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
There are some of us Idahoans who see this as the fall of a self righteous man because of his hypocracy. It is unfortunate that gay issue are involved. Craig is a sad and pathetic human being. Even if this were about hetero sex, he is too self righteous to admit mistakes. He will never admit mistakes, not now, not ever. This will always be someone else's fault.
On The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, columnist David Brooks tried to represent the Republicans demanding Craig step down as their noble concern for all those mothers out there too afraid to send their sons into public restrooms. In reality, Craig's resignation will allow Idaho's republican governor to appoint a republican who can then run as an incumbent in next year's election. It's all politics, all the time.
I don't care who is gay. It never mattered to me. Your business is your business. But in the matter of Craig it does matter. It matters because of his homophobia and that of his party. Gay bashing is standard in the Republican party. Can't let them get married, can't let them adopt, or teach, or serve in the military. With a wink the Republicans inply that 'Gayness' is catching, subverted, sick and needing of cure. And here we are with one of their own cruising a bathroom for sex. (if it wasn't that then why did Craig plead guilty and not fight the charge in court?)
No, it isn't because of his being gay that has caused his downfall but the hypocrisy and homophobia of the Republican party. And I would add, Craig isn't the only or last Republican Congressman in the closet.
Actually he did do something wrong. A huge wrong. He spent his political life making actions like tapping a foot in bathroom stall and other such "suggestive" gestures lead to arrest. Although he did not introduce the law that ultimately led to his downfall, his "actions" in congress has continued to place gay and lesbian citizens under unwarranted legal scrutiny. What a joke American freedom is! Tapping your foot in a bathroom stall a lewd action, please. By the same token, I should be subject to arrest if I buy a drink for a woman sitting down the bar from me. Still, a cannot help but feel a bit of satisfaction seeing Craig, and those like him, reap what they sow.
Very well put. Craig spent his life discriminating against his own kind. To ask anyone to feel sympathy for him is asinine.
The only reason the GOP is dumping him is because the Idaho governor is a Republican, and they know the successor will be a Republican.
Imadashell wrote:
"By the same token, I should be subject to arrest if I buy a drink for a woman sitting down the bar from me."
No. That isn't illegal. Try walking into a ladies room and peeking into an occupied stall.
But gay men have to use the same bathroom. Are you suggesting seperate restrooms for gays?
By the same token, I should be subject to arrest if I buy a drink for a woman sitting down the bar from me.
You are missing the point here. Asking to have sex is not illegal. the illegal part is where you want the sex act to take place.
Larry Craig got in trouble because the cop read his actions to mean that he wanted to engage in the sex act in the public restroom. If Larry had treated the cop the way you treat a woman in a bar and asked him if he wanted to go home with him for sex he would have been ok.
Or, if you ask a woman in a bar if she wants to have sex on the floor in the bar, then you'd be in trouble also.
Sure, but "the cop read his actions to mean...." is a long way off from having proof that he did mean to do that. By the same token then, you should be subject to arrest if that woman you just bought a drink for, "reads your action to mean..." If everybody were assumed guilty by another person's interpretation of what they really meant, we could all be hauled off to jail for just about anything. As long as there is someone around to misinterpret our intentions.
The point here is not that Larry Craig may or may not have had those intentions, but that he got arrested before those intentions were made truly clear. As Aaron so logically pointed out in his post "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?" Chances are, since he is a recognizable public figure, he would not be pursuing the attainment of actual sexual activity in a busy airport bathroom. As much as we dislike Larry Craig for whatever heinous traits of personality he possesses, in this instance he was wrongfully arrested. Glaringly wrongfully! And that should be of concern to all the rest of the inhabitants of this country. Not because Larry Craig is such a sweet guy, but because this was just plain wrong and, if left unattended, it could come back to bite us too.
Tapping one's foot on the floor is not the same as having "sex" in the bathroom. It may have been Craig's intent to engage in sexual activity in the bathroom, but, we don't know.
Asking a woman to have sex with you is not a crime. Actually having sex in public, like on the bar floor can be. Although in a swingers club it might be applauded.
We live in a "free" country. Bad thoughts are not crimes, although conspiring with intent to commit a crime, in some cases, can be. Perhaps Craig is guilty of conspiring with the undercover cop to have sex in the bathroom.
BUT ALL OF THIS MISSES THE POINT! IT'S NOT ABOUT THE LAWS THEMSELVES, BUT RATHER THOSE WHO WOULD MAKE THOSE LAWS! THOSE WHO TRY TO KEEP OTHERS FROM THE SAME FEEDOMS THAT THEY THEMSELVES ENJOY. ALTHOUGH I DOUBT CRAIG HAS A GOOD LIFE, SINCE HE HAS SPENT IT PRETENDING TO BE SOMEONE HES' NOT. A PATHETIC FIGURE. I KNOW SO MANY GAY AND LESBIANS SINGLES AND COUPLES, WITH AND WITHOUT CHILDREN, WHO HAVE A GREAT LIFE AND A HAPPY ONE.
