in D.C.
Why did he have to choose a public toilet for his activities? And why do you feel it necessary to defend him on this point? Even those endlessly grinning Republicans don't want to do so.
Those who want to use a public toilet for such activities should be ashamed of themselves.
Republicans are forcing him out because they know the governor will appoint a Republican successor. That's why they rallied around Vitter, because if he resigned, the governor would name a Democrat to the seat.
I am a gay man.
Gay men should not be soliciting sex in public bathrooms. Period.
Thank you!
It's not about gay.
It's about perversion.
If you think it's "normal" to have sex in public restrooms, I don't care whether you are gay OR straight. You are a pervert.
.
But it really was about him being gay, wasn't it? Otherwise, how do you explain Vitter?
It's not about being gay. It is about being a hateful, cowardly hypocrite. Craig is not just gay. He is a liar, and a hateful man who did everything he could to get the very kinds of laws passed that got him arrested.
In my opinion it is the epitome of irony and very well deserved just desserts.
But the sad part about the situation is, while he is a vile hypocrite, it's not why he had to leave the senate. He had to leave the Senate because he is gay, or rather "did something gay" as he would have it.
Craig was loudly (and correctly) criticized by the lovers of justice as a hypocrite, not for his "lewd behavior," and he was forced to resign by his own fellow Republicans who put up a big false front of being pro-"family values," making political capital by bashing gays and homosexual behavior, and passing laws that oppressed gays.
The Dems did not want him to quit; they'd have been quite happy to keep him around as a poster boy for Republican hypocrisy if they had any say in the matter.
He lived by the sword, he died by that sword. I'll give him a quarter to go call someone who cares, and that's about it.
Whereas I fully understand your point, I must confess to being one of the many laughing at Larry Craig and the homophobic GOP. Here we have yet another closeted powerful Republican being exposed (so to speak!). Even though he did nothing wrong, he deserves all the scorn he is getting.
And for the record, hooker-loving David Vitter also deserves to go down. But as was pointed out on another blog, Idaho is safely GOP. Louisiana is not. Idaho has GOP governor; Louisiana does not. We all know that the GOP's "values" are rubbish, and they care much more about power. If there were no threat of a Democrat taking that seat in Louisiana, hooker-loving David Vitter would certainly have been thrown to the lions.
Craig resigns IN FRONT OF THE BOISE TRAIN DEPOT!!!!!
Isn't he now notorious for cruising Union Station two blocks from his office in D.C. and soliciting in an airport? What is this fixation he has with public transportation? Well, at least he didn't hold the press conference inside in the depot bathroom.
I am from Idaho and have always viewed him as a creepy, sanctimonious hypocrite but is he truly devoid of even a lick of common sense???? It appears so.
Well, he did begin his "denial" press conference earlier this week with "Thank you for coming out."
A more unfortunate turn of phrase I can't imagine, in context.
Thats America for you. Lie to your country, lead it into an unjust war, kill untold thousands, bankrupt the Nation, profit from the deaths of the troops, and you get re-elected.
But get a blowjob - get impeached. Play in a restroom = out of senate.
America is truly a Nation of degenerates. When the Bill for Iraq comes due the US is fucked.
I agree that there shouldn't be a double standard when it comes to gay or straight sex, but public restrooms are not singles bars. They should be reserved for their intended purpose.
actually it is not illegal to ask someone in a public restroom if they would like to go somewhere else, not in public, to have sex. That is exactly the same thing that goes on inbars.
What is illegal is to ask someone in any public place to have sex in a public place.
It would be just as illegal to ask someone in a bar if they would have sex in the bar.
Thank you for posting this excellent, insightful article.
Let's just juxapose the intensity and speed of the media and political establishment's condemnation of Senator Craig with the continuing support and/or silence about Senator Ted Stevens' indictment for bribery and corruption. Worse, look at the support for Congressman William Jefferson, from Louisana, after the FBI found $75,000 cash in his refrigerator. When Jefferson got indicted, the Congressional leaders wrote an outraged letter to President Bush asserting some Congressional right about separation of powers!!
Why is the desire to have homosexual sex, even in public, more offensive than elected officials taking large bribes? What's wrong with our sense of public values? When did the concept of public scandal become narrowed to obnoxious private behavior? Why can't we focus on the public damage caused by corrupt public officials?
I think it is necesary to draw a distinction between the "punishment" that the Senate has enforced and the punishing public sentiment. While only those who made the decision behind closed doors with (presumably) no cracks know whether it was his activity in the men's room, the fact that he was caught thus making him a hypocrit, or the fact that he was caught, thus making him a liability. I don't claim to have a pulse on the sentiment any larger than my own or what I read here, but my sense is that Larry Craig does not see himself as gay. Just as young people who are curious about sexuality and experiment in the protected environment of boarding school see themselves as making a commitment to a "gay" or "straight" lifestyle.
What disturbed me -- and what I think disturbs most who write here to express an opinion -- is that he was not compelled to be such an outspoken zealotted bigot and hypocrit. (Most people with a weight issue don't condemn the obese.) We don't elect politicians who express hateful and inflamatory words about Jews, African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Women or any other minority in our soceity, and yet here we have an entire group within one of the two major political parties who espouse such disgraceful and exclusionary policies that the fact that they then are "outed" not for the lifestyle but for enjoying aspects of the behavior raises a huge outcry.
The HRC cannot support Craig, Foley or Mary Cheney because they are outside the bonds of decency not just insofar as gays and lesbians are concerned, but all right thinking human beings.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