Soliciting sex may be construed as a specific intention crime. The required proof is a specific intention to perform an act. The mental part of the crime would be shown for example by Senator Craig's statement to police that he was entrapped or by visiting Craig's List on his computer where the location was was widely advertised.
I agree that Senator Vitter is being given preferential treatment because he freely admitted that he had complete the acts of solicitation with a prostitute on several occasions and nobody requested his resignation. There is an old saying in the South - "boys will be boys - we hope."
Despite the unfairness of our system, a valuable dialogue has begun about the gay-bashing in our society. To me, it's more about political power. What if sexual orientation turns out to be more about genetics or developmental factors such as birth order of males? There again the Christian Right would lose one of their bullwhips because just maybe it is not so much of a moral choice.
With witch hunts abounding, our society is taking giant steps backwards to the Dark Ages. Senator Craig himself has learned that the witch hunt you help launch may be the very one that catches you. I have sympathy for gays but let's not forget that he has chosen to cast the first stone and he lived in a glass house.
Rough justice was done. He plead guilty to disturbing the peace so he would not have to testify in court. President Clinton was required to testify in Deposition. Both were caught in lies. But it is all another witch hunt just the same.
I think you're missing the point a little bit. Craig is being punished not just because he's gay, but because he's gay in a party that thinks homophobia a family value.
He's also a hypocrite, but that's par for the course for one of Bushie's boys.
While most of his Republican brethren are punishing him because he is gay, most of the rest of the thinking voting community is glad he's gone because he's such a demonstrably venal hypocrite.
If he were openly gay, promoting equal protection under the law for everyone, instead of prudely condemning what other people do with their genitals, then he'd be able to survive what would only be minor bump in the road. It's not comforting that we live in a society that still thinks homosexuality is abnormal, rather than merely a portion of the spectrum of what can be called normal. It is comforting, however, when a scumbag gets his just desserts.
The asshole said he was not Gay. Gay is not issue - the issue re-electibility.
He could just be a gay-curious heterosexual pervert.
Republican criminals cannot risk losing his seat to a Democrat. Thus, replace him and do damage control.
Exactly.
But he will just be replaced with another, potentially worse hypocrite. Should we be happy about that?
Let me get this straight, (no pun intended) a man whose whole career was marked by anti gay extremism is busted by the same laws he encouraged, and this is mourned by gay guy and his partner because, gee, what he was doing was really OK?
Which means it was also really OK he was a closet homosexual with a predilection for casual cruising?
and an anti gay agenda?
So he should have been taken out of action by some kind of politically correct divine intervention, or what?
Excuse me, gotta go take my anti dizziness pill..
You're completely missing the point. It's certainly not easy to be a gay man living a repressed life, subliminating one's self-hatred into laws that disparage the person he really is. Aaron's point is that A) Craig is being taken out because he's gay, not because he "broke the law" and B) the law he broke, if he even did, is a witch hunt for homosexuals. Larry Craig doesn't deserve to be in the senate, but he certainly deserves some pity.
You're the one completely missing the point. Craig deserves very little pity. Save that for his family.
So we should feel pity for closet gay men who write laws which persecute themselves and all other gay people?
Gosh, hard as I try, it's still not there..
the law he broke is not a witch hunt for homosexuals. It is equally illegal for heteros to engage in sex in public places.
If Larry Craig had asked the cop if he wanted to go to a hotel room for sex, there wouldn't have been a problem at all. It isn't illegal to ask someone if they would like to have sex. It's illegal to ask them if they would like to perform the sexual act in a public place.
A hetero can legally ask a woman if she would like to go home with him to have sex. But, it is illegal for him to ask her if she would like to have sex with him in the bar's restroom.
I think articles like this do a disservice to the gay rights movement. Craig broke the law by soliciting sex in a public bathroom. That is not what being gay is about. I think he would have been in just as much trouble if the officer wwas a woman. He is also being crucified because his actions do not mesh with the created personae of conservatives. Pick your battles wiser I think...
When Larry Craig says he is "not gay", I'm quite happy to believe him. Trash like that ought not be allowed to louse up a great social movement centered on personal liberty. Whether or not Larry Craig is homosexual — whatever that means — is a different question, open to debate.
In any case, given the totality of his record, he deserves nothing more than crocodile tears, and certainly he's not worth the effort to defend. Frankly, if what's happened to Larry Craig serves as an object lesson in the damage that homophobia and the closet can do to you, I say it's well worth the cost of one caveman from the Senate.
Thank you for putting into words what I (and probably several other people, gay or straight) have been thinking about this issue. Craig is a reprehensible prick but his "crime" is a joke. It's not like he was cruising for teenage boy pages in the Senate johns. He was attracted to a cute young cop who entrapped him for a clumsy game of footsie.
I'm not a fan of t-room sex by anyone, particularly not in such a high traffic, kids-accessible location. But this was extremely lame and/or desperate act of such a high-profile individual, as well as the over-zealous cops.
There was no entrapment involved. The cop was in the stall in response to numerous complaints. Craig made all the moves and was arrested for his behavior. He plead out to a lesser charge because he thought he could slide by without being found out.
Craig's hypocrisy is monumental. That more than anything is his undoing. Had he said, "I'm gay. I'm sorry I've kept it hidden. My apologies,
Really! If that cop hadn't been so damned young and cute and blond, Craig would have never been entrapped into staring at him and trying to arrange for some sex in an airport bathroom. An airport bathroom where the cop was hanging out in response to complaints by citizens who were tired of men like Craig with wide stances and the habit of waving at them from under the divider while they tried to take care of the kind of business one normally does in a public bathroom.
I doubt if that police officer really enjoyed sitting in a stall being leered at, but he was there in response to a demand for better patrolling of the facility from guys who weren't interested in being approached for consensual sex while they took a dump or a leak.
It's not the 50s anymore, and there are plenty of places where gay men can meet and hook up other than bathrooms. I'm sure Minneapolis has a number of lively gay bars, and if it's like most larger cities, an entire part of town that's known to be gay-friendly. I have no sympathy for Craig that his "hate queers" stance kept him from being able to go to those places and use his "wide" stance in men's rooms stalls instead.
Being in the closet is one thing, but being in the closet and firing at others who are like you with the legislative version of an AK 47 so nobody will find you out will get no sympathy from me.
You're right but I must admit seeing one of the big guys get caught has given me pleasure.
He really didn't do anything illegal as far as I could see, and he probably panicked and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in the hopes of keeping this all under wraps. Had he kept his mouth shut and called a lawyer it probably would have come to nothing. To listen to the tapes it is absurd that anyone could be arrested for that benign behavior. That being said, he has a political history of hate and discrimination and his actions have caused untold pain and difficulties for many innocent people. Also his persecution and condemnation of Pres Clinton just adds to the irony of the situation. If hypocrisy was a crime, this guy would get life!In light of his past behavior he deserves all the negative press, public humiliation and loss of power he is receiving. I am getting tired of watching these long suffering hand holding smiling in the face of devastation wives. They are the ones who receive my sympathy
I agree. Pretty much what I've been thinking this entire scandal, which by the way has gone on for about a full week while we still have the war pulling down our country around our ears.
Belkin, you can't be serious. You know damn well that if Craig had succeeded in his restroom solicitation that day (as he did in Union Station before, and God knows where else), he would have had sex right there in the Minneapolis bathroom, a public place.
Your notion that Craig was destroyed merely for being gay is a bargeload of bullcrap. It was the toilet-trolling aspect that did him in. And Gov. Jim McGreevey wasn't kicked out just for being gay; he was dumped because he put his Israeli boyfriend, who didn't even have an American security clearance, in charge of security for the state of New Jersey- as if such a job exists, at a 6-digit salary paid by the taxpayers. Saying that Larry Craig was kicked out of the Senate for being gay is like saying Michael Vick was kicked out of the NFL for being black.
So, it's because he was trying to engage in consensual sex? I still don't get it.
Does the fact that it's seedy as hell make it wrong? If it were someone with their girlfriend of many years I highly doubt people would come down as hard. (and btw you mentioned another gay scandal with McGreevey.
Mr Belkin is no doubt serious because he has his own personal sense of propriety, just as you do.
No.
It's because he was a colossal hypocrite, who spent 30 years trashing gay rights and making gay people targets of discrimination.
Public solicitation for sex is a crime.
It's also tacky and dangerous.
It also shows a disregard for societal norms and a willful disregard for the law.
Republicans are nothing if not hypocrites---that's why Vitter is still in the Senate.
He represents a state with a Democratic governor, and Craig is from one of the reddest of the red.
Party before country---it's the Republican way.
It wasn't flirting, the signals were asking for sex, some sort of code between men who understand
the signals. I guess if no one ever signaled you
in the mens room in this way, you wouldn't realize it, the officer had gotten signals from others like this I am sure, plus he did say Larry was peeping into his stall at him before entering the stall next to him. Larry is lying, he lied
to his wife if he is homosexual, living a lie all these years. And according to reports this isn't the first time his behavior was suspect.
Hell, get it out for what it was.....EN
Something else bothers me, the three month lag in reporting the incident. Beat reporters always check police blotters for a story, any story, so how come this one slipped through? Little finagling withe democratic party, similar to the way the Foley story was kept in wraps until needed? After all, Gonzales was resigning so whazt else did the dems have in reserve -- Craig?
"Something else bothers me, the three month lag in reporting the incident. Beat reporters always check police blotters for a story, any story, so how come this one slipped through?"
Let an ex-journalist of some 40 years experience help you out.
The arrest happened in Minneapolis, and no Idaho reporters would have been checking police blotters there. And if a Minneapolis reporter checking a police blotter saw only that somebody named Larry Craig from Idaho was arrested in an airport men's room, he wouldn't have considered it worth reporting. Larry Craig isn't exactly a household name outside his own state.
Or anyway, he wasn't before this week.
"Little finagling withe democratic party, similar to the way the Foley story was kept in wraps until needed?"
Excuse me, but that's a singularly dumb comment. If the Democrats wanted to keep the story under wraps until it would do the most damage they would have held it until October 2008, shortly before Craig was up for re-election.
As things stand, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter will appoint a Republican to replace Craig, and chances are that appointee will be able to hold the seat for the GOP next fall.
Good response, thanks. Yet, there is still something about this restroom thing that doesn't sit well. I'd like to know more about this, such as, any circumstances indicating Craig may actually have been a target based upon his rumoured homosexuality and frequent passages thru Minn, relatedly, how long had this sting op been in effect? Hell, I'm not gay, I'm politically independent, so this case just doesn't pass the smell test for me.
The defense of entrapment admits the crime but suggests that the cop forced you to do something that you wouldn't have ordinarily done. Cops administer Miranda warnings and advisements of rights, and, if understood and waived by the suspect, proceed to question people around on tape after arrest. Caseybabes, you really don't understand either the significance of a suspect "admitting" to the cops on tape that he was entraped and asserting the defense in court, or the standard operating procedure in interviewing a defendant in a post-arrest situation.
Craig is an outrageous hypocrite who seek POWER by persecuting scapegoats such as gays so the Republicans can get elected. "Feeling coerced" -- please - after coercing others.
Craig can move to set aside his "coerced" confession and go to triaaaal. He would have to take the stand (or surely be convicted) and would, therefore have to waive the Fifth Amendment and face a blistering cross-examination - risking even more serious charges.
Craig also "probably" contacted Craig's list via computer before he made a beeline to the head in question. I don't know this but he was the 43 guy arrested in this same bathroom this year and it is on the Craig's list along with the appropriate "signals."
You set the entrapment thing out well enough. Still, I smell a rat and the more I mull this over, gruyere comes to mind. Common sense tells me if a sting is set up then it is serious enough not to let off an accused with a lesser charge. And did that officer make any other arrests during the entire sting time span? If not, was he trying too hard when he got Craig when nothing occurred between the two, other than signs of "flirting?"
The fact that Craig is a jerk has nothing to do with it, and I'm not aware of the Craig's list and 43 guy and signals you mentioned.
You make numerous mistatements of fact in this post which have been corrected by other comments, but I think the one about the three month lag has not been addressed. Craig was arrested on June 11 and pled guilty on August 8.
For this post all I have is what has been reported so I've tried to keep my statements based upon my OPINION and SPECULATION and ASKING questions. The majority of responses made good points when in opposition so I do not see any correction of misstatements, just the occassional sniping, like yours MsLez. The three month lag I referred to was just that, in the form of a question, why did it not get reported until three months later? The guilty plea was not involved in this latter point of mine. I'd be happy to correct any further mistakes that you have.
I had the same exact reservations as you when I first heard this story. It concerned me that this is, in fact, a witch hunt, both on the part of Congress and of the authorities.
That being said, I really don't think Craig survives another minute in the senate if he's found outside a woman's stall, peering in, fidgeting with his fingers, clearly looking for a sexual encounter. For better or worse, the sexual lives of our elected officials have been brought to the forefront of how we perceive a candidate. Therefore, as a person, Craig did nothing wrong (besides his atrocious voting record). But as a congressman, he is held to a higher standard.
I don't agree with police efforts to "crack down" on gay activity. It's completely arbitrary. It just shows that our society deems gay sex as "lewd" and straight sex as "acceptable". Do we arrest someone for making advances (however awkward they may be) in a bar? Why is it wrong? Is there too much running water nearby? It just shows that this country is not equally free for everyone, and while Senators are usually above the law, in this case, he wasn't.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
